Weapons Training

[Ian]

Do you agree with these statements?

-Empty hand ability is for when you can't use your weapons (for whatever reason).

-It's better to spend more time working with weapons and against weapons than to spend the majority of your time working on empty hand ability.

[Chris McKinley]

Yes to the first, and not necessarily to the second.

[Ian]

Ah, Chris. I can always count on you for the weapons topics

Re: the second, my thoughts are:

-weapons work is more difficult than empty hand work, and it's good to spend more time on difficult areas;
-empty hand work should not differ too much from weapons work, and training the latter informs the former nicely.

[Chris McKinley]

Yeah, I'd say I agree with that, though that doesn't always necessarily mean more time on weapons than empty. A lot of it depends on the student and what his needs are, what his choices are concerning weapons, his profession, etc. What I do feel comfortable stating in a more carte blanche way is that far too little time is devoted to the reality that weapons play in a real assault in modern society, and that criticism is valid for almost every school of martial arts that exists in this country, regardless of style. It's a similarly endemic problem to the one discussed in my Fundamental Flaw thread.

In fact, with regard to the specific topic of weapons, it's perhaps the most glaring universal deficit of modern MMA schools with regard to their being viable as real self-defense study. Granted, they claim openly to be focused on sport combat, so they do get a pass on the intellectual honesty of the matter. However, they also commonly claim to provide legitimate training for real self-defense. While I have no problem accepting the honesty of that claim with regard to exclusively empty hand vs. empty hand training, the acceptance ends there.

As I've said ad nauseum, man is and has been a tool using creature since before he was man. Weapons are as likely as not to be involved in real assaults these days, and at least recognition-level familiarity with their use must be a strong part of any program claiming to offer real self-defense for the modern era. To the extent that this acknowledgment is absent while the claim is still being made, that school/instructor is bullshitting the buying public.

[bigphatwong]

Disagree to both. Here's why:

1) Not every combative situation is going to warrant a lethal response, and I'm not sure I buy into the logic that all non-life threatening situations are avoidable. Varying degrees of force and all that.

2) Empty hand ability is the basis for all other work. Even if you're highly skilled with a weapon, there's always the odd chance of dropping it. I remember seeing a video not too long ago with GM Max Pallen of Senkotiros Arnis in a full-contact stickfighting match, and during the course of the action he dropped his stick no less than three times (luckily he knew how to recover). If you can't function without it you're fucked.

That's why I try to spend an equal amount of time on both.

[Chris McKinley]

bigphatwong,

Your reasoning doesn't disagree with at least #1 of his statements. Notice he stated, "Empty hand ability is for when you can't use your weapons (for whatever reason)". That would include situations in which you are prohibited from using weapons due to legal, ethical and/or moral justification not being met. Also, to my knowledge, no one has claimed that all non-life-threatening situations are avoidable. I myself have come close by claiming that nearly 99% of them are avoidable, which I truly believe, but there are definitely occasions where action of a non-lethal nature either must or should be taken. De-escalation, restraint, rendering assitance to someone being assaulted, or simply being shoved in a bar can all require some degree of action but can all be very much non-lethal depending upon the circumstances.

OTOH, very good point about weapons retention and the need for empty hand skills even in the modern age. I've tried to make that very point recently on a number of threads when someone has implied that weapons and empty hand responses are an either/or choice. There is never a complete lack of need for empty hand skills, no matter how many battle axes and M-60's you're carrying.

[Kurt Robbins]

If you can spar with weapons... great!
If you can spar without weapons ... great!

[johnwang]

When my teacher was invited to Morocco, he tried to hide a dagger in his boots. one of his students asked him why he want to bring a dagger. His student also told him that he might have trouble to bring it on the airplane. He said, "I don't know what will happen over there. I can't just go to a strange country like Morocco with only empty handed."

He always said, "If you 2 don't have knifes and I don't have knife, I may win." He also said, "If you 2 have knifes and I also have knife, I may still win." he had never said in his entire life that "If you 2 have knifes and I don't, I may win." He had respected weapon through his life time experience.

One of my SC brothers even carry hand gun 24/7 (he has lience to do that).

[middleway]

the question i think that is the most important is ...

If the shit hits the fan and your on the receiving end of IMMEDIATE and BRUTAL violence ... will you have time to recognise the threat and bring your weapon to bare on the situation prior to being KTFO or Stabbed?

I hear and see alot of stuff about carrying knives, grabbing your car keys, having little trick spikes, re-enforced high grade steel stuff and this and that .... but you would have to train your arse off for along time to be anywhere near quick enough to bring any of that stuff to bear when the shit really kicks off. Certainly in the situations i have found myself in, if i had been hand in pocket grabbing my knife or trying to grab my car keys ... even if i was quick .... i would have been knocked out or stabbed. Most stuff is over so fast when your really in it ... self preservation and knocking the asshole attacking you out is the top priority and you fall down to the level of your instinctive training.

I worked with doorman who carried coshes, old mobile phones, flexible batons, blades etc etc .... in ALL the situations i was in, all the situations they were in ... they never ONCE deployed any of these things effectively, instead dropping to the level of training in the thing they instinctively knew how to use .... their fists. These were guys who had 'carried' for 20 years. I asked why they still carried if they were never able to use the things they said 'makes me feel safer'. The illusion of safety is sometimes more what carrying a blade or a weapon is about than the actual practicality of it.

