PDA

View Full Version : All weapons are one and the same!


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Russell Davis
03-20-2009, 09:49 AM
Stick, Knife, Sword and staff (bo/jo) are basically one and the same, there are a number of slashes, and a number of thrusts.
How you use a weapon, and how you would counter a weapon attack, is somthing else altogether.
"State of Mind"

What do you think?

ChrisHein
03-20-2009, 11:14 AM
Grossly, I understand what you're saying.

In actuality it doesn't work that way. A sword has reach on a knife, lots of reach. This fighting distance is important. If you have a knife and you are going to face a guy with a sword, you will have to be much much better then him if you have any chance of being successful.

A bo/jo, can be turned around and used on both sides, making the weapon fast, and agile. Bladed weapons don't have this advantage. If you have a bo/jo, you won't be able to block a sword in the manner you can block another bo/jo. This makes the weapons very different.

Looks like you are sticking to the modern idea of major Japanese weapons, but you did say "all" weapons are the same. Chain and rope weapons are very different. you cannot thrust with them at all, and if you swing them the same way you would a club for example, you're just as likely to hit yourself as your opponent.

Ax's, nagenata, rifles, shuriken, manrikigasari, bastard swords, icepicks, stun guns, etc etc are all tools, and all have their own advantages and disadvantages.

Your statement is like saying:

"Wrenches, hammers, bottle openers, and screwdrivers (phillips/flat head) are basically one and the same, there are a number of ways you push, pull, or twist them.
How you use a tool, and how build, is something else altogether."

Yeah, I see where you're going, but it's kind of a gross exaggeration you are pointing at. And out of context, I don't know how helpful it is.

James Edwards
03-20-2009, 11:14 AM
I don't think I understand what you mean. I think you are sort of contradicting yourself.

How are they the same? How you use a weapon and how to counter them make the weapon the way the are and thus they are different. They have different maai, different applications, different techniques, different body positioning etc. I can only see them as the "same" considering that they are all extensions on the body and ki.

Russell Davis
03-20-2009, 11:29 AM
thanks for the input, I was simply trying to say that there are only so many ways to slash or thrust be it with a beer bottle or a sword
Eg high forehand & backhand slash
Middle forehand & backhand
Rising Forehand & backhand
High thrust
low thrust
I was not trying to compare Knife V sword in a fight etc just trying to simplify that learning and using various weapons ain't complicated, its really very simple.

thanks again for the input

Russell

Michael Douglas
03-20-2009, 01:49 PM
...I was not trying to compare Knife V sword in a fight etc just trying to simplify that learning and using various weapons ain't complicated, its really very simple....
I completely disagree.
Learning to USE weapons can be very complicated, most of the useful stuff is all in speed, movement, distance and timing.
I find using a knife to be absolutely different to a three-foot sword, and that completely different to a seven-foot staff...

Russell Davis
03-20-2009, 03:24 PM
A right diagonal slash to the neck with a bottle, is much the same as a right diagonal slash with a sword, yes there are some differences in the cut, range, and movement etc, but at the end of the day, they are all basically the same.

keep it simple cause simple works!

thanks again for the input
Russell

Ron Tisdale
03-20-2009, 04:05 PM
"differences in the cut, range, and movement etc"

are not minor differences in practice. Not to me, or most of my partners anyway. I believe I could say the same regarding my teachers. But hey, what ever floats...

Best,
Ron

Russell Davis
03-20-2009, 06:42 PM
Hi Ron thanks for that,
Perhaps if I suggested to everone that they should look for the similarities in the use of weapons and not disect my comment to any great degree, do you think they might get the idea? or will they still miss the point.

As for defining cuts and movement, I would like to point out that technique goes out the window, on the battlefield.

Russell

raul rodrigo
03-20-2009, 07:34 PM
All jump shots in basketball are the same, whether they be eight feet or 25 feet, right? The physics is similar, naturally. But why can we all make one shot and not the other? Kobe Bryant can say, correctly, it's all the same to him. He can make a 25-footer with Ron Artest leaping in his face. For me to say the same thing, though, would be silly.

Russell Davis
03-20-2009, 08:03 PM
I guess this is too complicated an idea to get your head around, as you are still missing the point.

Russell Davis
03-20-2009, 08:13 PM
O.K. let me explain the reason for my statement.
I have USED whether correctly or not;
Double stick V Double stick
Double Stick V Stick & Knife
Double Stick V Bokken
Double Stick V jo
Sword & Daggar V Axe and shield
Single stick V knife
Sword V knife
Single stick V Spear
Improvised weapons include;
Brolly, Biro, Magazine, Belt, Bottle, riding crop, to name a few.

Throughout this process of training, it became very obvious that they were all very similar in striking and blocking, with very few exceptions to the rule

NOW do you get the point!

