Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Knife drills
138 views
Skip to first unread message
nemo_outis
Apr 25, 2013, 6:38:09 PM4/25/13
to
The following is an introduction to knife dueling: fights
against another skilled knifer. Although much can be learned
from such a study I must emphasize that it is an exceedingly
unlikely street scenario (at least if your street isn't in
Palermo or Brindisi).
I'm going to emphasize the *Intro* part - basics and drills,
not actual combat technique. But learning the fundamentals
well is never wasted effort.
I will restrict the discussion to 'small' knives: Ka-bar and
under size (8-inch blade max, most often 3-to-5-inch
folders). What I say has *some* carryover to heavier knives
like the Bowie but Bowies, Kukris, and other such 'big' knives
also have some distinct differences. Swords (say 14" blade
and up) are a very different beast from knives.
At the outset here are (in no particular order) a number of
observations and axioms that guide and inform my approach:
1. The short knife has excellent killing power but low
(guaranteed/reliable/quick) stopping power. This affects
EVERYTHING about a knife fight.
2. Unlike swords there is no blade versus blade engagement
and so the blade cannot be used to truly 'close' a line, to
bind or force an opponent's blade offline and prevent it
attacking, to ward off attacks, etc. The knife can't truly
defend - it can only attack (albeit sometimes in 'defensive
mode')
3. Defence with the short knife (esp at long range) is
mostly a matter of movement/evasion or retaliatory
cutting/stabbing.
4. Defence (esp at short range) can also include measures
from the off hand (parries, pops, presses, etc. - even
punches) and (much more rarely) kicks, etc.
5. The knife fight at short range is exceedingly dangerous
even for skilled knifers. Double-death is a highly likely
outcome. Learn the long game well and try to decide the issue
there.
6. Anything you 'hang out there' will get cut. Hands should
be kept close to the body. �except when stabbing or cutting,
of course, but even then it is exceedingly important that the
hands do not linger out there.
7. With blade arts 'tempo' and 'misura' are critical. Tempo
is 'timing' (not speed) and 'misura' is 'distancing' (not
distance). For instance, waltz tempo is every bit as valid
as polka or jitterbug tempo. The emphasis is the
'relationship' of two people in time and space in a profoundly
'intimate' encounter (literally, life and death). You do NOT
just 'do your thing' - you must be as 'sensitive and
responsive' to your opponent as you would be to a ballroom
dance partner.
8. Knife *combat* is utterly different from knife *sport* -
even though the moves are pretty much the same. A sporting
knife contest/sparring/etc rewards an attitude completely
antithetical to real combat - athleticism, initiative, and
risk-taking pay off in sport. Pay off, that is if winning
means best 2 our of 3, or 4 out of 7. Real knife combat
requires a paradoxical combination of great prudence and
caution mixed with courage, tenacity and drive and an ability
to instantly switch. Winning in combat means best 1 out of 1:
wining really means 'not losing'.
There are several possible starting points in teaching knife
fighting - I like to emphasize stabbing and cutting. But not
the common Filipino 8-directions, figure 8, infinity, etc
cutting & stabbing. Nope, I start with stabs and C and J
cuts. I emphasize effectiveness and simplicity before 'flow'
(although flow is very, very valuable).
However, before I get to the cuts I have to say a little bit
about stance and position (just the minimum to get started).
And I'm going to skip over movement and footwork, crucial
though it is. I want to just get you 'in position' to make
practice cuts.
You will stand with (right/dominant) hand forward with body
strongly angled away (but not quite sideways ). This is a
pure knife-against-knife stance with less provision for
adapting to a scramble, rush, corp-a-corps, etc. in which case
you might angle less strongly (but with more exposure to the
opponent's blade).
While some good knifers use a variant of boxing stance, I
favour a slightly modified western sabreur's stance: feet at
right angles in a T stance slightly wider than shoulder width.
Front foot pointed straight ahead at opponent (not turned in
at all). Front foot positioned so that if drawn straight back
its heel would touch the left foot's heel (not at mid-arch).
Weight distribution 50-50 or 40-60 backweighting (it will vary
a bit during movement) with both knees athletically bent for
maximal mobility,
The knife hand is carried close to the body (pommel only 3
inches or so from floating ribs) with upper arm either
vertical or with the elbow slightly further back than the
shoulder. Your entire upper arm and much of your forearm are
touching your body. Your thumb (at/slightly-below the height
of your right nipple) is on the back of the blade (not hammer
grip) with thumb at 12 o'clock and blade edge at 6 o'clock.
Your blade is carried slightly outboard towards your right
side (NOT on your centerline as the opponent would see it).
Your blade points somewhat tip-up towards the midline of the
opponent between his nipples and eyes (towards throat is about
right).
Do NOT extend your knife hand so far forward that your elbow
is no longer touching your body. If your opponent is not an
idiot he can initiate faster than you can react and you WILL
get cut on your knife hand/arm if you do this! Elbow-just-
touching-body is the FURTHEST reasonable 'base position' even
if you have lightning reflexes - I recommend pulling back
another 3-6 inches. (As an aside, it also tends to make him
misjudge your reach.)
I was going to describe what to do with the off hand (i.e.,
the left) but I'll defer that for now since I suspect you're
impatient to get to cutting.
More to come (if there's any interest)�
against another skilled knifer. Although much can be learned
from such a study I must emphasize that it is an exceedingly
unlikely street scenario (at least if your street isn't in
Palermo or Brindisi).
I'm going to emphasize the *Intro* part - basics and drills,
not actual combat technique. But learning the fundamentals
well is never wasted effort.
I will restrict the discussion to 'small' knives: Ka-bar and
under size (8-inch blade max, most often 3-to-5-inch
folders). What I say has *some* carryover to heavier knives
like the Bowie but Bowies, Kukris, and other such 'big' knives
also have some distinct differences. Swords (say 14" blade
and up) are a very different beast from knives.
At the outset here are (in no particular order) a number of
observations and axioms that guide and inform my approach:
1. The short knife has excellent killing power but low
(guaranteed/reliable/quick) stopping power. This affects
EVERYTHING about a knife fight.
2. Unlike swords there is no blade versus blade engagement
and so the blade cannot be used to truly 'close' a line, to
bind or force an opponent's blade offline and prevent it
attacking, to ward off attacks, etc. The knife can't truly
defend - it can only attack (albeit sometimes in 'defensive
mode')
3. Defence with the short knife (esp at long range) is
mostly a matter of movement/evasion or retaliatory
cutting/stabbing.
4. Defence (esp at short range) can also include measures
from the off hand (parries, pops, presses, etc. - even
punches) and (much more rarely) kicks, etc.
5. The knife fight at short range is exceedingly dangerous
even for skilled knifers. Double-death is a highly likely
outcome. Learn the long game well and try to decide the issue
there.
6. Anything you 'hang out there' will get cut. Hands should
be kept close to the body. �except when stabbing or cutting,
of course, but even then it is exceedingly important that the
hands do not linger out there.
7. With blade arts 'tempo' and 'misura' are critical. Tempo
is 'timing' (not speed) and 'misura' is 'distancing' (not
distance). For instance, waltz tempo is every bit as valid
as polka or jitterbug tempo. The emphasis is the
'relationship' of two people in time and space in a profoundly
'intimate' encounter (literally, life and death). You do NOT
just 'do your thing' - you must be as 'sensitive and
responsive' to your opponent as you would be to a ballroom
dance partner.
8. Knife *combat* is utterly different from knife *sport* -
even though the moves are pretty much the same. A sporting
knife contest/sparring/etc rewards an attitude completely
antithetical to real combat - athleticism, initiative, and
risk-taking pay off in sport. Pay off, that is if winning
means best 2 our of 3, or 4 out of 7. Real knife combat
requires a paradoxical combination of great prudence and
caution mixed with courage, tenacity and drive and an ability
to instantly switch. Winning in combat means best 1 out of 1:
wining really means 'not losing'.
There are several possible starting points in teaching knife
fighting - I like to emphasize stabbing and cutting. But not
the common Filipino 8-directions, figure 8, infinity, etc
cutting & stabbing. Nope, I start with stabs and C and J
cuts. I emphasize effectiveness and simplicity before 'flow'
(although flow is very, very valuable).
However, before I get to the cuts I have to say a little bit
about stance and position (just the minimum to get started).
And I'm going to skip over movement and footwork, crucial
though it is. I want to just get you 'in position' to make
practice cuts.
You will stand with (right/dominant) hand forward with body
strongly angled away (but not quite sideways ). This is a
pure knife-against-knife stance with less provision for
adapting to a scramble, rush, corp-a-corps, etc. in which case
you might angle less strongly (but with more exposure to the
opponent's blade).
While some good knifers use a variant of boxing stance, I
favour a slightly modified western sabreur's stance: feet at
right angles in a T stance slightly wider than shoulder width.
Front foot pointed straight ahead at opponent (not turned in
at all). Front foot positioned so that if drawn straight back
its heel would touch the left foot's heel (not at mid-arch).
Weight distribution 50-50 or 40-60 backweighting (it will vary
a bit during movement) with both knees athletically bent for
maximal mobility,
The knife hand is carried close to the body (pommel only 3
inches or so from floating ribs) with upper arm either
vertical or with the elbow slightly further back than the
shoulder. Your entire upper arm and much of your forearm are
touching your body. Your thumb (at/slightly-below the height
of your right nipple) is on the back of the blade (not hammer
grip) with thumb at 12 o'clock and blade edge at 6 o'clock.
Your blade is carried slightly outboard towards your right
side (NOT on your centerline as the opponent would see it).
Your blade points somewhat tip-up towards the midline of the
opponent between his nipples and eyes (towards throat is about
right).
