Quelques réflexions intéressantes ......
First off, let me just say that in my opinion, it's like fighting heavier and stronger enemies, there's no easy 'magic bullet' solution, no foolproof plan of action, save not being there at all - you're at a huge disadvantage, which is precisely why weapons are used in the first place. Stating the obvious I know, and so do most people also, but worth saying to some!
Much of any chosen response to a weapon-orientated attack revolves around the level of awareness of its existence, and how the weapon is being handled/utilised by the wielder.
On another thread somewhere I've given some of my thoughts regarding handling gun-wielding individuals so I won't repeat myself here, but many concepts overlap along similar lines.
The most worrying weapon, in my experience, to face up close is a knife - and for this reason it's my favourite weapon to use up close in some respects, for certain scenarios anyway. Knowing the capabilities of a knife, you realise how difficult it is to disarm or neutralise, which is one of the reasons I'd choose it - but you also realise the limitations, especially when looking into the effect it has upon the body.
Like gunshots, knife wounds are rarely instantly incapacitating in that they don't possess immediate stopping power - often the victim 'self-stops' due to the psychological shock of being knowingly wounded, or eventually bleeds out. Obviously a major artery or organ sustaining a 'pre-mortem procedure' can be a definite stop, but the human body, backed by a strong survival attitude, is extremely durable and people function despite the most horrific injuries.
Awareness, as mentioned above, is key - knowing it's a knife coming at you and not a punch is no easy deal, and generally patterns of attack can reveal this more than actually seeing a blade. More importantly, people don't usually walk around with the thing in their hands, it has to be accessed - if awareness of possession is crucial, then awareness of intent to access/deploy is vital. This is the best point in the timeline to start your 'knife-defence' - saves all the 'West Side Story' routines later!
Most knife responses - where the weapon is out and presented/deployed - feature a means of avoiding and controlling the weapon, followed by a method of terminating the intent of the wielder. All the ones I've seen and trained in have had these key elements in place to some degree, so that's telling me something. I prefer not to have any responses that are too-specific to a knife, or any weapon, but are more generic to reflect that you may not even know that one is being involved in a spontaneous situation, and therefore what chance would you have to utilise anything 'special'. Any response to sudden attack must have a certain amount of redundancy built in, so it can deal with a variety of attack formats - armed or not - with zero-notice.
When reviewing methods, be objective - a lot of anti-knife training is thought of as being ineffective if the training knife manages to hit the responder - but let's face it, you wouldn't expect to be in an unarmed encounter and not get clipped somewhere, so why is it anything different when a knife is involved? The stakes are higher, that's for sure, but be realistic and accept - not expect though - that you might get cut/stabbed, but still get the job done and switch the guy 'off'. Going to the hospital with a stab wound or two is grim, but survivable - rather this than take twenty and have them come to collect you. This needs to be addressed during any such training, and is best done by not giving up - no matter how poor your attempts are, if you do, you'll merely be practicing doing this if it ever happened for real - there's no 'reset button' in any kind of real encounter, so you might as well get used to it in training and prepare accordingly.
As for the actual mechanics of the response - note, not 'defence' - catching/jamming a wrist is usually pure chance and can therefore not be relied upon, moving up the arm to the elbow is a better option as it basically moves more slowly and within a shorter range of motion. The problem with securing the elbow is that the knife still has some play via the unsecured wrist, but this should be superficial in comparison to the amount of explosive strikes you absolutely must be landing on the primary head/neck area.
Once grabbed, 'wrapping' the arm provides a very secure hold, but so does incapacitation - I know which one I would pick given a choice! If you can intercept and inhibit the weapon being accessed, all the better, but don't 'chase' the knife - it'll always catch you, as long as you remain defensive the bad guy is fixated on where to stab you - soon as you go on the offensive, in a big way, he will be more than a little interested in not getting hurt himself.
Lots of training drills fall down by having the knifeman able to 'sign his name' all over the responder, due to only getting tapped in the head, nothing to really hit the 'stop' switch - in my experience, the first couple of solid shots to the head cancel this out, often to the point where he doesn't even know that he has a knife anymore!