Sy Labthavikul
03-20-2009, 08:40 PM
Sure, the weapon movements you say (directions of slashing movements, thrusts, whatever) are the same if you are only considering the path the object is traveling. If you swing a baseball bat, a broken bottle, a knife, a sword in a diagonal arc, sure, ignoring all other factors, the path that is carved out in space is topologically equivalent. The PATH is equivalent TOPOLOGICALLY, but not identically the same. (and topologically a coffee mug with a handle is equivalent to a donut, cuz both have holes in them; its clear a coffee mug and a donut are not identically the same)

But does that really translate into all weapons (and more importantly, how we handle weapons) being the same?

If I swing a baseball bat at you, my intention is to bludgeon you by swinging this mass at you. By swinging it in a wide arc, I can accelerate the mass to a much faster velocity and therefore impart more impulse when the thing hits you. Thats simple.

Now replace that baseball bat with a sword: now I'm trying to cut you with it, since its basically a 3 foot long razor blade. And because its a razor blade, its edge is very hard but very delicate: if that edge doesn't hit right on, it'll chip. I can't afford to swing this thing like a baseball bat anymore: now I have to make sure my hands are arranged in such a way that I can align the edge properly.

Whats more, the geometry of the sword plays a part now too: if its a western style straight sword, which is better of chopping and taking advantage of its mass, a circular arc is fine when swinging it. But if the sword is curved, like Japanese katana, Chinese dao, or Turkish scimitar, these weapons are too light to chop: they are designed to cut and slash. And the best way to cut something is to place the edge against the target and draw it back and forth like a saw. So now we have to alter the arc we use when we swing this sword: in grossly simplistic terms, the arc becomes an ellipse, because at the end of the cut when our sword impacts the target, we draw it back towards ourselves to cut. (these are gross simplifications: i'm sorry if I've offended any sword art practitioners)

So now we have a circular arc compared to an elliptical arc. Topologically, they are equivalent. They are not, however, identical.

Personally, I love theory like this: its fun to think about. But I think many sword art practitioners would cringe at the thought that meditating on the similarities of a baseball swing and a do cut would actually translate into improving your training: a do cut is NOT a baseball swing in practice, only in theory. Performing a do cut the way you'd swing a baseball bat or an axe will result in you bending or breaking your daito. And doing a caveman swing with a club the way you'd perform a shomen cut would trade away too much of the club's powerful mass for the sake of weapon control that isn't necessary for a club.

Abasan
03-21-2009, 10:31 AM
I don't think you mean it in this way... a hockey swing is similar to a golf swing.

More like its essentially the same in that both hits the ball in the direction you want it to. Right?

Cut.

Janet Rosen
03-21-2009, 02:20 PM
If you want to posit a simple rule and not have people actually discuss the pros and cons, why post it?

Ketsan
03-21-2009, 02:58 PM
As for defining cuts and movement, I would like to point out that technique goes out the window, on the battlefield.

Russell

That's like saying a boxer forgets how to box in the boxing ring.

philippe willaume
03-22-2009, 01:57 PM
Stick, Knife, Sword and staff (bo/jo) are basically one and the same, there are a number of slashes, and a number of thrusts.
How you use a weapon, and how you would counter a weapon attack, is somthing else altogether.
"State of Mind"

What do you think?

well yes at a fundamental level but no in details
For example
If you take all European manual from the 15th century they do cover a fair amount of weapon, in armour and without on foot an on horse.
So for example if you take half-swording and spear you have a poleaxe system.
Or if you take longsword and wrestling you do have a knife system

And it is true that the same principle can be applied regardless of the weapon. However they say as well that each weapon has its length and its measure.
In modern parlance each weapon has its distance and its timing.

As well if you use sword and buckler you will use the long sword teachings but in the bind (when the sword has made contact with shield and or sword of the opponent, the technique will using the same components as all the other weapons but they takes a particular shape due to the nature of the weapon

Now civilian weapon like the small sword or the rapier proper (i.e. 17th cent) and the rapier proto small-sword really only usable to puncture, will lead to change of stance and fundamentally different organisation of the fight but they will still use the same fundamental principal as the 15th century long sword.
phil

Michael Douglas
03-23-2009, 05:26 AM
O.K. let me explain the reason for my statement.
I have USED whether correctly or not;
Double stick V Double stick
Double Stick V Stick & Knife
Double Stick V Bokken
Double Stick V jo
Sword & Daggar V Axe and shield
Single stick V knife
Sword V knife
Single stick V Spear
Improvised weapons include;
Brolly, Biro, Magazine, Belt, Bottle, riding crop, to name a few.

Throughout this process of training, it became very obvious that they were all very similar in striking and blocking, with very few exceptions to the rule

NOW do you get the point!
Your statements and your snobbish digs suggest that you have NOT 'USED' these weapons ... or that you're thirteen years old.
I realise this will sound like a personal attack, and that's against the rules, but the whole direction of your posts on this thread and maybe a couple of others are just trolling. Trolling's against the rules too ... I think.