Do NOT extend your knife hand so far forward that your elbow
is no longer touching your body. If your opponent is not an
idiot he can initiate faster than you can react and you WILL
get cut on your knife hand/arm if you do this! Elbow-just-
touching-body is the FURTHEST reasonable 'base position' even
if you have lightning reflexes - I recommend pulling back
another 3-6 inches. (As an aside, it also tends to make him
misjudge your reach.)
I was going to describe what to do with the off hand (i.e.,
the left) but I'll defer that for now since I suspect you're
impatient to get to cutting.
More to come (if there's any interest)�
TimR
Apr 26, 2013, 9:22:31 AM4/26/13
to
Yes, it is interesting.
Everything you say seems to make common sense.
But the proof is in the testing, however good it sounds. And I don't know where you can find data, except maybe in prison. (where you'll be anyway IF you win)
Everything you say seems to make common sense.
But the proof is in the testing, however good it sounds. And I don't know where you can find data, except maybe in prison. (where you'll be anyway IF you win)
nemo_outis
Apr 26, 2013, 3:13:29 PM4/26/13
to
TimR <timot...@aol.com> wrote in
news:916f47ca-55f0-40af...@googlegroups.com:
Makes common sense? You'll have to use your own judgment and
decide. There is no database from which to rigorously draw
conclusions. For instance, I myself often go several months
without killing anyone! :-)
However, there is a multi-millenium tradition of western
martial arts concentrating on bladed weapons. Its 500+ year
documentation blows any eastern blade MA into the weeds.
There are even traditional western schools that still adhere
to these traditions. Mostly for the sword (many variants) but
also shorter and longer weapons. And there are many cultural
variants in which the knife figures prominently in both west
(Navaja, stiletto, cortello) and east (Philipines, Indonesia,
etc.)
My knife method is loosely adapted from late 19th century
sabre methods before the sporting lunacy of the Olympics, etc
eviscerated them (push cuts, finger lay-ons, etc.)
Is my method 'the best?" Well, is 'the best' even definable
in a practical testable way? No and no ...and it doesn't
matter!
For instance, the Spanish, Italians, and French had very
distinct and different styles of rapier and many, many fights
were fought between them and yet it is impossible to say
conclusively which method was best. What you can say is that
a man well-trained in any of those styles was very formidable
and the outcome of an encounter was likely going to be
determined by the men and the circumstances, not the styles.
*Skilled* knife versus knife fights are extremely rare in most
modern western cultures - you will have all the technique you
could ever need if you study any decent method systematically.
Do you care if maybe there is someone in Indonesia who is
better? And is he better because his style is superior? Or
is it because he trains more, he has greater courage, his
reflexes are quicker, etc., etc.
Train any non-trivial knife method assiduously and you will be
deadly. Remember: You are training for combat (say zero to
three fights over a lifetime), not to climb a sporting
hierarchy through repeated 'bouts'. (Sport and sparring can
be excellent preparation for combat, or a snare and delusion
leading just to skill at 'tag with blunts')
Will you be able to mobilize your training decades from now at
age 50, taken by surprise, with a headcold, after drinking
three beers, and will you be able to master the psychological
and character dimensions and instantly compose your body and
mind and find the courage and concentration to fight well?
Winner take all, loser lose all? No do-overs, no second
chances, no rematches! This ain't no sport - it's a very,
very different animal!
*****
Prison fights would tell you nothing about skilled knifer
versus skilled knifer even if you could assemble the data.
Prison fights are blade against unarmed, and those are murder,
executions, assassinations - NOT fights.
Knife versus unarmed is 'fought' utterly differently than
skilled knife v skilled knife. Against an unarmed man the
knife is held in the rear hand, you get very close very quick,
you thrust and cut with great rapidity, etc., etc. In short,
the knifer 'swarms' the unarmed man (can one man be a swarm?).
Nothing like knife v knife (if the fighters know what they're
doing, that is).
Regards,
PS As for knifing and the law, that is an important - but
separate - topic that I'll pass over for now.
news:916f47ca-55f0-40af...@googlegroups.com:
Makes common sense? You'll have to use your own judgment and
decide. There is no database from which to rigorously draw
conclusions. For instance, I myself often go several months
without killing anyone! :-)
However, there is a multi-millenium tradition of western
martial arts concentrating on bladed weapons. Its 500+ year
documentation blows any eastern blade MA into the weeds.
There are even traditional western schools that still adhere
to these traditions. Mostly for the sword (many variants) but
also shorter and longer weapons. And there are many cultural
variants in which the knife figures prominently in both west
(Navaja, stiletto, cortello) and east (Philipines, Indonesia,
etc.)
My knife method is loosely adapted from late 19th century
sabre methods before the sporting lunacy of the Olympics, etc
eviscerated them (push cuts, finger lay-ons, etc.)
Is my method 'the best?" Well, is 'the best' even definable
in a practical testable way? No and no ...and it doesn't
matter!
For instance, the Spanish, Italians, and French had very
distinct and different styles of rapier and many, many fights
were fought between them and yet it is impossible to say
conclusively which method was best. What you can say is that
a man well-trained in any of those styles was very formidable
and the outcome of an encounter was likely going to be
determined by the men and the circumstances, not the styles.
*Skilled* knife versus knife fights are extremely rare in most
modern western cultures - you will have all the technique you
could ever need if you study any decent method systematically.
Do you care if maybe there is someone in Indonesia who is
better? And is he better because his style is superior? Or
is it because he trains more, he has greater courage, his
reflexes are quicker, etc., etc.
Train any non-trivial knife method assiduously and you will be
deadly. Remember: You are training for combat (say zero to
three fights over a lifetime), not to climb a sporting
hierarchy through repeated 'bouts'. (Sport and sparring can
be excellent preparation for combat, or a snare and delusion
leading just to skill at 'tag with blunts')
Will you be able to mobilize your training decades from now at
age 50, taken by surprise, with a headcold, after drinking
three beers, and will you be able to master the psychological
and character dimensions and instantly compose your body and
mind and find the courage and concentration to fight well?
Winner take all, loser lose all? No do-overs, no second
chances, no rematches! This ain't no sport - it's a very,
very different animal!
*****
Prison fights would tell you nothing about skilled knifer
versus skilled knifer even if you could assemble the data.
Prison fights are blade against unarmed, and those are murder,
executions, assassinations - NOT fights.
Knife versus unarmed is 'fought' utterly differently than
skilled knife v skilled knife. Against an unarmed man the
knife is held in the rear hand, you get very close very quick,
you thrust and cut with great rapidity, etc., etc. In short,
the knifer 'swarms' the unarmed man (can one man be a swarm?).
Nothing like knife v knife (if the fighters know what they're
doing, that is).
Regards,
PS As for knifing and the law, that is an important - but
separate - topic that I'll pass over for now.
Rabid Weasel Lawson
Apr 26, 2013, 4:23:18 PM4/26/13
to
knowledgeable folks.
I wouldn't know nemo if I ran him over on the street but we have a few
mutual friends.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Rabid Weasel Lawson
Apr 26, 2013, 4:34:11 PM4/26/13
to
On Apr 25, 6:38 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Do NOT extend your knife hand so far forward that your elbow
> is no longer touching your body. If your opponent is not an
> idiot he can initiate faster than you can react and you WILL
> get cut on your knife hand/arm if you do this! Elbow-just-
> touching-body is the FURTHEST reasonable 'base position' even
> if you have lightning reflexes - I recommend pulling back
> another 3-6 inches. (As an aside, it also tends to make him
> misjudge your reach.)
Silver's True Times! Silver's True Times! Silver's True Times!
> Do NOT extend your knife hand so far forward that your elbow
> is no longer touching your body. If your opponent is not an
> idiot he can initiate faster than you can react and you WILL
> get cut on your knife hand/arm if you do this! Elbow-just-
> touching-body is the FURTHEST reasonable 'base position' even
> if you have lightning reflexes - I recommend pulling back
> another 3-6 inches. (As an aside, it also tends to make him
> misjudge your reach.)
"The hand is quicker than the eye" is *NOT* a prestidigitation
throwaway line!!!
You just wrote it, "play the long range game" ... Stay OUT of Time of
the Hand!!!!
If you're in Time of the Hand and Body then you can bait with an
extended lead. If you're fighting in Time of the Hand might as well
just send the roses to your family yourself and save your opponent the
trouble after his inevitable victory (unless it's Double Death in
which case you still should send the roses yourself). :P
nemo_outis
Apr 26, 2013, 4:36:40 PM4/26/13
to
I've skipped a lot of important stuff (knife grip, off-hand,
rocking, footwork, distancing, etc.) but I'm in a hurry to get
to some of the 'good stuff' even though that good stuff is
just drills and exercises at this point.
Just to let you know where I'm coming from: I'm a fan of the
stab. 'The cut wounds, the thrust kills' is my mantra. But,
as Russell observed, "All generalizations are false, including
this one." So it doesn't mean we can ignore cuts - far from
it!
The first exercise I'm going to emphasize is 'touch the hot
stove'. It s purpose is for you to teach yourself that you
don't need to thrust with a lot of power (it ain't a punch
where a knife just happens to be in your hand) and that *speed
on the retraction* and getting FULLY back to base position is
CRITICAL.
Remember: A knife has killing power but not *reliable*
'stopping' power, even if you've stabbed him to the heart.
So, paradoxically, you are most vulnerable when your thrust or
cut lands. Your hand (and possibly your body or leg as well)
is within his reach and your hand is momentarily relatively
immobile in a known place (his chest?) - you are vulnerable to
a counterstroke, even from a mortally wounded opponent!