As has been said so many times already, it's the person not the knife that is the real threat - the knife is 'just' the dangerous moving part. The real priority must always be to neutralise whatever intent is possessed by the bad guy - most effectively done, as always, via banging a large dose of sleep into him!
A major issue - I feel - is 'the myth of the one-armed attacker' where everything is focused and fixated upon the weapon limb only, to the exclusion of other bodily weapons possessed by the bad guy. Some schools of thought insist weapon wielders concentrate solely on the weapon themselves, especially when the arm is secured - this is an assumption based largely upon psychology which I have to disagree with on the basis of being punched full in the face and groin, plus headbutted and bitten, whilst struggling with armed individuals, trained and untrained! Maybe I was just unlucky?
In my experience, people invest heavily into whatever tool they employ, and will free it to bring it back into play at any cost, using anything at their disposal - once again the sooner you can switch 'em off at the mains, the better, rather than any prolonged wrestling for a weapon.
For self-protection, I'm definitely not an advocate of grappling - but in an anti-knife scenario some form of attachment and physical control is necessary until the threat can be terminated. Unfortunately, nobody said that weapon wielding attackers have to work alone so consider that the longer you stay attached, wrestling for control, the more vulnerable you are to getting punched out by bad guy No2, then stabbed by the first guy. Obviously this train of thought can spiral, to the point of being 'unwinnable' in training - good, as I've said before you learn from your limitations more than from your capabilities. Just consider that pessimists are always pleasantly surprised, optimists often unpleasantly disappointed - and the stakes of combat are simply too high for such optimism in my opinion.
It's been said "in training, die often" and I absolutely agree - this is what you learn from.
If you have time, and space, then acquiring and employing an 'equaliser' is an option, and a good one at that, but only if it really does give you an advantage and you know what to do with it, lest it be merely a hindrance. A chair or barstool for example is something I've used on occasion, but beware the 'lion tamer' method of employment - remember, lions don't have opposable thumbs and can't grab and snatch the thrust chair aside to completely negate it's value. I know this, from doing such a thing on more than one occasion myself. Want to use a chair, or any other innocuous item for that matter? Go crazy with it, swing it, thrust it, whatever, but do it like you mean it - ever heard of the GLF concept? - just don't try and 'fence' with anything that isn't sharp, it'll just be grabbed and become worse than useless as it'll limit your capabilities at that point if you insist on retaining your hold upon it - for sentimental reasons maybe? Unwise.
Learning to transition from a malfunctioning weapon to a working one is a key skill, whether it's from a jammed carbine to a pistol, or from a grabbed baton to a hand, it has to flow seamlessly without pause in the proceedings - but that's another post altogether!
Anti-weapon applications should never be thought of in separate terms, in my opinion anyway - you'll always be one step behind if this is the case, dependant upon recognition of what weapon exists, or not, first and foremost so you can make the necessary mental 'switch' between your various conflicting tactics. Following certain core principles is the key to keeping everything on the same page and therefore fluid - at any level combat is fluid, violence is fluid, to prevail so must you be, maintaining offensive momentum is everything.
Take the same tactical response used against knives and similar weapons - screwdrivers and broken glasses for instance - and apply them to weapons such as hammers and crowbars, batons etc, it all works - even more effectively as you can actually grab the weapon itself if need be, but more because such implements require space to develop impact power and this is denied almost immediately, as you respond with constant offensive pressure as your overall strategy. Hanging back on the defensive - against an armed man or not - leaves you in the path of both increased impact and angles of attack, and whilst you are defending against attack after attack, he's just thinking of what to do next, and after that. Change this process, reverse it, or it will only be a matter of time before a telling shot goes through, or too much blood is lost to function, or a third party - no friend of yours - joins in.
Regarding the recognition of a concealed weapon, obviously this is a vital component of shutting a man down pre-access.
There are tell-tale signs - even trained operators often 'show' their hand, hence all the videotaped training that is conducted to attempt to erase this condition.