C. David Henderson
03-23-2009, 12:07 PM
Hi Russell,

I also can see at one level what you're getting at. Sounds like you perceive shared patterns of movement based on what Sy described as the topology of those movements.

Can you describe how noticing these similarities affects the way you approach weapons training, as opposed to the apparent differences?

In my limited experience (and it is limited), it seems like the folks who are emphasizing the differences between kinds of weapons aren't simply describing the cup as "half-empty," instead of "half-full," so much as saying the liquid in the containers, whatever their topographic similarities, doesn't behave the same.

You mention, for example, "striking" with a sword as similar to, e.g., striking with a stick. But striking with a bokken, understood as striking, seems ill-suited to model an effective cut with a live sword -- for the reasons described.

Even with weapons that appear similar in various ways, the differences seem important to me.

Manipulating effectively a bladed staff weapon like a naginata, for example, is dissimilar in important respects from using a staff, a sword, or a thrusting weapon like a yari. Unlike a staff, there is a cutting edge that has to be oriented with the direction of the cut; hence the traditional shape of the shaft. Nonetheless, the movement involved isn't like simply using an oversized sword: cutting something at the end of a long stick isn't like cutting something with a long razor blade attached to a handle. The balance of the weapon is also different and, like a bo, the distal end of the shaft is used frequently. The size of the weapon creates a different set of stances and patterns of movement (including reorienting the distal and cutting ends of the weapon relative to the opponent). The distinctive, highly curved shape of the blade, which makes it a cutting pole arm, also makes it less suited for thrusting attacks than a spear.

If you can find a video on-line of naginata vs. ken, you may see how these differences translate into difference in movement, tactics, and technique.

FWIW

cdh

C. David Henderson
03-23-2009, 01:15 PM
For similarities and differences, see, e.g.,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INz6ONC6QDs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE8TN4Hsf9A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUVzT9tvquY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgnhLcfa05w&feature=related

ramenboy
03-23-2009, 02:51 PM
i'll bite.... if you 'treat' the 'weapons we have in aikido' a wooden staff, a wooden sword and a wooden knife, then yes, they're basically the same. 'i'm gonna get hit by a piece of wood slowly' or 'i'm gonna get poked by this toy slowly' then, yeah, they're the same.

if we approach at the bokken, tanto and jo with the attitude of being real weapons and that one strike could be either life or maybe death, then, yes its the 'state of mind' that makes things different. as my old escrima teacher used to say, no one attacks you with a wooden knife on the street. if you don't expect to be cut, you'll be in big trouble.

wooden weapons, all the same. but change your state of mind when you train

Russell Davis
08-17-2009, 05:13 PM
Been away for a while folks, read all the replies, very interesting it was too. David henderson is on the right track,
From most of the responses, I would say that you have alll reached an advanced level of training, hence the focus on detail.
Take a group of beginners lesson 1; teach them all stick, knife and sword in ONE lesson. focus on the basic cuts and blocks of each weapon in a stationary position.

phitruong
08-17-2009, 06:46 PM
Take a group of beginners lesson 1; teach them all stick, knife and sword in ONE lesson. focus on the basic cuts and blocks of each weapon in a stationary position.

so after the basic lesson, you handed them nunchaku right? i'll bet you even have a video going too. that's just sick! :D

you know, some weapons do hit back. :straightf

Kevin Leavitt
08-17-2009, 10:36 PM
Russell, latercomer to the thread, but I agree with all the others on this thread. They are not the same. each one of them has a particular set of tactical advantages and disadvantages which result in them having to be trained differently.

Unfortunately, reductionism does not worked with weapons training.

Someone used the boxing example. Sure I can teach boxing and striking in 30 seconds or less using reductionism. Hand goes out, hand comes back in...what are your questions. Now lets apply that to MMA. Hand goes out, hand comes back in.

The point is, the application, rules, tactics, scenarios all dictate the employment of the weapon, thus affecting how you train it tremendously.

My experiences are that most folks really don't understand edged weapons and how to employ them properly to win a fight....or how to defend against them, which is inherently difficult actually.

Sorry I don't agree with your position on this.

Russell Davis
09-04-2009, 06:27 PM
For the benefit of Phil Troung, NO I dont. I should have used the words For Example take a class etc etc
Obviously you never rose to the challenge of actually doing it. if you did perhaps it would help your tunnel vision.

Russell Davis
09-04-2009, 06:39 PM
Hi Kevin, nice reply

when you said in your experience, were you refering to soldiers or those trained in martial arts, if so I am seriously worried about what our soldiers are being taught (UK) as for "trained" martial arts men and women, I have always been led to believe that they learn the "real macoy" (Krav Maga or something similar)
If so called weapons training is in actual fact ineffective, then why teach it in the first place, putting someone into a false sense of security, is possibly more dangereous than NO training

enjoy reading other articles where you contribute, keep it up.