(Incidentally, are you now starting to see the difference
between sport and combat? After all, you've 'scored' - who
cares about retraction?)
You must get out of that vulnerable state FAST! - minimizing
his window of opportunity for retaliation. The simplest and
most direct method is a straightforward (straightbackward?)
'return to base position' (later we'll look at defensive-cut
retractions and/or continued offence).
So, we must have a razor-sharp knife and we must trust IT to
'do the work'. We are NOT going to *punch* it into the
opponent's body like we were trying to kill him behind a 3-
inch oak door. Nope, we're going to be light, fast, and
uncommitted. A 'womanly jab' will kill!
Take the basic position (sans knife) and snap your hand out to
touch an imaginary (or better, real) object with your
fingertips as if it were a red-hot stove. You want to be very
light and fast going out and even FASTER pulling back. No
'lingering' on target, just tag - you're it!
And you want to FULLY recover to base position. It's very
easy, especially after several repetitions, to fail to *fully*
retract your hand, instead allowing it to drift too far from
your body - don't get lazy or sloppy! It's an insultingly
simple drill but that doesn't make it one whit less important!
Fast out and faster back - all the way back!
When you practice try to *even surprise yourself* when your
hand will instantly dart out and back - not a hint of
telegraphing! Do it in front of a mirror - see what the
opponent sees!
This ISN'T fisticuffs - MAs must reeducate themselves to trade
power for more speed (but while retaining good knife form, of
course) Light and fast with minimal commitment, thereby
achieving maximum responsiveness, adaptability, and
adjustability. This 'minimal commitment/maximal speed and
maximal responsiveness' aspect will cause any traditional
striker a lot of anguish and effort to achieve. Keep at it -
it's worth it!
Regards,
rocking, footwork, distancing, etc.) but I'm in a hurry to get
to some of the 'good stuff' even though that good stuff is
just drills and exercises at this point.
Just to let you know where I'm coming from: I'm a fan of the
stab. 'The cut wounds, the thrust kills' is my mantra. But,
as Russell observed, "All generalizations are false, including
this one." So it doesn't mean we can ignore cuts - far from
it!
The first exercise I'm going to emphasize is 'touch the hot
stove'. It s purpose is for you to teach yourself that you
don't need to thrust with a lot of power (it ain't a punch
where a knife just happens to be in your hand) and that *speed
on the retraction* and getting FULLY back to base position is
CRITICAL.
Remember: A knife has killing power but not *reliable*
'stopping' power, even if you've stabbed him to the heart.
So, paradoxically, you are most vulnerable when your thrust or
cut lands. Your hand (and possibly your body or leg as well)
is within his reach and your hand is momentarily relatively
immobile in a known place (his chest?) - you are vulnerable to
a counterstroke, even from a mortally wounded opponent!
(Incidentally, are you now starting to see the difference
between sport and combat? After all, you've 'scored' - who
cares about retraction?)
You must get out of that vulnerable state FAST! - minimizing
his window of opportunity for retaliation. The simplest and
most direct method is a straightforward (straightbackward?)
'return to base position' (later we'll look at defensive-cut
retractions and/or continued offence).
So, we must have a razor-sharp knife and we must trust IT to
'do the work'. We are NOT going to *punch* it into the
opponent's body like we were trying to kill him behind a 3-
inch oak door. Nope, we're going to be light, fast, and
uncommitted. A 'womanly jab' will kill!
Take the basic position (sans knife) and snap your hand out to
touch an imaginary (or better, real) object with your
fingertips as if it were a red-hot stove. You want to be very
light and fast going out and even FASTER pulling back. No
'lingering' on target, just tag - you're it!
And you want to FULLY recover to base position. It's very
easy, especially after several repetitions, to fail to *fully*
retract your hand, instead allowing it to drift too far from
your body - don't get lazy or sloppy! It's an insultingly
simple drill but that doesn't make it one whit less important!
Fast out and faster back - all the way back!
When you practice try to *even surprise yourself* when your
hand will instantly dart out and back - not a hint of
telegraphing! Do it in front of a mirror - see what the
opponent sees!
This ISN'T fisticuffs - MAs must reeducate themselves to trade
power for more speed (but while retaining good knife form, of
course) Light and fast with minimal commitment, thereby
achieving maximum responsiveness, adaptability, and
adjustability. This 'minimal commitment/maximal speed and
maximal responsiveness' aspect will cause any traditional
striker a lot of anguish and effort to achieve. Keep at it -
it's worth it!
Regards,
Rabid Weasel Lawson
Apr 26, 2013, 4:46:42 PM4/26/13
to
On Apr 26, 4:36 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Just to let you know where I'm coming from: I'm a fan of the
> stab. 'The cut wounds, the thrust kills' is my mantra. But,
> as Russell observed, "All generalizations are false, including
> this one." So it doesn't mean we can ignore cuts - far from
> it!
Sometimes wounding for a quick, but non-fatal, immobilization is
> Just to let you know where I'm coming from: I'm a fan of the
> stab. 'The cut wounds, the thrust kills' is my mantra. But,
> as Russell observed, "All generalizations are false, including
> this one." So it doesn't mean we can ignore cuts - far from
> it!
better than a death that takes 25 seconds. Cutting the tendons of the
weapon bearing limb is usually non-fatal but it sure makes it hard to
hold on to the weapon. ;)
> The first exercise I'm going to emphasize is 'touch the hot
> stove'. It s purpose is for you to teach yourself that you
> don't need to thrust with a lot of power (it ain't a punch
> where a knife just happens to be in your hand) and that *speed
> on the retraction* and getting FULLY back to base position is
> CRITICAL.
>
> Remember: A knife has killing power but not *reliable*
> 'stopping' power, even if you've stabbed him to the heart.
> So, paradoxically, you are most vulnerable when your thrust or
> cut lands. Your hand (and possibly your body or leg as well)
> is within his reach and your hand is momentarily relatively
> immobile in a known place (his chest?) - you are vulnerable to
> a counterstroke, even from a mortally wounded opponent!
> (Incidentally, are you now starting to see the difference
> between sport and combat? After all, you've 'scored' - who
> cares about retraction?)
Society (Scottish Broadsword) uses a system where a Touch on you
deducts 2 points but scoring a Touch only earns you 1. One of my
friends makes his advanced students spar with table knives ("butter
knives" to most of us); they respect 'em a lot more than rubber or
even wood. I like to use the 15 second continuation rule: just
because you hit doesn't mean that he has to stop stabbing you. My
corollary rule is "Dying ain't Dead."
There are others, but it's the general idea.
nemo_outis
Apr 26, 2013, 7:19:38 PM4/26/13
to
Rabid Weasel Lawson <lkla...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dab68002-ea5f-4e2e...@d6g2000yqi.googlegro
ups.com:
...
Attacks on the weapon hand can be:
1) an end in itself - discourage, disable, or disarm
2) a preparation for attacks on the core (first get past the
opponent's weapons and outer defences)
3) part of our defence (since a knife defends by
attacking/counter-attacking)
Awareness of these aspects with respect to our own
vulnerability is a driver of my dictum to attack fast but
withdraw even faster.
...
frame of mind and into the life-or-death one. It isn't over
until the opponent is incapable or unwilling to continue. Some
men will instantly collapse in shock from a small cut, others
will fight like lions until they exsanguinate. Since it's a
crapshoot it's safer to assume the latter.
'Dying ain't dead' - that's a keeper!
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
Regards,
news:dab68002-ea5f-4e2e...@d6g2000yqi.googlegro
ups.com:
...
> Sometimes wounding for a quick, but non-fatal,
> immobilization is better than a death that takes 25
> seconds. Cutting the tendons of the weapon bearing limb is
> usually non-fatal but it sure makes it hard to hold on to
> the weapon. ;)
Yep!
> immobilization is better than a death that takes 25
> seconds. Cutting the tendons of the weapon bearing limb is
> usually non-fatal but it sure makes it hard to hold on to
> the weapon. ;)
Attacks on the weapon hand can be:
1) an end in itself - discourage, disable, or disarm
2) a preparation for attacks on the core (first get past the
opponent's weapons and outer defences)
3) part of our defence (since a knife defends by
attacking/counter-attacking)
Awareness of these aspects with respect to our own
vulnerability is a driver of my dictum to attack fast but
withdraw even faster.
...
>>(Incidentally, are you now
>> starting to see the difference between sport and combat?
>> After all, you've 'scored' - who cares about retraction?)
>
> There are ways to adjust this in sparring sessions. The
> Cateran Society (Scottish Broadsword) uses a system where a
> Touch on you deducts 2 points but scoring a Touch only
> earns you 1. One of my friends makes his advanced students
> spar with table knives ("butter knives" to most of us);
> they respect 'em a lot more than rubber or even wood. I
> like to use the 15 second continuation rule: just because
> you hit doesn't mean that he has to stop stabbing you. My
> corollary rule is "Dying ain't Dead."
Great ideas - something to get people out of the sporting
>> starting to see the difference between sport and combat?
>> After all, you've 'scored' - who cares about retraction?)
>
> There are ways to adjust this in sparring sessions. The
> Cateran Society (Scottish Broadsword) uses a system where a
> Touch on you deducts 2 points but scoring a Touch only
> earns you 1. One of my friends makes his advanced students
> spar with table knives ("butter knives" to most of us);
> they respect 'em a lot more than rubber or even wood. I
> like to use the 15 second continuation rule: just because
> you hit doesn't mean that he has to stop stabbing you. My
> corollary rule is "Dying ain't Dead."
frame of mind and into the life-or-death one. It isn't over
until the opponent is incapable or unwilling to continue. Some
men will instantly collapse in shock from a small cut, others
will fight like lions until they exsanguinate. Since it's a
crapshoot it's safer to assume the latter.