A classic 'tell' is the unconscious physical confirmation of the weapon - often manifested by touching through the clothing, repositioning, checking on placement, or even just existence - usually for reassurance purposes, but commonly as preparation for rapid deployment.
Gait and posture can be another 'tell', favouring one side or another, positioning the body away unnaturally during interaction with others and so forth.
In a situation where weapons are suspected, and this means every situation, watch the hands - weapons are deployed with them, so they will lead you to them. If suspicion is high - with real justification - don't wait for confirmation, act and be quick about it.
This is a fundamental consideration, and one that those that offer separate anti/counter-knife and anti/counter-unarmed material fall flat on straight away.
There is a lot of 'sound-byte' empty rhetoric bandied around in this business, mostly due to peer acceptance rather than tactical consideration unfortunately. Like in many walks of life, current 'fashion' is a powerful influence, and what one person says and/or does, especially if they are perceived as being influential, can be very readily accepted by others without question or personal adaptation.
There's a great quote from designer Coco Chanel that goes "fashion fades, only style remains the same..." and this is more the essence of where I'm at and why I take a hard line on most of the trademarked gimmicks that are inevitably presented as being the ultimate solution to personal combat. In this case, developing and applying that repeated explosive impact to the head, above and beyond all else, may not be a very 'fashionable' approach, but when all is said and done it's much more 'wearable' in the long run...
To go back to the original question, take those that preach the advice 'always assume your adversary is armed' and then teach something like the G.U.N knife defence system, where the knife wrist is initially grabbed with both hands, or the S.T.A.B method, involving a similar tactical model. If we take the initial 'always armed' advice to heart, as they would want us to, does this mean that every punch has to be grabbed as the hand could contain a knife? This is impossible in a spontaneous and sudden full-speed committed continuous attack, in fact not just impossible but really, really very, a lot, impossible!
I'm not saying that the two systems mentioned have no merit, just that they are presented out of context - this being as a one-on-one solution, for once you secure the knife arm, if by some miracle you manage to, what do you do then, on your own, both your hands fully committed, at close proximity to a highly dangerous mobile individual who possesses at least one free hand and the original intention to kill you?
Headbutts, knee strikes, all the commonly thrown out 'finishing' or 'neutralising' options will suddenly not quite cut it outside of the training environment that they seemed like such a good idea within - especially when you realise that humans are not that fragile, that they are actively attacking you with everything from fists to teeth, and that you are getting swung around to the degree that both feet on the floor seems like a fabulous option instead!
During two-on-one scenarios, such as within some police, security or correctional role, with a known knife threat that isn't 'active' but postured, then these types of system are very credible indeed.
If it all goes 'off' and you find yourself in the nightmare that is 'combat management' having missed the opportunities to change this course of action, or escape, then I certainly do advocate - and adhere to - treating everyone as if armed, and more to the point treat them as if they are a superior fighter and act according. This is where that 'GLF' strategy comes to the fore, backed by the essential 'aggressive tenacity' attitude.
A few thoughts...
The first drill I run on my 'knife management' seminar, after no more than a few minutes of 'offensive' knife instruction for everyone to be fully 'street-style' lethal (and probably more dangerous than someone with some of the extensive currently offered ‘offensive knife’ training incidentally) is called the 'murder drill' and I use it to set the tone for the rest of the seminar, that worst-case active threat of a man trying his very best to kill you by any means, not posture and pose, not intimidate, but straight to the nightmare stuff I always prefer to start with and work back from later.
Plenty of people turn up with preconceived ideas, lots with other training under their belts, and each and every one of them has their eyes opened to the realities of a full bore attempted-murder knife attack. I use the 'Sharkee' training knives as they are strong and have an extremely blunt rounded tip - so you can really go to town on a guy in relative safety.