Kevin Leavitt
09-04-2009, 08:20 PM
Defending against edged weapons is inherently difficult. Offensively, not so much.

it all boils down to the OODA loop. Either your ahead of it (inside) or behind it.

I think it is difficult to train and gain experience to get ahead if you are behind and personally I think this is really what we should be training when dealing with hands or edged weapons. what to do if things go bad and we are behind in the process and how to regain the iniative.

This is what we spend our time in the Army (US) when training combatives.

Knife as a backup weapon is fine and it can help you get ahead of the loop again and can help you terminate the fight.

Knife paradigms typically deal with either strictly offensive measures (ahead of the loop) which is pretty easy actually in applciation. Or the deal with behind the loop.

However, the behind the loop training you see it is very difficult for the guy to get back ahead and most folks don't really know or understand how to train this and it results in folks backing away trying to keep distance as they get cut over and over.

If they pull the a knife and they are behind, the typically try to keep that distance and start playing slash/slash, but the fact is they are still behind. Yes they may be getting cuts on the guy, but who reallly cares what is happeining to the other guy if you are not trying to actively turn the corner and tip the scales...you are simply stalling and losing.

I cannot really comment generically on KM as I have no real experience with it, but as with most MAs they do some stuff right, and some stuff....they could do better with.

For Soldiers, I think we can do much better with teaching knife skills most certainly. What we are doing right I believe is teaching them to be agressive, take the initative, close with and keep moving forward and not letting up the tempo of the fight.

If that fails, we are doing a decent job of teaching them the body skills necessary to protect and regain the iniative as well. I think this is fundamental and key...AND it is ignored by most MA practices out there today.

The good news is that I actually believe that if Aikido is practiced correctly as Uke, there is much that CAN be learned about losing the iniative and re-establishing it. Really the whole point if you ask me. However, that aspect seems to get lost by many in the art in favor of Nage's practice.

I hope this makes some sense. I think the whole training strategy is inherently complex actually and much of it is very contextual and we have to make sure we are focusing on the right things in our training.

I would submit that you could have two groups of people doing the exact same movements, but be doing something completely different all because of the focus of their objective and intent! That there is enough to complicate the process of learning this stuff...not to mention introducing the variable of edged weapons into the mix which complicates the learning process that much more!

eyrie
09-05-2009, 06:16 AM
Stick, Knife, Sword and staff (bo/jo) are basically one and the same, there are a number of slashes, and a number of thrusts.
How you use a weapon, and how you would counter a weapon attack, is somthing else altogether.
"State of Mind"

What do you think? In FMA, the stick is a sort of substitute for a machete, although it could also double as a dagger, knife, or a club. In some FMA, a longer stick is sometimes used as a sort of cudgel. For teaching and learning simplicity, the trajectory of the stick is treated as "universal", so that it can be easily translated into both unarmed and armed combat. So I suppose you could generalize that at some level, they are similar - but they are not necessarily one and the same.

There are subtle and quite distinct differences in how a particular weapon is wielded according to its function and design.. A machete, for instance, is more suited for mid-to-long range slashing, not so for thrusting. A dagger, OTOH, is equally suited for both at close range. A stick, wielded as a club, tends to lend itself to whip-like strikes and stabs at long range, rather than slash and thrust.

But, to say that how you use a weapon, and how you would counter a weapon attack, boils down to something as broadly as "state of mind", belies the technical intricacy and detail in the use and counter of such weapons. While a dagger can be used, when in close, to puncture vital organs, sever tendons and arteries, you can't do the same with a stick. Neither can you use the leverage that the stick affords to effect a takedown, with say a machete.

Suru
09-05-2009, 04:42 PM
Does someone have thoughts on this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1T30ZkC07w

Many special forces weapon defenses from "The Green Berets"

It begins at 7:22.

Drew

Kevin Leavitt
09-05-2009, 05:22 PM
Those defenses are classified. Can't talk about them.

eyrie
09-05-2009, 11:32 PM
Sure you can talk about it Kevin... just kill him afterwards. ;)

My only comment, Drew, is what is shown in movies is for "entertainment", and rarely bears any resemblance to the real thing.. ;)

Michael Fitzgerald
09-06-2009, 02:06 AM
Stick, Knife, Sword and staff (bo/jo) are basically one and the same, there are a number of slashes, and a number of thrusts.
How you use a weapon, and how you would counter a weapon attack, is somthing else altogether.
"State of Mind"

What do you think?