'Dying ain't dead' - that's a keeper!
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
nemo_outis
Apr 26, 2013, 8:17:14 PM4/26/13
to
The next exercise is more to illustrate a principle to
yourself than for training, but I think it's worth doing.
It's 'thrust with the body' versus 'thrust with the arm'.
Put a stout corrugated cardboard box on a table, bench, etc.-
chest height is best, stomach height will do.
Brace/weight/tape the box so it won't easily slide back.
Stand in front of the box (stance not very important but you
may as well use the one I described earlier) with pointy knife
in hand (point very roughly 8 inches from the box - distance
doesn't matter much) . Thrust the knife into the box by
extending your arm (make sure you don't slip on the grip and
cut yourself - although a box doesn't present much
resistance). Great speed or technique is not necessary - just
thrust the blade straight forward into the box by partially
unbending your arm. Note the degree of resistance (it won't
be high but it won't be zero either).
Next stand a bit further out from the box with your arm fully
extended (i.e., elbow locked). Point of knife 8 inches or so
from the box (exact distance is not critical). Then step
forward with the same foot as the knife by about a foot or so
landing with 60%+ of your weight on it while your arm & knife
just move forward together with your body using no additional
effort or motion. The knife will penetrate the box
'effortlessly'.
The second method is the basis of classic thrust technique
used in western sword arts since the days of the rapier. The
arm doesn't thrust, the body does - the job of the arm is just
to completely extend to put the sword 'out there' before the
body drives the thrust home. Counterintuitive to most.
The bent-arm thrust is a 'fault' in much sword technique (but
not with the knife). But I want you to be aware there are two
thrusting alternatives, not just the one. You won't use the
full-arm-extension body thrust that often in knife fighting
but it's good to be aware of it defensively and offensively
(not least because, in conjunction with the lunge, it
represents the *limit of reach - yours and his*).
Regards,
PS In keeping with my 'all generalizations are false�' maxim
I'm obliged to concede that there are hybrids and variants of
the two thrust methods. But conceptually it helps to think in
terms of the two categories.
PPS ADDENDUM;: There are three main body motions that,
individually or collectively, can be used to drive the locked-
elbow thrust home:
1) stepping forward - anything from a small shuffle step to
a full lunge
2) bending forward from the hips (or, less desirably, waist)
3) rotating the shoulders from three-quarters turned away to
fully turned away (i.e., to both shoulders in line with the
extended arm and blade)
yourself than for training, but I think it's worth doing.
It's 'thrust with the body' versus 'thrust with the arm'.
Put a stout corrugated cardboard box on a table, bench, etc.-
chest height is best, stomach height will do.
Brace/weight/tape the box so it won't easily slide back.
Stand in front of the box (stance not very important but you
may as well use the one I described earlier) with pointy knife
in hand (point very roughly 8 inches from the box - distance
doesn't matter much) . Thrust the knife into the box by
extending your arm (make sure you don't slip on the grip and
cut yourself - although a box doesn't present much
resistance). Great speed or technique is not necessary - just
thrust the blade straight forward into the box by partially
unbending your arm. Note the degree of resistance (it won't
be high but it won't be zero either).
Next stand a bit further out from the box with your arm fully
extended (i.e., elbow locked). Point of knife 8 inches or so
from the box (exact distance is not critical). Then step
forward with the same foot as the knife by about a foot or so
landing with 60%+ of your weight on it while your arm & knife
just move forward together with your body using no additional
effort or motion. The knife will penetrate the box
'effortlessly'.
The second method is the basis of classic thrust technique
used in western sword arts since the days of the rapier. The
arm doesn't thrust, the body does - the job of the arm is just
to completely extend to put the sword 'out there' before the
body drives the thrust home. Counterintuitive to most.
The bent-arm thrust is a 'fault' in much sword technique (but
not with the knife). But I want you to be aware there are two
thrusting alternatives, not just the one. You won't use the
full-arm-extension body thrust that often in knife fighting
but it's good to be aware of it defensively and offensively
(not least because, in conjunction with the lunge, it
represents the *limit of reach - yours and his*).
Regards,
PS In keeping with my 'all generalizations are false�' maxim
I'm obliged to concede that there are hybrids and variants of
the two thrust methods. But conceptually it helps to think in
terms of the two categories.
PPS ADDENDUM;: There are three main body motions that,
individually or collectively, can be used to drive the locked-
elbow thrust home:
1) stepping forward - anything from a small shuffle step to
a full lunge
2) bending forward from the hips (or, less desirably, waist)
3) rotating the shoulders from three-quarters turned away to
fully turned away (i.e., to both shoulders in line with the
extended arm and blade)
TimR
Apr 27, 2013, 12:48:11 AM4/27/13
to
But I think it is reasonable to ask the question: how do we know?
For arts that can be tested in sporting contests, the answer is easier.
For arts that result in one person dead and the other in prison, not so much.
Good thread though, I find it interesting.
Mighty Wannabe
Apr 27, 2013, 2:28:02 AM4/27/13
to
Can a suicide vest be tested in a sporting contest?
Do you need to jab yourself in the eye with a hunting knife before you
know it can blind you?
Timo
Apr 27, 2013, 2:43:13 AM4/27/13
to
On Saturday, 27 April 2013 14:48:11 UTC+10, TimR wrote:
>
> But I think it is reasonable to ask the question: how do we know?
>
> For arts that can be tested in sporting contests, the answer is easier.
>
> For arts that result in one person dead and the other in prison, not so much.
One can spar. Sparring is not sport-fighting. Don't count points or aim to win. Aim to test. Sparring is not a perfect simulation, but it can be much better than sport-fighting.
>
> But I think it is reasonable to ask the question: how do we know?
>
> For arts that can be tested in sporting contests, the answer is easier.
>
> For arts that result in one person dead and the other in prison, not so much.
In principle, one can test knife-fighting methods in sporting contests. In practice, the rules tend to interfere with the sport testing the art properly. (Yes, one can have rules that interfere less (as noted above), but such tends to require a dedication to the art. Rules like that don't tend to make the sport as popular as more sporty rules.)
nemo_outis
Apr 27, 2013, 1:52:39 PM4/27/13
to
Next, the two variants of hand position for the pure thrust.
Much of the following would benefit from discussing forward
movement and the lunge prior to hand position at the end of a
thrust, but I'll continue with bad pedagogy and skip over it
yet again.
The starting 'sabre' grip on the knife I described earlier has
the (single-edged) blade held edge down with the thumb placed
against the back of the blade. Edge at 6 o'clock, thumb at 12
o'clock.
[ I was going to talk in terms of the old (not modern) 'wrist-
position' fencing terminology where the wrist position is
designated as prime, seconde, tierce, quarte, quinte (i.e.,
1,2,3,4,5). These (old) positions correspond to blade edge at
12 o'clock, 3 o'clock , 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock, and 12 o'clock
again with the wrist turning clockwise from maximal one way to
maximal the other way - although many people lack the
flexibility to fully get to quinte and it's a useless
theoretical position only, not a fighting one). But
terminology has changed over the years; the positions now go
up to eight (octave) and refer to guards, parries, and a host
of other stuff, not just wrist position So I'll mostly stick
to clocks�]
Our base position is in tierce (edge at 6 o'clock) with the
hand close to the body and the point slanting up a bit. But we
will (almost) always conclude our thrusts to the body and neck
(and usually other targets as well) in quarte or seconde -
that is with the edge sideways at 9 or 3 o'clock on the
thrust's entry into the opponent's body! Counterintuitive -
it might seem more 'natural' to just thrust in tierce (6
o'clock) - but there are good reasons for instead using quarte
(especially) or seconde.
One reason for inserting the blade sideways is that the ribs
are arranged like half-closed venetian blinds - it's much
easier to slide our blade 'between the slats' with the blade
held sideways. Moreover, in the body and *especially* in the
neck, most of the important structures (arteries, veins,
nerves, windpipe, esophagus, etc.) run vertically. A
horizontal blade (3 or 9 o'clock) is far more likely to cut
them severely (even on a simple direct thrust) than one
inserted parallel to them (6 o'clock).
It's also a bit harder for the opponent to cut the arteries,
veins and 'gripping' tendons on the inside of our forearm
(quarte especially but also seconde) or our thumb (quarte).
But a *key* reason for thrusting in quarte (and seconde) is
that we are far better placed to flow into a 'defensive cut'
on our retraction from the thrust, our most vulnerable time.
When practicing thrusts pay particular attention to *fast and
full* recovery *all* the way back to base position. Don't let
your hand creep out there after doing 3 or four thrusts. And
don't 'pose' at full extension to 'admire your work' but
instead *instantly* retract: Touch the hot stove!
And that brings us to our first cuts: the Cs, Ds, and Js�
Regards,
PS Oh, by the way, the hand turns to quarte or seconde when
nearing the target, not right from the initiation.
Much of the following would benefit from discussing forward
movement and the lunge prior to hand position at the end of a
thrust, but I'll continue with bad pedagogy and skip over it
yet again.
The starting 'sabre' grip on the knife I described earlier has
the (single-edged) blade held edge down with the thumb placed
against the back of the blade. Edge at 6 o'clock, thumb at 12
o'clock.