Everyone pairs off, one guy has a knife - no protective gear other than eye-protection is needed for this, you actually want the guys to get a little banged up to be honest. On a whistle blast, the knife wielder goes on the offensive, just a continual mix of slashes and stabs - all to the torso and limbs, at full speed and full power, no fencing or probing - just trying to relentlessly kill and maim. Give it 5 seconds or so, and then blow the whistle and the knife is dropped, picked up and used by the previous 'victim' in exactly the same manner, another 5 seconds and the whistle is blown again and so on....
This is sobering stuff, a huge reality check - when faced with not just the reality, but the 'actuality' of such an attack, certain myths become truths, and vice versa. Kicking a knife away? It can be done - so long as it's not actively employed as above. Grabbing the arm? Same detail, of course it's possible 'in context' but again not advisable against the above active usage.
All after about 10 minutes - tops - of very basic knife instruction, covering nothing fancy or ornate, no ‘advanced’ techniques. These are pretty simple easily learnt skills, and I devote virtually no time to technical instruction - just a nasty mixture of constant tight figure-eight slashing back and forth if there is room, and repeated stabs at all the angles the shoulder-joint will allow if space is limited. The free hand is used as required to control and find targets, and deny defensive measures. The offensive pressure is kept on the ‘constant setting’ and everything is practiced for power on impact equipment to stress the importance of grip.
I keep the 'knife instructional' to an absolute bare minimum for a very good reason, to make sure it does truly replicate the real capabilities of the under-trained, but over-dangerous, knife-wielding adversary - not an over-formatted 'expert' instead.
That's about it, more than adequate to prove a crucial point during the very first drill of the day – the nightmarish murder drill. It becomes all-too obvious how unfeasibly dangerous a man can be armed with a knife and the intent to kill you. The guys who arrive armed with all manner of high-speed low-drag 'skillz' get schooled, when they get murdered generally more than their untrained classmates.
This all effectively establishes the context of the material I present during the seminar, the active threat. I like to keep my training specific, and will always prefer to teach less with more depth, rather than the other way around, so other less intense threat formats are covered during other seminars. Later in the day, the murder drill is replicated but with an armoured knifeman, generally working from a pre-access format. On looking around the room it's not uncommon to see the same so-called attackers doing nothing more than covering up under an onslaught of blows from their intended victims...all that is on their minds is how to stop getting hit again, most forgetting that they even have a knife!
Even with the helmets they get rattled, ask any of them to run through the drill without one, knowing the other guy isn't going to waste time grabbing the knife arm, and instead focus his every intention on attacking their head until incapacitation...you won't get many takers...and those that do won't volunteer a second time....
I would add that it’s best practice to equip the bad guy with boxing gloves too, so he doesn't fall into 'the myth of the one-armed attacker' who conveniently forgets to punch the unarmed man in the head when the situation presents itself - something real attackers always remember. The unarmed operator should wear protective gear, so the bad guy isn't prevented from attacking throughout the full spectrum of opportunity including knees/punches to the groin, headbutts, clawing at the eyes etc – all whilst the arm is trying to be secured. As soon as you limit what he is able to do, you make the fight easier and create a 'training effect' that doesn't fit a real fight.
I developed some of this from making a point to a bunch of police trainers once upon a long time ago, they were arguing over who would get to play the bad guy when I about to present some anti-knife material, and the lucky winner went from a very cocky 'going to show this soldier a thing or two' to a meek and visibly concerned 'I'm going to get hurt here' when I strapped on a pair of 16oz boxing gloves and told him in no uncertain terms what was going to happen to his head - I think I might have even used a swear word - along the lines of “forget the knife, the ambulance will take care of anything you do to me...while they zip you into a bag...”
Anyway, back to the point - knives give a colossal advantage, which is why people use them! Much easier, and more effective, than spending all the time and effort getting good without them - they don't need a lot of training unfortunately as the statistics show. With a knife a novice instantly has greater lethal potential than a veteran without one, and I address this, and the worst-case 'active threat' first in all anti-knife training, and recommend the same to everyone.
Most current training practices create false objectives to achieve this aim through having one major limitation - the absence of realistic impact allowed on either party. Considering this issue identifies a few areas of 'training effect' that can significantly subvert the desired 'fighting effect' in a subtle but pronounced manner.