I think that's wrong. They are all different.
The body we have at our disposal to wield them however - will be the same no matter what weapon we use.

judojo
09-06-2009, 05:16 AM
Hi to the initiator of the topic " All weapons are one and the same!" , I admire this great effort that Weapons are all the same by the effects of death or Physical injuries in the Spiritual Views . But Materially The Strikes are not of the same position and effects and not the same wounds and Bruises, Though the same death. We discuss about Arch Angel Micheal and how He defeated Satan from Heaven down to Earth may the Inclusion of Martial Arts be effective on this topic. But the Arch Angel Lucifer does not suffer death even how many Blows. Do we excluded Budo or Martial Arts from this topic. Nin or Chikara or Power of Angels are being discussed . We discuss further the Human Battle that causes many casualties and injuries , We mean weapons like guns and artillery , The Martial Arts weapons must be interrogated during actual fight such as Sharp weapon Uchi or Blows, the Strike of Kali or Arnis the amount of Bruises and wounds with the inclusion of the position of the emphasized hit.

Suru
09-06-2009, 12:33 PM
Sure you can talk about it Kevin... just kill him afterwards. ;)

My only comment, Drew, is what is shown in movies is for "entertainment", and rarely bears any resemblance to the real thing.. ;)

The element of believability is incredibly important in successful novels and serious films. This is not an over-the-top Tarantino flick about five-finger exploding heart techniques. I believe the directors in this scene made it entertaining and rather realistic at the same time. Then again, this movie got two out of for stars I think. If you see specific faults, please shine some light.

Drew

Kevin Leavitt
09-06-2009, 01:15 PM
Well, what did you get out of it Drew?

eyrie
09-06-2009, 05:29 PM
The element of believability is incredibly important in successful novels and serious films. This is not an over-the-top Tarantino flick about five-finger exploding heart techniques. I believe the directors in this scene made it entertaining and rather realistic at the same time. Then again, this movie got two out of for stars I think. If you see specific faults, please shine some light.

Drew Believability how? Realistic how? Unless you are privy to such techniques by having been part of an actual program where these techniques were actually taught, how would you know? FWIW, I've never been in such a program. But I can tell you this much though, having *some* knowledge of human anatomy and what makes it work (or in this case - how to make it not work...), it sure ain't either... on any front. ;)

No offense to The Duke... of course, but them is some big a$$ed flat-footed elephants traipsing through the jungle.

Kevin Leavitt
09-06-2009, 06:37 PM
Leave the Duke out of it...if you EVEN come close to using his name in a negative way, dem is fighting words!

DonMagee
09-07-2009, 11:02 AM
Russell, latercomer to the thread, but I agree with all the others on this thread. They are not the same. each one of them has a particular set of tactical advantages and disadvantages which result in them having to be trained differently.

Unfortunately, reductionism does not worked with weapons training.

Someone used the boxing example. Sure I can teach boxing and striking in 30 seconds or less using reductionism. Hand goes out, hand comes back in...what are your questions. Now lets apply that to MMA. Hand goes out, hand comes back in.

The point is, the application, rules, tactics, scenarios all dictate the employment of the weapon, thus affecting how you train it tremendously.

My experiences are that most folks really don't understand edged weapons and how to employ them properly to win a fight....or how to defend against them, which is inherently difficult actually.

Sorry I don't agree with your position on this.

In short, it's not what your wielding, its the tactics you employ in wielding it. Going into my second week of real boxing, I'm shocked to find out how complicated it can be. My blackbelt in TKD, time in krav maga, mma, etc is basically worthless. Sure I see holes in the strategy (especially with a grappling background), but I also see that the boxing strategy is way way different then any other kind of striking strategy I've ever learned.

The same applies to weapons. For example, if I was going to attack you with a beer bottle or knife, I'm not going to let you know I have it. I'm going to close the distance, then gut you. If I'm using a bat or sword, it's going to be next to impossible to hide the fact I"m going to use this. The tactics change.

I agree with Bas Rutten that 90% of the fight is mental. Of that 90% I'd say 75% of it is employing and sticking to proper tactics. I'm reading Sam Sheridon's book, "A fighter's Heart". This reinforces it to me. He learns good tactics such as head movement and keeping his opponents out with the jab. But he (at least in the beginning) lacks the mental ability to keep to his tactics and just turns into a brawler, and thusly loses or gets beat to all hell.

Kevin Leavitt
09-07-2009, 12:11 PM
Damn Don, I am going to disagree with you for the first time ever I think!

"It is not what you wield, but the tactics..."

Not entirely. I think your analogy is wrong.

In boxing and grappling your wielding the same tools, empty hands, however, you are applying a different set of conditions and rules that will affect HOW you use those same tools. Hence why you can be all thumbs and all your training seems to be not very useful.

With a Knife and in reality, that weapon and the capabilities it gives you is the primary driver. Whereas in boxing/grapping you are using the same tools, with different rules/conditions...if you take a Knife and an ASP, they are two different weapons subject to the same rules and conditions.