Your hands are powerful 'knock out' or 'destroy' weapons that you use every single day of your life in everything you do ... you dont have to think to use them and you dont have to train as much to make them useful.

Just my experience and opinion.

Cheers
Chris

[mrtoes]

Do you agree with these statements?

-Empty hand ability is for when you can't use your weapons (for whatever reason).

-It's better to spend more time working with weapons and against weapons than to spend the majority of your time working on empty hand ability.

I have zero experience with weapons so do feel free to completely disregard. Still, my perspective for what it's worth.

With regards to the first, I don't actually want to carry a weapon. Not only is it illegal to carry a blade in the UK - not that this stops many London kids - but I wouldn't trust myself to use it appropriately, and actually carrying one would actually make me feel /less/ safe, oddly. Given the relatively rare "sudden assault" scenario I would rather trust the weapons I feel most confident with, which are my fists and elbows. I wouldn't want to have a knife as I wouldn't trust myself not to use it when it was not necessary - I remember a Krav instructor telling me "if you are in a fight and you have a knife, you will use it before you know what you're doing".

I can understand that in places where carrying a gun is commonplace and legal, such as parts of the US, using empty hand skills only to buy time to present your gun may make perfect sense. Also, if I had appropriate training with weapons my perspective could be very different.

The second is answered already as I don't train with weapons. The reason is simply that I enjoy empty hand fighting and it's what I feel like training at this point in my life. If I really wanted to be able to deal with weapons vaguely competantly on the street (as opposed to hoping they're not there!) then I would def want to spend a lot more time training with them. It would be nice if my weapons work was as similar as possible to my empty hand work. I don't know how realistic that is. I have a lot of respect for the Krav guys and their assumption that a weapon is always being used.

Matthew

[Chris McKinley]

middleway brings up some essential points about weapons presentation that are vital to any discussion of weapons. However, that the issue of presentation exists is not sufficient reason to preclude all weapons carry by all people in all circumstances. It simply means that proper training for both presentation as well as retention are necessary for real weapons training to be valid.

mrtoes referenced a Krav Maga instructor who stated, "if you are in a fight and you have a knife, you will use it before you know what you're doing", a statement with which I must respectfully disagree. He himself might, but I and many others do not. Part of weapons carry is training to assess each situation as to whether or not use of that weapon is justified and required. This is actually a skillset that flows naturally into presentations skills training. While I have respect for Krav Maga and the training they offer, I tend to shy away from such dogmatic stances as that guy made when it comes to weapons because there are just too many exceptions, and weapons scenarios can be rather more complicated than purely empty hand situations.

Still, weapons carry is a very personal issue and I do not begrudge anyone's choice for him/herself on the matter, regardless of which way they choose. All I want is the freedom to make that choice for myself.

[RobP2]

My view is that I mostly agree with Chris Middleway about deployment, but also that a weapon carried as such tends to become a psychological cructh "no need to worry ah got mah big gun..." And how many cases will warrant that level of response?

My take one weapons training is to train the ability to make anything a weapon. Rather than carry something as a specific (although that may be warranted in some circumstances), rather be able to adapt with what is to hand as neccesary - be it a chair, a stick or a handful of coins. That's the initial "self defence" level. Beyond that you can get into specifics for specific weapons, gun, knife etc. For the most part I teach/train this as an adjunct to understanding the weapon and its deployment/use and to spice up movement and other skills as I don't councel carrying in everyday life.

cheers

Rob

[middleway]

However, that the issue of presentation exists is not sufficient reason to preclude all weapons carry by all people in all circumstances. It simply means that proper training for both presentation as well as retention are necessary for real weapons training to be valid.

Totally agree Chris. I think that Weapons Carry has its place, especially in professional services where it is obviously vital (LEOs etc). They can generally deploy the weapon prior to the actual violence as they are generally 'arriving on scene'.

But i also think that the training required to deploy a weapon should sudden and extreme violence occur on the non professional, is certainly substantial and there would be allot of 're-wiring' of the individual to produce an instinctive response where the weapon is brought into play rather than the 'flinch' hand up and in play response that is pretty easy to work off of or with.

I train against knife a fair bit and sometimes knife on knife, stick etc. But to be fair, I wouldn't really consider carrying a knife as I havn't trained deploying it enough to make it a valuable thing to carry. Someone attacks me i am going for knock out or breaking something and hoping for the best.

cheers
Chris

[Chris McKinley]

Rob,

RE: "My take one weapons training is to train the ability to make anything a weapon. Rather than carry something as a specific...rather be able to adapt with what is to hand as neccesary". I strongly advocate this concept as well; I just don't see it as mutually exclusive. Even though I may be carrying a weapon, I am still aware of my environment as to what improvised weapons and obstacles it can provide me with. This is also part of proper weapons training since presentation or retention are never guaranteed. You may still need to use environmental items to deal with an attack even if you are carrying a weapon yourself.

Carrying a "weapon" can also mean a number of things. I carry a really well-made folder most of the time. Without being coy about it, the knife actually is a pocket knife in actual application. Opening envelopes and boxes, cutting strings...you know, boring stuff that's part of everyday life. Like many guys over here, I've carried a pocket knife since I was a boy. Since I'm going to have it on me anyway, for me it just made sense to learn how to use it as an environmental weapon that is very likely to be handy if I am assaulted.

[D_Glenn]

.