If the knife-wielder can fully simulate his attack with only a grab of some description able to stop it, and the responder can only partially simulate any impactive application of force - if any at all - then obviously the grab is falsely highlighted as being the only effective response. As I wrote earlier, imagine a boxing match where one guy can hit all-out, full-contact and the other can only go semi-contact...the second guy will be doing a lot of clinching as it’s all he will have available within the confines of the engagement.
If I cannot apply impactive force to you, this being the most effective and efficient means of terminating your threat to me from both an 'intent' and 'capability' perspective - then all I can pretty much do is play 'chase the knife' until it catches me one too many times or I can secure it somehow, and this leads to a lack of 'endgame' once I have it.
On the other hand, imagine your knife attack continuing past the point of me hitting you hard in the head, in a repeated fashion... Before you get hit I guarantee all you'll be concerned about is where you're going to stab or cut me - after taking that first full hit this thinking process will focus entirely upon where I'm going to hit you next!
To divert from this subject a little, the same training limitation is the result of why so many takedowns are used during the various sequences demonstrated and practised in the majority of systems and styles – how else do you get the bad guy on the floor if you can’t really hit him?
Knife ‘defence’ systems often have over-ambitious aims and their subsequent sales pitches reflect this - trying to develop and utilise a system that assures no contact with the knife is massively low percentage and needs a whole lot of luck and favorable circumstances.
If such a system could exist, somebody skilled in it could use it to win UFC titles with ease - it's a lot harder to land a telling punch or kick on a person than catch him with a knife, so consequently it should be easier to use the 'super-system' on an unarmed man since it's designed for the faster moving, non-telegraphic, no-power needed knife attack!
Put a novice boxer in a ring with a pro, and even the pro will concede that the novice will probably land at least one punch, glancing blow or otherwise, and will certainly catch him on the arms more than a few times before being dispatched. See the point I'm making? Add a knife to that scenario, and consider that a slash or stab is substantially easier to perform than a punch in that it doesn't require power and all the trappings that make punches hard to land effectively - not to mention the extra range it gives you - and you should get the idea.
A lot of the desired solution actually depends on the actual nature of the problem. If a person is in a physically passive mode, and possibly only brandishing the weapon, then most grab/trap-based material will have some degree of success. However if the knife-armed person is in a active mode and attacking in a continuous manner like a sewing-machine/food processor/aircraft propeller, with added punches, kicks, headbutts and b!tes - then the majority, if not all, the material fails at this level.
You might catch the hand/wrist/arm - same as you might win the lottery. If you do catch it, you'll be twice as lucky to be able to keep hold of it, unless the previously dynamic and murderously aggressive individual lets you for some reason - don't count on this being the case, knife attacks of that nature are attempted murders pure and simple, anyone with the committed vicious intent to repeatedly stab and slash you in such manner is going to have that weapon back in action in a heartbeat by any and all means possible.
Literally anything is possible, but I look for what is probable instead - you get a lot further swimming with the current than against it!
In theory, hitting an incoming baseball with the end of the bat is possible, but most people use the entire length of the bat instead to increase probability - if the ball wasn't moving that fast, and your safety wasn't at stake maybe there would be a few new methods appearing, but for the time being I don't foresee a change...
Apply this analogy to the many 'chase the knife' methods often advocated - the only thing that is likely to get caught in this instance is you. Your realistic options are to cover up - by putting the largest available, most durable and expendable bodyparts between the threat and the targets, but this is not enough in itself as all cover degrades under fire, or else someone figures out how to get around it or through it. You need an 'end game' of some description. To play any defensive game you must be lucky over and over again - but playing the part of the attacker requires you to get lucky just the once usually.
In any real violent incident, when you are up against a committed aggressor, there is a simple unpleasant point to accept – theoretically you are standing in an upstairs window of a burning building and have to make one of two choices, you either stay and get burned or you jump and get hurt. There isn't a third 'fire goes out' option no matter how much you might hope and want there to be.