However, what they bring to the situation are the primary driver between employment and defense.

Base principles are the same. OODA applies, same balance points, clinch dynamics are the same, but you have different concerns with those weapons.

I agree at a base level, that I would probably close distance the same with a beer bottle and a knife, but I might choose different targets with them (or not), but at the base both those things are designed to cut and stab. Beer bottle is just not as efficient.

However, I can hide an ASP (blunt object) and a Knife just the same, but targets are different as well as the effects. Yes, I am still going to close distance and hide it until I need to reveal it. though.

That said, as you and I both know, at the base, our training base will still be pretty similar. Close distance, clinch, sprawl, control, go to the back etc.

However, when training with weapons, we need to recognize the differences that each of them bring to the equation and make sure we understand how they will impact our base training and strategy for employment and defense.

I think the differences are enough that we cannot lump them together and say "All are the same".

Yes, I agree macroscopically, to some degree there are many similarities and much in common.

In fact, this is the strategy and point behind guys like Tony Blauer's SPEAR. Having a common default that you do no matter what.

So while I do disagree, I tend to "agree" depending on what you are looking and at what level of resoution.

I think your experiences in Boxing, Judo, and Jiu Jitsu, as well as mine drive this point home. If you change any variable in the situation, you will experience a significant amount of Dissonance that will cause you to fail when dealing with that variable.

This is really the salient point I think and why I am so adamant about driving this home and NOT assuming that weapons are the same!

DonMagee
09-08-2009, 12:40 PM
Damn Don, I am going to disagree with you for the first time ever I think!

"It is not what you wield, but the tactics..."

Not entirely. I think your analogy is wrong.

In boxing and grappling your wielding the same tools, empty hands, however, you are applying a different set of conditions and rules that will affect HOW you use those same tools. Hence why you can be all thumbs and all your training seems to be not very useful.

With a Knife and in reality, that weapon and the capabilities it gives you is the primary driver. Whereas in boxing/grapping you are using the same tools, with different rules/conditions...if you take a Knife and an ASP, they are two different weapons subject to the same rules and conditions.

However, what they bring to the situation are the primary driver between employment and defense.

Base principles are the same. OODA applies, same balance points, clinch dynamics are the same, but you have different concerns with those weapons.

I agree at a base level, that I would probably close distance the same with a beer bottle and a knife, but I might choose different targets with them (or not), but at the base both those things are designed to cut and stab. Beer bottle is just not as efficient.

However, I can hide an ASP (blunt object) and a Knife just the same, but targets are different as well as the effects. Yes, I am still going to close distance and hide it until I need to reveal it. though.

That said, as you and I both know, at the base, our training base will still be pretty similar. Close distance, clinch, sprawl, control, go to the back etc.

However, when training with weapons, we need to recognize the differences that each of them bring to the equation and make sure we understand how they will impact our base training and strategy for employment and defense.

I think the differences are enough that we cannot lump them together and say "All are the same".

Yes, I agree macroscopically, to some degree there are many similarities and much in common.

In fact, this is the strategy and point behind guys like Tony Blauer's SPEAR. Having a common default that you do no matter what.

So while I do disagree, I tend to "agree" depending on what you are looking and at what level of resoution.

I think your experiences in Boxing, Judo, and Jiu Jitsu, as well as mine drive this point home. If you change any variable in the situation, you will experience a significant amount of Dissonance that will cause you to fail when dealing with that variable.

This is really the salient point I think and why I am so adamant about driving this home and NOT assuming that weapons are the same!

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I think my explanation wasn't clear enough. Obviously bjj skills won't work where boxing is against the rules, just as pure boxing won't work in a bjj match. What I was talking about is the strategy and tactics of the sport.

For example you can leverage a boxing strategy in MMA, or a brawler's strategy, or a bjjer's strategy. Being able to create and adjust those strategies on the fly, as well as stick to them (which is very hard to do under duress as we both know) is key.

My point was that while 2 guys may both train with the exact same weapon, they are both employing different strategies, which means they have to be handled differently. A good example is a story about the judo legend Kimura. He was in the military and was picked to attack a guy teaching bayonet work. He knew this guy was a master at using this item and that he had no chance to beat him. So, when told to attack he simply threw the wooden gun at the teacher and proceeded to judo the crap out of him. This is what I was meaning, being able to look at a situation, develop a winning strategy for the task at hand, and employ it without hesitation or second thoughts.

In the book I referenced above, the protagonist was unable to stick to his strategy, instead he would fall back into just chasing his opponents around and brawling. This caused him a lot of pain and bleeding. When he did tow the line and implement his strategy, he faired far better.

Kevin Leavitt
09-08-2009, 01:27 PM
Don wrote:

So, when told to attack he simply threw the wooden gun at the teacher and proceeded to judo the crap out of him. This is what I was meaning, being able to look at a situation, develop a winning strategy for the task at hand, and employ it without hesitation or second thoughts.