[ I was going to talk in terms of the old (not modern) 'wrist-
position' fencing terminology where the wrist position is
designated as prime, seconde, tierce, quarte, quinte (i.e.,
1,2,3,4,5). These (old) positions correspond to blade edge at
12 o'clock, 3 o'clock , 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock, and 12 o'clock
again with the wrist turning clockwise from maximal one way to
maximal the other way - although many people lack the
flexibility to fully get to quinte and it's a useless
theoretical position only, not a fighting one). But
terminology has changed over the years; the positions now go
up to eight (octave) and refer to guards, parries, and a host
of other stuff, not just wrist position So I'll mostly stick
to clocks�]
Our base position is in tierce (edge at 6 o'clock) with the
hand close to the body and the point slanting up a bit. But we
will (almost) always conclude our thrusts to the body and neck
(and usually other targets as well) in quarte or seconde -
that is with the edge sideways at 9 or 3 o'clock on the
thrust's entry into the opponent's body! Counterintuitive -
it might seem more 'natural' to just thrust in tierce (6
o'clock) - but there are good reasons for instead using quarte
(especially) or seconde.
One reason for inserting the blade sideways is that the ribs
are arranged like half-closed venetian blinds - it's much
easier to slide our blade 'between the slats' with the blade
held sideways. Moreover, in the body and *especially* in the
neck, most of the important structures (arteries, veins,
nerves, windpipe, esophagus, etc.) run vertically. A
horizontal blade (3 or 9 o'clock) is far more likely to cut
them severely (even on a simple direct thrust) than one
inserted parallel to them (6 o'clock).
It's also a bit harder for the opponent to cut the arteries,
veins and 'gripping' tendons on the inside of our forearm
(quarte especially but also seconde) or our thumb (quarte).
But a *key* reason for thrusting in quarte (and seconde) is
that we are far better placed to flow into a 'defensive cut'
on our retraction from the thrust, our most vulnerable time.
When practicing thrusts pay particular attention to *fast and
full* recovery *all* the way back to base position. Don't let
your hand creep out there after doing 3 or four thrusts. And
don't 'pose' at full extension to 'admire your work' but
instead *instantly* retract: Touch the hot stove!
And that brings us to our first cuts: the Cs, Ds, and Js�
Regards,
PS Oh, by the way, the hand turns to quarte or seconde when
nearing the target, not right from the initiation.
nemo_outis
Apr 27, 2013, 10:43:34 PM4/27/13
to
Program change: I decided against C-cuts as the intro to
cutting.
In keeping with my belief in good cutting as 'small/tight arc,
not big swing' I decided to first teach cutting as a
'development' of the thrust. (It's not that other good
practitioners supposedly believe in big, wild swings - they
don't; it's just my approach to instilling cutting
fundamentals).
So I'm going to do 'stromazone' and 'snap-cutting' as the
starting point.
There are three ways of introducing stromazone 9and snap-cuts
in general): 'punch/thrust with tip-drop at the end', 'casting
with a fishing rod', and 'rap on the knuckles from Sister
Cecilia'. I'm going to start with the first.
To begin, stand in any comfortable stance (perhaps the one I
described earlier) but without any knife. Punch out with your
right hand in a snappy 'jab' with fist *loosely curled* (NOT
tight) and fist vertical throughout (your thumb, if you
extended it, would point up). Pure arm jab (this isn't
fisticuffs) but punch *fast*.
And for this exercise don't retract. Don't retract, don't
even try to slow your 'punch' as it reaches extension - it's
okay if you feel a stretch, even a twinge of pain in your
elbow at the end (This is a 'once or twice' exercise - we're
not going to do this all day and ruin our joints). All the
way out - and 'even more' if that makes any sense - and don't
pull back afterwards (although you can relax and 'soften' your
locked elbow after the punch completes).
Next stage: Go get a good-sized kitchen knife (9 or 10 inch
blade is ideal) with a fair bit of weight to the blade
(pointy, not a cleaver or anything clumsy like that).
Hold the knife vertically in the loosest grip you can without
losing control of it. Repeat the previous 'punch' while
holding the knife roughly vertical throughout, edge directly
forward. (Don't be surprised if the blade flies out of your
hand at the end. Repeat the exercise, but not with a 'death
grip' - just tight enough to keep control of the knife.)
What I want you to notice is that the knife (especially if it
has a relatively heavy blade) has a pronounced tendency (due
to inertia) to 'pivot' at the end of your punch with the tip
descending/dropping in an arc. Do this a few times to get the
feel and look of it.
[How I wish I had described grips earlier to refine the
discussion of the 'pivot'!]
So much for the exercise - now let's turn it into an actual
attack simply by controlling the process. On to the
stromazone!
Start in 'official starting position' with thumb on back of
blade, etc.. Now thrust out your knife (either your small
ordinary one or the kitchen biggie) towards his forehead. But
with a *difference* from our usual thrust.
In the first part of your thrust *lift* the tip of your blade
so it angles fairly strongly up (not vertical, say 45-to-60-
degrees or so). Your hand is now travelling straight out on a
line that would take it to his forehead with the knife tip
moving parallel a few inches higher. However, at the end of
your 'thrust/punch' your knife's tip will 'snap down' both due
to inertia and to your 'guidance' by deliberately dropping the
point using your wrist (and fingers). 'Lightly' using your
wrist to drop the point, not 'muscling' it. (God, how I wish
I had described grip and tip control earlier.) Instant
retraction - touch the hot stove!
If done perfectly your opponent will receive at 3-inch
vertical cut on his forehead using your knife's point and
first quarter-inch of edge.
Believe it or not, this is a devastating stroke. Not due to
the injury to the opponent; the wound is trivial - but showy!
(One extra: profuse blood flow may obscure his vision if he
continues.) It is the ultimate 'insult' stroke, roughly
equivalent to sole of foot to the face from a Thai boxer.
You demonstrate your mastery (especially of distance/misura)
and your disdain for the opponent. It is as much a
'psychological dominance' stroke as a physical one - and the
psychological dimension of combat is HUGE (far more important
then mere technique).
Stromazone will intimidate and dishearten a weak opponent and
infuriate a strong one (and angry men make mistakes). There's
a good chance the opponent will just give up if there's any
indication you will let him - after all, you've had 'first
blood' - you've 'won' (according to the 'duel of honour'
rules), and you can afford to be compassionate. ...if you
choose.
But that isn't all there is or it would just be a curiosity, a
one-of-a-kind special trick.
No, stromazone is just the ultimate ultra-long 'snap-cut' but
other less extreme snap cuts have lots of uses.
More to come...
Regards,
cutting.
In keeping with my belief in good cutting as 'small/tight arc,
not big swing' I decided to first teach cutting as a
'development' of the thrust. (It's not that other good
practitioners supposedly believe in big, wild swings - they
don't; it's just my approach to instilling cutting
fundamentals).
So I'm going to do 'stromazone' and 'snap-cutting' as the
starting point.
There are three ways of introducing stromazone 9and snap-cuts
in general): 'punch/thrust with tip-drop at the end', 'casting
with a fishing rod', and 'rap on the knuckles from Sister
Cecilia'. I'm going to start with the first.
To begin, stand in any comfortable stance (perhaps the one I
described earlier) but without any knife. Punch out with your
right hand in a snappy 'jab' with fist *loosely curled* (NOT
tight) and fist vertical throughout (your thumb, if you
extended it, would point up). Pure arm jab (this isn't
fisticuffs) but punch *fast*.
And for this exercise don't retract. Don't retract, don't
even try to slow your 'punch' as it reaches extension - it's
okay if you feel a stretch, even a twinge of pain in your
elbow at the end (This is a 'once or twice' exercise - we're
not going to do this all day and ruin our joints). All the
way out - and 'even more' if that makes any sense - and don't
pull back afterwards (although you can relax and 'soften' your
locked elbow after the punch completes).
Next stage: Go get a good-sized kitchen knife (9 or 10 inch
blade is ideal) with a fair bit of weight to the blade
(pointy, not a cleaver or anything clumsy like that).
Hold the knife vertically in the loosest grip you can without
losing control of it. Repeat the previous 'punch' while
holding the knife roughly vertical throughout, edge directly
forward. (Don't be surprised if the blade flies out of your
hand at the end. Repeat the exercise, but not with a 'death
grip' - just tight enough to keep control of the knife.)
What I want you to notice is that the knife (especially if it
has a relatively heavy blade) has a pronounced tendency (due
to inertia) to 'pivot' at the end of your punch with the tip
descending/dropping in an arc. Do this a few times to get the
feel and look of it.
[How I wish I had described grips earlier to refine the
discussion of the 'pivot'!]
So much for the exercise - now let's turn it into an actual
attack simply by controlling the process. On to the
stromazone!
Start in 'official starting position' with thumb on back of
blade, etc.. Now thrust out your knife (either your small
ordinary one or the kitchen biggie) towards his forehead. But
with a *difference* from our usual thrust.
In the first part of your thrust *lift* the tip of your blade
so it angles fairly strongly up (not vertical, say 45-to-60-
degrees or so). Your hand is now travelling straight out on a
line that would take it to his forehead with the knife tip
moving parallel a few inches higher. However, at the end of
your 'thrust/punch' your knife's tip will 'snap down' both due
to inertia and to your 'guidance' by deliberately dropping the
point using your wrist (and fingers). 'Lightly' using your
wrist to drop the point, not 'muscling' it. (God, how I wish
I had described grip and tip control earlier.) Instant
retraction - touch the hot stove!
If done perfectly your opponent will receive at 3-inch
vertical cut on his forehead using your knife's point and
first quarter-inch of edge.
Believe it or not, this is a devastating stroke. Not due to
the injury to the opponent; the wound is trivial - but showy!
(One extra: profuse blood flow may obscure his vision if he
continues.) It is the ultimate 'insult' stroke, roughly
equivalent to sole of foot to the face from a Thai boxer.
You demonstrate your mastery (especially of distance/misura)
and your disdain for the opponent. It is as much a
'psychological dominance' stroke as a physical one - and the
psychological dimension of combat is HUGE (far more important
then mere technique).