Facing that active knifeman alone is truly a nightmare scenario - you either attack and maybe/probably get cut/stabbed in the process, or you defend and definitely/absolutely get cut/stabbed a whole lot more. Tough decision to make, going in on an armed man - but what's the alternative? Consider this before writing it off as being 'too dangerous' because although it may well be, not doing it is 'more dangerous' without any doubt in my mind. Sometimes it's a better, more realistic, option to stop looking for the 'best' way to do something, and concentrate on the 'least worst' instead...
Remember, contrary to popular belief knife wounds are actually low on 'stopping power' in a physical sense - victims tend to 'psychologically stop' if/when they identify and register being wounded, up until this recognition occurs they still are able perform more than is needed to stop their assailant - and do so on a regular and documented basis, without any training whatsoever.
Stabbing victims often do not even realise they have been wounded at all - often the fact is pointed out to them after the event. You can't ignore the fact that some wounds can be immediately incapacitating, and almost instantly lethal, but most are not - even if seriously wounded you still have more options than if rendered senseless by a blow to the head.
The human body can endure horrific damage inflicted upon it - I've seen this many times - and still survive, still prevail - but only if you don't give up. Getting wounded, and refusing to give in, leaves you in a position to dig in to that hard-wired tenacity, fight back and not get wounded anymore, deal with or escape the situation and seek emergency medical attention. Getting wounded and giving in leaves you in a position to get wounded again and again, and again, resulting in an unpleasant condition called 'adopting room temperature'.
I'm loathe to give any absolute answers to anything, seeing as how everything is situational on the day, but the point I try to make is that there has to be an 'end-game' somewhere - not just a token offering, but something that will actually put a stop to the engagement. This is the most important part of dealing with any physical threat, and it should be sought at the earliest possible opportunity - not treated as a 'taken for granted' afterthought tagged onto a series of cool moves.
Against an armed or unarmed man, I stress a great deal of 'controlling' tactics with the free hand seeing as arms are always in the way - holding knives, guns or not - and they need negotiating in order to maintain the constant offensive pressure needed to secure that all-important end-game.
There is a great deal of commonality between what I teach for dealing with armed and unarmed adversaries - that lead indexing/controlling hand can be used to deal with someone's covering arm in exactly the same manner it can be checking a gun/knife-wielding arm, or even moving a third party to one side, all whilst the other hand is hitting repeatedly. If needed, the roles can be switched in a heartbeat, hands transitioning as required, all the while maintaining constant offensive pressure in line with C2 base strategy.
The lack of 'end-game' is what lets some approaches down - they may use words such as 'termination' and 'neutralise' but the options they demonstrate usually fail to live up to such terms - outside of the training/demonstration environment.
Holding onto an arm or wrist, that is gripping a knife, and executing heavy blows with the head or knee that could incapacitate is a difficult task on a compliant training partner - never mind an aggressive and highly mobile enemy. Note that 'heavy blows' is the key, acquiring the 'touch contact' often demonstrated proves nothing, you have to be able to deliver substantial repeated impact, and be quick about it.
I've heard previously that individuals armed with a knife, or gun, are so mentally committed to their weapon that they won't use other body weapons if it is grabbed and immobilised...
This is pure fantasy in my experience - wishful thinking perhaps, or a 'fact' that has been fabricated to support a tactically weak offering. In my opinion this particular nonsense is typical of the dangerous 'forward engineered' approach that seeks to make a fight conform to training. When safety is an issue in training - which it should always be - you can hardly allow a 'knifeman' to punch someone in the head if the happen to grab his knife-wielding arm, so once grabbed it's all over for him.
Adding a boxing glove to the knifeman's free hand, and encouraging him to be generous with its use, would do much to significantly - immediately - change most of the counter-knife offerings out there, or even worse just give the bad guy two training knives and watch the tactical model shift dramatically...
Mick Coup - © - C2 Core Combatives
Sujet: Longueur moyenne des lames utilisées lors d'agressions ? (Lu 9874 fois)