Funny, actually I do the same thing in Pugil Stick training. I learned that sitting there fighting a guy with a stick with the stick didn't make much sense so I usually throw mine at him while closing distance, drop it then grab his and do a tai otoshi kinda takedown, take the stick away from him and use his stick!

Works everytime.

It was a paradigm that I had to break since that is not how we normally train or train folks to fight, but it makes sense if you want to win a pugil sticks!

So sure, adaptive strategies work, as long as you consider the rules (agreed to and implied) along with the tactical considerations of the weapon.

Russell Davis
09-08-2009, 06:11 PM
Hi Kevin, yet again you keep providing interesting views, on the topic of employing tactics etc, what about some hand to hand with a knife for example, what if the fight is on uneven ground like a forrest , in the middle of the night, with little or no moon.

Kevin Leavitt
09-08-2009, 09:09 PM
Hey Russell,

Well "what if"?

Good question. Those are environmental and situational things that certainly come into play.

My friend Matt Larsen, says at the Beginning of almost every talk he gives, "The winner of the hand to hand fight is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun".

Of course, this is in the context of Army training, but I think it still puts the right perspective on things for anyone really. That is, if you look at it maybe a little differently.

Lots of saying. "two kinds of gunslingers, the quick and the dead"

There is Murphy's law of combat, which are good ones too.

Anyway, the point is, there is not much we can really do to provide solutions to those "what ifs".

When teaching combatives we will throw those things into the equation. Matt likes to slip a taser secretly to someone when doing grappling.

I have guys fight in full kit sometimes. Other times we will smoke one guy and then throw him into the fight. We do alot of things to uneven the fights.

I think this does a couple of things. It drives home that no matter what you have to be tough and continue to fight no matter what. Never give up.

You don't have time to feel sorry for yourself or to process that you are losing or the odds are against you..you must fight.

You just might lose and that is a sad fact of life, so you need to make sure that you are ready as you can be, and you must always fight!

As one of my old teachers used to say "Always Cheat, Always Win!".

I think the best we can do for our students is make them understand that there is not always parity in a situation and life is not always fair...and the other guy may not really care that you are having a bad day or that you really want to resolve the situation with minimal force.

DonMagee
09-08-2009, 09:20 PM
Hey Russell,

Well "what if"?

Good question. Those are environmental and situational things that certainly come into play.

My friend Matt Larsen, says at the Beginning of almost every talk he gives, "The winner of the hand to hand fight is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun".

Of course, this is in the context of Army training, but I think it still puts the right perspective on things for anyone really. That is, if you look at it maybe a little differently.

Lots of saying. "two kinds of gunslingers, the quick and the dead"

There is Murphy's law of combat, which are good ones too.

Anyway, the point is, there is not much we can really do to provide solutions to those "what ifs".

When teaching combatives we will throw those things into the equation. Matt likes to slip a taser secretly to someone when doing grappling.

I have guys fight in full kit sometimes. Other times we will smoke one guy and then throw him into the fight. We do alot of things to uneven the fights.

I think this does a couple of things. It drives home that no matter what you have to be tough and continue to fight no matter what. Never give up.

You don't have time to feel sorry for yourself or to process that you are losing or the odds are against you..you must fight.

You just might lose and that is a sad fact of life, so you need to make sure that you are ready as you can be, and you must always fight!

As one of my old teachers used to say "Always Cheat, Always Win!".

I think the best we can do for our students is make them understand that there is not always parity in a situation and life is not always fair...and the other guy may not really care that you are having a bad day or that you really want to resolve the situation with minimal force.

"If your not cheating, your not trying" - Tito Ortiz

I tell people who train with me the same way. The rules are in place as a obstacle to work around as well as work within. A good sportsman thinks "What can I do within the spirit of the rules" a good tactician thinks "How can I win using the rules to my advantage".

My judo coach used to tell me that you can't touch the face, except when your opponent was belly down, because the ref isn't going to bend his fat butt over and look. I quickly learned a punch isn't a punch if you are holding a handful of gi and going for Osoto gari. I remember telling him about a sparing partner who kept kneeing me in the inner leg while pretending to do osoto gari, he told me to man up and cheat back.

Keeping that mindset lets you remember to do all those dirty tricks when the rules are not in play. Every now and then you have to remind everyone that yes, BJJ players know how to eye gouge too and do it from a superior position!

Kevin Leavitt
09-08-2009, 09:29 PM
lol...yeah I too have used the "gi no inch punch" in competition on more than one occasion. Yesterday my instructor was grinding the crap out of my face trying to get a eziekel on me. It hurt like hell and pissed me off, but learning to over come the immediate pain that really isn't going to hurt you is important too!