Stromazone will intimidate and dishearten a weak opponent and
infuriate a strong one (and angry men make mistakes). There's
a good chance the opponent will just give up if there's any
indication you will let him - after all, you've had 'first
blood' - you've 'won' (according to the 'duel of honour'
rules), and you can afford to be compassionate. ...if you
choose.
But that isn't all there is or it would just be a curiosity, a
one-of-a-kind special trick.
No, stromazone is just the ultimate ultra-long 'snap-cut' but
other less extreme snap cuts have lots of uses.
More to come...
Regards,
Rabid Weasel Lawson
Apr 29, 2013, 11:51:58 AM4/29/13
to
On Apr 26, 7:19 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Awareness of these aspects with respect to our own
> vulnerability is a driver of my dictum to attack fast but
> withdraw even faster.
No doubt.
> Awareness of these aspects with respect to our own
> vulnerability is a driver of my dictum to attack fast but
> withdraw even faster.
The only problem is, it's easy to say, "attack fast but withdraw even
faster." ...well, you know the rest. ;)
nemo_outis
Apr 29, 2013, 1:14:18 PM4/29/13
to
Rabid Weasel Lawson <lkla...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:438a6367-aa2e-44a0...@b2g2000yqe.googlegro
ups.com:
...
> The only problem is, it's easy to say, "attack fast but
> withdraw even faster." ...well, you know the rest. ;)
>
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
Yep, but I think it's critical to instil from the outset a
> withdraw even faster." ...well, you know the rest. ;)
>
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
mindset of having the hand out from 'home base' for the
*minimum* time and then *only* if it's actively cutting/stabbing
the opponent, offensively or defensively.
Reminds me of some advice on fucking I got from my uncle when I
was a teenager, "3/4 of the way out is 'home position', not all
the way in - you'll last longer."
Regards,
PS I'm against teaching flow too early before 'full
retraction' from simple thrusts and cuts has been firmly
engrained. YMMV :-)
Knife flow doesn't break my rule *as long as* the knife is
*actively* cutting and stabbing while the hand is (partially or
fully) extended, but it's all too easy for a beginner to get
sloppy about leaving the hand out there, essentially doing flow
as 'flourishes' with the knife, or a sequence of badly-linked
individual cuts/stabs from a half-extended position with
pauses/hesitations/breaks-in-the-flow, rather than as a truly-
flowing active offence/defence.
If it ain't *actively* cutting/stabbing, whether simple stroke
or flow, get that hand back NOW!
nemo_outis
Apr 29, 2013, 5:30:55 PM4/29/13
to
OK, we've done stromazone as a vertical (half-) snap cut at
the end of a thrust in tierce.
Half? Yeah, half - no 'bounce back' to radial deviation [see
footnote 1], just a simple retract once the point drops as if
from a pure thrust.
I want to point out a few things about stromazone:
1) Do not lift your knife tip *before* beginning the
stromazone thrust if you don't ordinarily carry the tip high
in your home position - that would be telegraphing. Raising
the point (if necessary) happens *after* you start your
thrust. In fact, using the 'fishing-rod cast' interpretation
of stromazone, the 'feel 'should be that you don't so much
'lift' the point as you begin the thrust as that your hand
moves out faster than the knife tip initially, thereby raising
the 'lagging' tip, and at the end of the stromazone, the knife
tip 'speeds up and passes' the hand as it makes the dropping
cut.
2) You can use high tip lift (more radial deviation) in your
home position if you favour snap-cuts over thrusts but be
aware that this exposes your hand more than a tip that is only
slightly elevated - I prefer to hide my hand behind the point
in home position.
3) While not the classic stromazone, there are a number of
related stromazone-ish strokes. For instance, a 'stromazone'
can be delivered to the face or neck (or off hand) at angles
other than vertical. Moreover such strokes may use, say, the
first two inches or so of edge, not just the tip. You can, if
you wish, add just a hint of 'draw' cut with your retraction
rather than pure snap with 'bounce back'.
4) You can attack the opponent's knife hand with stromazone
or near-stromazone (with full-thrust, partial thrust, or no
thrust). Unless he has a longer blade or longer arm than you,
he can't really do a direct defensive counter-cut to your
full-thrust stromazone on his knife hand; he can only evade or
withdraw. Unless he's slick you have a good chance of cutting
his hand, perhaps even of disarming him, before he realizes
how long your reach really is. If nothing else it's a
harassing strike that may put him on the defensive and throw
him off his game.
On to snap cuts...
These should be done the way you would 'stalk, then hit' a fly
with a fly-swatter. The strike is a 'very fast and abrupt
snap-down' using either pure ulnar deviation, or a mix of
ulnar deviation and wrist flexion (possibly aided by the
fingers as well), followed by an equally quick retraction back
over the incoming arc. No lingering on target, it looks and
feels like a 'bounce' (even though the target is usually
pretty inelastic and the retraction is actually done by you).
Sister Cecilia used to rap your knuckles with her 18-inch
wooden pointer or ruler the same way.
Raising the fly-swatter, ruler, or knife-tip and extending it
into position is done as a preliminary motion to the abrupt
snap (although that preliminary motion may itself sometimes be
very fast). This preliminary motion can include a thrust or
other arm extension, and a 'raising' of the tip 'above' the
target using either finger, wrist, or even elbow bending,
usually putting the wrist into some degree of radial
deviation/extension. I put 'raising' and 'above' in quotes
because the actual direction of the snap cut arc need not be
restricted to vertically downwards - it can be in any
direction.
Snap cuts are done with the forward part of the edge, roughly
from the tip to, say, the centre of percussion. As discussed
above with stromazone, you may choose to forgo the bounce back
for more of a draw cut on retraction.
Regards,
1) Let's talk about the terminology of wrist movement:
Extend your open hand out at shoulder level, with hand aligned
with the forearm and palm facing the floor.
Bend the hand purely sideways towards the little finger side,
palm still facing the floor - that's ulnar deviation.
Same starting point, bend the hand purely sideways towards the
thumb side - that's radial deviation.
Same starting point, bend the hand at the wrist purely upwards
(i.e., lift your fingertips) - that's wrist extension
Same starting point, bend the hand at the wrist purely
downwards (i.e., lower your fingertips) - that's wrist
flexion,
Here's an image:
http://morphopedics.wdfiles.com/local--files/physical-therapy-
management-of-colles-fracture/wrist%20flexion%20extension.jpg
PS There are also reverse snap-cuts (and other strokes) if
your false edge is sharp, but I'll pass over these for now.
the end of a thrust in tierce.
Half? Yeah, half - no 'bounce back' to radial deviation [see
footnote 1], just a simple retract once the point drops as if
from a pure thrust.
I want to point out a few things about stromazone:
1) Do not lift your knife tip *before* beginning the
stromazone thrust if you don't ordinarily carry the tip high
in your home position - that would be telegraphing. Raising
the point (if necessary) happens *after* you start your
thrust. In fact, using the 'fishing-rod cast' interpretation
of stromazone, the 'feel 'should be that you don't so much
'lift' the point as you begin the thrust as that your hand
moves out faster than the knife tip initially, thereby raising
the 'lagging' tip, and at the end of the stromazone, the knife
tip 'speeds up and passes' the hand as it makes the dropping
cut.
2) You can use high tip lift (more radial deviation) in your
home position if you favour snap-cuts over thrusts but be
aware that this exposes your hand more than a tip that is only
slightly elevated - I prefer to hide my hand behind the point
in home position.
3) While not the classic stromazone, there are a number of
related stromazone-ish strokes. For instance, a 'stromazone'
can be delivered to the face or neck (or off hand) at angles
other than vertical. Moreover such strokes may use, say, the
first two inches or so of edge, not just the tip. You can, if
you wish, add just a hint of 'draw' cut with your retraction
rather than pure snap with 'bounce back'.
4) You can attack the opponent's knife hand with stromazone
or near-stromazone (with full-thrust, partial thrust, or no
thrust). Unless he has a longer blade or longer arm than you,
he can't really do a direct defensive counter-cut to your
full-thrust stromazone on his knife hand; he can only evade or
withdraw. Unless he's slick you have a good chance of cutting
his hand, perhaps even of disarming him, before he realizes
how long your reach really is. If nothing else it's a
harassing strike that may put him on the defensive and throw
him off his game.
On to snap cuts...
These should be done the way you would 'stalk, then hit' a fly
with a fly-swatter. The strike is a 'very fast and abrupt
snap-down' using either pure ulnar deviation, or a mix of
ulnar deviation and wrist flexion (possibly aided by the
fingers as well), followed by an equally quick retraction back
over the incoming arc. No lingering on target, it looks and
feels like a 'bounce' (even though the target is usually
pretty inelastic and the retraction is actually done by you).
Sister Cecilia used to rap your knuckles with her 18-inch
wooden pointer or ruler the same way.
Raising the fly-swatter, ruler, or knife-tip and extending it
into position is done as a preliminary motion to the abrupt
snap (although that preliminary motion may itself sometimes be
very fast). This preliminary motion can include a thrust or
other arm extension, and a 'raising' of the tip 'above' the
target using either finger, wrist, or even elbow bending,
usually putting the wrist into some degree of radial
deviation/extension. I put 'raising' and 'above' in quotes
because the actual direction of the snap cut arc need not be
restricted to vertically downwards - it can be in any
direction.
Snap cuts are done with the forward part of the edge, roughly
from the tip to, say, the centre of percussion. As discussed
above with stromazone, you may choose to forgo the bounce back
for more of a draw cut on retraction.
Regards,
1) Let's talk about the terminology of wrist movement:
Extend your open hand out at shoulder level, with hand aligned
with the forearm and palm facing the floor.
Bend the hand purely sideways towards the little finger side,
palm still facing the floor - that's ulnar deviation.
Same starting point, bend the hand purely sideways towards the
thumb side - that's radial deviation.
Same starting point, bend the hand at the wrist purely upwards
(i.e., lift your fingertips) - that's wrist extension
Same starting point, bend the hand at the wrist purely
downwards (i.e., lower your fingertips) - that's wrist
flexion,
Here's an image:
http://morphopedics.wdfiles.com/local--files/physical-therapy-
management-of-colles-fracture/wrist%20flexion%20extension.jpg
PS There are also reverse snap-cuts (and other strokes) if
your false edge is sharp, but I'll pass over these for now.
nemo_outis
Apr 29, 2013, 8:39:33 PM4/29/13
to
OK, I don't want to put off knife grips any longer…
I'm going to discuss blade-forward grip (blade extending from
thumb side of grasp) in terms of three distinct alternatives
(although there is a continuous gradation between them and a
number of variants I don't discuss). I'm also going to ignore
double-edged blades and all versions of reverse grip (knife
extending from pinkie side of grasp).
For expository purposes we'll assume a knife that has a
straight handle in line with the point, and a handle cross-
section that makes it meaningful to speak of right and left
sides of the handle and also of top and bottom (i.e., not too
round).
The main point I'm pushing is the tradeoff between security
and dexterity/finesse with different grips and at least some
consideration to the option of 'finger play'.
To begin with, place the back of your hand flat on the table
aligned with your forearm (no radial or ulnar deviation).
First case: Place the side of the handle of the knife across
your palm at right angles to the line of your forearm. Place
it 'high' in the palm of your hand, only 2 inches or so from
your wrist, just touching the edge of the meaty base of your
thumb. Now curl your fingers to grasp the handle and curl
your thumb around as well, with the tip/ball of your thumb
touching the 'intermediate phalange' of your forefinger. [See
footnote 1 re terminology - I hope this pedantry aids precise
understanding]
Take your hand from the table and let's see what we can
observe about this 'hammer' grip.
Well, it's a *very secure* grip with great finger and thumb
wrap of the handle, and we can grasp the handle really tightly
- it would be hard to dislodge the knife from our grasp.
On the downside, however, note the following:
1) Even with maximum ulnar deviation it's impossible to
bring the point anywhere close to in-line with the forearm -
it's going to be impossible the thrust well with this grip.
2) Our wrist mobility is considerably restricted. See what
size circle you can trace with the tip using only your wrist -
it's not very large.
3) A snap-cut isn't very snappy.
4) The 'tightness' of our grasp 'radiates' into our whole
forearm and this will tend to make our actions slower and more
clumsy: our actions are going to be very 'muscled'.
5) There is no 'natural' sense of the orientation of either
the point or the edge - it's very approximate. This will
make good cutting difficult (recall my stressing the
importance of the alignment of the edge with the direction of
a cut)
Second Case: Back of hand on table as before. This time
place the side of the handle across the middle of the first
(proximal) phalange of your forefinger to the crease/joint at
the last (distal) phalange of your pinkie. Now, still keeping
your fingers flat, bring your thumb over and, using the *side*
of your thumb knuckle and a bit of its distal phalange, press
the handle against your forefinger's proximal phalange in a
sort of 'sideways pinching' grip. Grip the handle using only
your unbent thumb and forefinger.
Now lift your hand from the table. Unless you've done this
exercise before this grip is going to feel very weird and
unnatural. The most obvious point right now is that it's not
very secure. But keep exploring...
Now, keeping your thumb and forefinger sideways pinch grip,
and with forearm roughly horizontal, turn your hand so that
the blade points upwards and forwards.
Try curling/bending your last three fingers to bring the rest
of the handle into your palm. (Your forefinger can stay
straight or bend a little but retain the sideways pinch as a
pivot.)
Clench and unclench the last three fingers back and forth -
the knife (especially if handle-heavy) will tilt up and then
go nearly horizontal as your grip tightens. When the last
three fingers are bent and the knife is pushed into your palm
your grip will feel a lot more secure than when the knife has
only the forefinger/thumb pinch. But still *way* less secure
than the hammer grip!
Ok, close your last three fingers (you can't really 'grip'
with them, only press the handle into your palm - you sure
aren't going to overtighten your muscles with this grip!). As
you get (slightly) more comfortable with this grip, experiment
with it. For instance, see how big a tip circle you can make
with wrist action - really big! Can you bring the point into
line for a thrust? You bet. In fact it's easy to 'write your
name in the air' with the tip - you have a *lot* of dexterity
and control!
Now try the ultimate purpose of this exercise - finger play!
Try doing a miniature snap-cut just by opening and closing
those last three fingers. Again and again! Then try doing
snap cuts with *both* finger and wrist action coordinating and
unifying them.
Ok, great dexterity, lousy security. But you did get
introduced to finger play, a subject about which many knifers
know nothing!
Third Case: I'm hoping to convince you that this is the
Goldilocks case - not too this, not too that, but just right!
The Goldilocks case is saber grip and it's a close relative of
the last insecure one, but the small differences go a long way
to making it a much better grip. I'm going to cheat - but
only just a little - in describing it to show it off to best
advantage.
Hand flat on table. Place the handle across the middle
phalange of the forefinger to the 'fleshy pad' on the palm
adjacent to the proximal phalange of the pinkie. Place your
straight (or very slightly bent) thumb against the back of the
blade as you curl all four fingers around the handle. Lift
hand from table.
The 'pivot' is formed by the fleshy pad of your thumb pressing
on the back of the handle (or even on the back of the blade
itself) with the bottom edge of the handle across the middle
phalange of your forefinger (or even a bit further out, on the
crease/joint between the intermediate and distal phalanges)
This time even just the thumb/forefinger grip gives pretty
good security since the thumb can press very hard against the
curled forefinger. And, when closed, the last three fingers
can also clench hard. Not quite 'hammer grip' security but
pretty damned good.
And by clenching and unclenching the last three fingers you
can still use finger play - if you choose. Or not.
Point in line, size of tip circle, no muscle tension radiating
up the arm, and other criteria are all pretty good, especially
if the last three fingers are relaxed a bit. IOW the
security/dexterity tradeoffs are pretty good and pretty
controllable.
But I've saved the best for last. (Well, maybe not the best,
but definitely an important point.) Thumb in saber grip gives
an excellent sense of both point and edge orientation. For
instance, you can point with your thumb almost as well as with
your forefinger. The following 'homunculus diagram' gives
some idea of what a disproportionately large amount of the
sensory/motor cortex is devoted to the face and hand, and more
particularly, our item of interest, the thumb.
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_06/i_06_cr/i_06_cr_mou/i_
06_cr_mou_1b.jpg
*****
OK, you've gotten the rap. Now experiment and fine-tune to
find the grip that's exactly right for you. Just remember the
examples and principles covered such as gripping with 'more
fingers' and 'less palm'.
Regards,
1) Terminology: bones of the hand.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Schem
e_human_hand_bones-en.svg/190px-Scheme_human_hand_bones-
en.svg.png
I'm going to discuss blade-forward grip (blade extending from
thumb side of grasp) in terms of three distinct alternatives
(although there is a continuous gradation between them and a
number of variants I don't discuss). I'm also going to ignore
double-edged blades and all versions of reverse grip (knife
extending from pinkie side of grasp).
For expository purposes we'll assume a knife that has a
straight handle in line with the point, and a handle cross-
section that makes it meaningful to speak of right and left
sides of the handle and also of top and bottom (i.e., not too
round).
The main point I'm pushing is the tradeoff between security
and dexterity/finesse with different grips and at least some
consideration to the option of 'finger play'.
To begin with, place the back of your hand flat on the table
aligned with your forearm (no radial or ulnar deviation).
First case: Place the side of the handle of the knife across
your palm at right angles to the line of your forearm. Place
it 'high' in the palm of your hand, only 2 inches or so from
your wrist, just touching the edge of the meaty base of your
thumb. Now curl your fingers to grasp the handle and curl
your thumb around as well, with the tip/ball of your thumb
touching the 'intermediate phalange' of your forefinger. [See
footnote 1 re terminology - I hope this pedantry aids precise
understanding]
Take your hand from the table and let's see what we can
observe about this 'hammer' grip.
Well, it's a *very secure* grip with great finger and thumb
wrap of the handle, and we can grasp the handle really tightly
- it would be hard to dislodge the knife from our grasp.
On the downside, however, note the following:
1) Even with maximum ulnar deviation it's impossible to
bring the point anywhere close to in-line with the forearm -
it's going to be impossible the thrust well with this grip.
2) Our wrist mobility is considerably restricted. See what
size circle you can trace with the tip using only your wrist -
it's not very large.
3) A snap-cut isn't very snappy.
4) The 'tightness' of our grasp 'radiates' into our whole
forearm and this will tend to make our actions slower and more
clumsy: our actions are going to be very 'muscled'.
5) There is no 'natural' sense of the orientation of either
the point or the edge - it's very approximate. This will
make good cutting difficult (recall my stressing the
importance of the alignment of the edge with the direction of
a cut)
Second Case: Back of hand on table as before. This time
place the side of the handle across the middle of the first
(proximal) phalange of your forefinger to the crease/joint at
the last (distal) phalange of your pinkie. Now, still keeping
your fingers flat, bring your thumb over and, using the *side*
of your thumb knuckle and a bit of its distal phalange, press
the handle against your forefinger's proximal phalange in a
sort of 'sideways pinching' grip. Grip the handle using only
your unbent thumb and forefinger.