All that macho crap aside, sportsmanship is important of course, and respect in the dojo is important as well. However, sometimes it is also important to do the things that just are not fun and sometime that are not fair in order to touch upon a deeper nerve or to explore that side that just is not pretty.

Russell Davis
09-10-2009, 06:16 PM
Hey Kevin, I know this is not as per the original post, but I would be interested in your reply.
Given the choice (not an option in many mil units) which of these would you choose and why?

1. Attack an MG nest at night
or
2. Cross a minefield at night

Its possibly too obvious for you but maybe some others might take the plunge.

George S. Ledyard
09-10-2009, 10:23 PM
Hi Ron thanks for that,
Perhaps if I suggested to everone that they should look for the similarities in the use of weapons and not disect my comment to any great degree, do you think they might get the idea? or will they still miss the point.

As for defining cuts and movement, I would like to point out that technique goes out the window, on the battlefield.

Russell
Just remember, "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong".... or, when you post something and everyone disagrees with you, it might be time to reassess the point rather than assume that we all missed it. Just a suggestion...

Kevin Leavitt
09-10-2009, 10:49 PM
Hey Kevin, I know this is not as per the original post, but I would be interested in your reply.
Given the choice (not an option in many mil units) which of these would you choose and why?

1. Attack an MG nest at night
or
2. Cross a minefield at night

Its possibly too obvious for you but maybe some others might take the plunge.

Sorry, but it is really not a question that can be answered. Too many variables that come into play.

Besides, being a soldier, and the Karma, so to speak that led you to the point where you had to do either one of those things means that you don't have a choice, so you do what you have to do because it is the right thing to do.

Courage and completing the mission are absolute so you do it without hesitation or without consideration. Not a question any good soldier in their right mind would even ever ponder.

Short soldier answer...."I don't give a Sh..., I will do what is necessary to defeat my enemy".

eyrie
09-10-2009, 11:07 PM
If taking out the MG nest is a requisite part of the mission parameters to capture the objective, then you do what you need to do... where is the choice in that?

If you have no other choice but to navigate a minefield in the dark, in order to get to the RP, then you have to do it... where's the choice? But if there is an alternative to crossing the minefield, you'd be outta ya mind not to take it... orders or no orders....

I don't see how the question is even germaine to the topic... :confused:

Ron Tisdale
09-11-2009, 10:23 AM
A good example is a story about the judo legend Kimura. He was in the military and was picked to attack a guy teaching bayonet work. He knew this guy was a master at using this item and that he had no chance to beat him. So, when told to attack he simply threw the wooden gun at the teacher and proceeded to judo the crap out of him.

Ah, the ole Kobiashi Maru... :D

Best,
Ron (the the real trekkies out there, no, I didn't look up the spelling)

Ketsan
09-11-2009, 01:59 PM
:disgust:
Ron (the the real trekkies out there, no, I didn't look up the spelling)

We can see that. :disgust:

:D

otomo
01-25-2010, 09:39 PM
You're a bit confused, saying "all weapon techniques are similar" is different from saying "all weapons are the same", with all due respect, I think you have no idea of what you are saying with "state of mind" or maybe I have no idea what you are talking about anyway.

If you are handling a knife with the same "state of mind" you handle a sword with, well...let's leave it at that.

Also, I'm amused at the old Scissors Vs. Paper Vs. Rock argument when it comes to MAs in general, weapons in this case. The weapon is only as good as the one who uses it.

Look for some videos on youtube about demonstrations of techniques of Knives Vs. Firearms, or I will post some links later, when I have the time.

Andrew Macdonald
01-25-2010, 11:03 PM
All weapons are the same.....

Hmmmmm

as with any broad sweeping statement, there are some holes in this

the most effective marital arts I have done, don;t look at the weapon but look at the body/arm/hand movement, so that you learn one movement and it can be used empty hand or with a variety of weapons

however, weapons them seleves have different attributes that can be exploited, and it is a mistake not to take these into consideration

In Chinese systems weapons are broken in to three groups long, short, and flexible, even though the body movements are the same for these the application of the weapon is different

lbb
01-26-2010, 06:51 AM
the most effective marital arts I have done, don;t look at the weapon but look at the body/arm/hand movement

...it's not the size of the boat but the motion of the ocean, right, I think we all know that one...TMI violation, Andrew!

Andrew Macdonald
01-26-2010, 10:44 PM
:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:

dam my lack of proof reading

Aikibu
01-27-2010, 12:39 AM
A right diagonal slash to the neck with a bottle, is much the same as a right diagonal slash with a sword, yes there are some differences in the cut, range, and movement etc, but at the end of the day, they are all basically the same.

keep it simple cause simple works!

thanks again for the input
Russell

Except with a bottle or knife... Your non knife hand should be in the guard position protecting your throat and poised to counter...

Using most Martial Arts in a Knife Fight may lead to serious injury or death. :)

William Hazen