Now lift your hand from the table. Unless you've done this
exercise before this grip is going to feel very weird and
unnatural. The most obvious point right now is that it's not
very secure. But keep exploring...
Now, keeping your thumb and forefinger sideways pinch grip,
and with forearm roughly horizontal, turn your hand so that
the blade points upwards and forwards.
Try curling/bending your last three fingers to bring the rest
of the handle into your palm. (Your forefinger can stay
straight or bend a little but retain the sideways pinch as a
pivot.)
Clench and unclench the last three fingers back and forth -
the knife (especially if handle-heavy) will tilt up and then
go nearly horizontal as your grip tightens. When the last
three fingers are bent and the knife is pushed into your palm
your grip will feel a lot more secure than when the knife has
only the forefinger/thumb pinch. But still *way* less secure
than the hammer grip!
Ok, close your last three fingers (you can't really 'grip'
with them, only press the handle into your palm - you sure
aren't going to overtighten your muscles with this grip!). As
you get (slightly) more comfortable with this grip, experiment
with it. For instance, see how big a tip circle you can make
with wrist action - really big! Can you bring the point into
line for a thrust? You bet. In fact it's easy to 'write your
name in the air' with the tip - you have a *lot* of dexterity
and control!
Now try the ultimate purpose of this exercise - finger play!
Try doing a miniature snap-cut just by opening and closing
those last three fingers. Again and again! Then try doing
snap cuts with *both* finger and wrist action coordinating and
unifying them.
Ok, great dexterity, lousy security. But you did get
introduced to finger play, a subject about which many knifers
know nothing!
Third Case: I'm hoping to convince you that this is the
Goldilocks case - not too this, not too that, but just right!
The Goldilocks case is saber grip and it's a close relative of
the last insecure one, but the small differences go a long way
to making it a much better grip. I'm going to cheat - but
only just a little - in describing it to show it off to best
advantage.
Hand flat on table. Place the handle across the middle
phalange of the forefinger to the 'fleshy pad' on the palm
adjacent to the proximal phalange of the pinkie. Place your
straight (or very slightly bent) thumb against the back of the
blade as you curl all four fingers around the handle. Lift
hand from table.
The 'pivot' is formed by the fleshy pad of your thumb pressing
on the back of the handle (or even on the back of the blade
itself) with the bottom edge of the handle across the middle
phalange of your forefinger (or even a bit further out, on the
crease/joint between the intermediate and distal phalanges)
This time even just the thumb/forefinger grip gives pretty
good security since the thumb can press very hard against the
curled forefinger. And, when closed, the last three fingers
can also clench hard. Not quite 'hammer grip' security but
pretty damned good.
And by clenching and unclenching the last three fingers you
can still use finger play - if you choose. Or not.
Point in line, size of tip circle, no muscle tension radiating
up the arm, and other criteria are all pretty good, especially
if the last three fingers are relaxed a bit. IOW the
security/dexterity tradeoffs are pretty good and pretty
controllable.
But I've saved the best for last. (Well, maybe not the best,
but definitely an important point.) Thumb in saber grip gives
an excellent sense of both point and edge orientation. For
instance, you can point with your thumb almost as well as with
your forefinger. The following 'homunculus diagram' gives
some idea of what a disproportionately large amount of the
sensory/motor cortex is devoted to the face and hand, and more
particularly, our item of interest, the thumb.
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_06/i_06_cr/i_06_cr_mou/i_
06_cr_mou_1b.jpg
*****
OK, you've gotten the rap. Now experiment and fine-tune to
find the grip that's exactly right for you. Just remember the
examples and principles covered such as gripping with 'more
fingers' and 'less palm'.
Regards,
1) Terminology: bones of the hand.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Schem
e_human_hand_bones-en.svg/190px-Scheme_human_hand_bones-
en.svg.png
nemo_outis
Apr 30, 2013, 1:39:46 AM4/30/13
to
For some reason this one didn't make it through earlier, so
I'm posting it again somewhat out of sequence.
__________________________________________________
Before we get to cuts I'm going to tell you one of the GREAT
SECRETS of the knife...
A knife is not a stick.
WTF?!? That's it? That's the great secret?
Yes, that's it.
Unlike a stick a knife has an edge, and that edge cuts. So
unlike a stick, it matters, it matters a lot, that the edge be
properly presented, *perfectly aligned* with the direction of
the cut. Not 'close', not 'pretty good' - perfect! Even a
small misalignment of the edge drastically reduces the
effectiveness of a cut. So small an error that you may
practice for years and yet not know you are misaligned.
Even extensive sparring practice would not reveal it to you.
You may become very good at 'getting your edge on target' but
how well would it cut once it got there?
Yes, even a misaligned edge will cut, but with proper edge
alignment you will cut *much* better. With proper edge
alignment a cut to the forearm won't just cut skin, it will
cut to the bone, a cut to the hand won't just cut a finger or
thumb, it will lop them off (a Bowie can lop off a hand).
A good way to get better at edge presentation is regular
practice cutting against expendable targets (rolled up
wet/damp newspaper is one imperfect but cheap option).
Practice cutting at all angles (you will probably discover you
cut pretty well at some angles and very poorly at others). It
must get burned into your muscle memory if there is any hope
of it not deserting you in the heat of real combat. (If the
cut is ragged or rough or shows signs of 'dragging' then
either the blade is insufficiently sharp or you are misaligned
(or both). A crisp, clean, and deep cut is what you want.)
I should now present a whole bunch of drills and exercises
here but I'm just going to move on after having delivered my
word to the wise :-)
Regards,
I'm posting it again somewhat out of sequence.
__________________________________________________
Before we get to cuts I'm going to tell you one of the GREAT
SECRETS of the knife...
A knife is not a stick.
WTF?!? That's it? That's the great secret?
Yes, that's it.
Unlike a stick a knife has an edge, and that edge cuts. So
unlike a stick, it matters, it matters a lot, that the edge be
properly presented, *perfectly aligned* with the direction of
the cut. Not 'close', not 'pretty good' - perfect! Even a
small misalignment of the edge drastically reduces the
effectiveness of a cut. So small an error that you may
practice for years and yet not know you are misaligned.
Even extensive sparring practice would not reveal it to you.
You may become very good at 'getting your edge on target' but
how well would it cut once it got there?
Yes, even a misaligned edge will cut, but with proper edge
alignment you will cut *much* better. With proper edge
alignment a cut to the forearm won't just cut skin, it will
cut to the bone, a cut to the hand won't just cut a finger or
thumb, it will lop them off (a Bowie can lop off a hand).
A good way to get better at edge presentation is regular
practice cutting against expendable targets (rolled up
wet/damp newspaper is one imperfect but cheap option).
Practice cutting at all angles (you will probably discover you
cut pretty well at some angles and very poorly at others). It
must get burned into your muscle memory if there is any hope
of it not deserting you in the heat of real combat. (If the
cut is ragged or rough or shows signs of 'dragging' then
either the blade is insufficiently sharp or you are misaligned
(or both). A crisp, clean, and deep cut is what you want.)
I should now present a whole bunch of drills and exercises
here but I'm just going to move on after having delivered my
word to the wise :-)
Regards,
Mighty Wannabe
Apr 30, 2013, 5:03:30 AM4/30/13
to
and Peter Dellys (a.k.a. GDS GreenDistantStar), to dismount from each
other and say you are not cutting a "fully resisting opponent". The
two leg-humping fools think if you are not stabbing each other in the
chest and throat, your are not really practicing at all.
nemo_outis
May 4, 2013, 7:30:08 PM5/4/13
to
OK, I haven't got any response or feedback on my 'knife 101'
series - it looks like I'm preaching into a void, a black
hole. Or maybe what I've said is so obvious or well-known
that I'm preaching to the choir.
In the hopes of kickstarting dialogue, here's a post on a very
secondary and tangential knife subject, but one about which I
hope folks have strong opinions that they will feel moved to
voice...
The topic is switching the knife from one hand to the other.
It might be done for any of several reasons:
1) because one's dominant knife hand has been injured
2) because one's dominant hand has been pressed, grabbed, or
locked
3) as a tactical ploy
4) other?
I'm not a big fan of number 3, although I must concede it IS
an option. As for number 1 it presupposes the injury was not
so severe as to result in you dropping the knife. And for
number 2, I assume the press, trap, or lock isn't an 'instant
disarm' by stripping, etc. (However, such strips and disarms
are ASTOUNDINGLY DIFFICULT to carry out against a resisting
opponent in a real fight at 'large' distance, despite the
great amount of training effort that some Filipino styles
devote to the topic).
First out of the gate, I'm going to *utterly disregard* any
'tossing' of the knife from one hand to the other so beloved
of 1950s Jimmy-Dean-style punk movies - it's suicidal
stupidity!
One important criterion for a passing method, aside from the
KISS principle in general, is that the passing method must be
simple enough to be workable with an injured 'from' hand -
this rules out anything tricky.
So here's my *primary* method (I've got several others), one I
suspect (hope?) will get a lot of criticismů
The guiding principle is illustrated as followsů With empty
hands (i.e., no knife) try closing your eyes and 'clapping'
your flat-open hands together starting with the dominant
'from' hand in any of a number of positions. Unless you are
an utter 'spaz' you will likely find you can repeatedly do
this with perfect alignment of the two hands on contact for a
wide variety of initial positions of the dominant ('from')
hand. It's purely tactile/kinesthetic in nature, no 'eye',
as in hand/eye coordination, required.
Now practice the same move holding a knife. The trick is
this: the closed 'from' hand doesn't open into the flat-palm
position until the clapping flat 'to' hand is within an inch
(or less)! Practice clapping your hands with one loosely
clenched and the other flat-open, only opening the clenched
hand **at the last possible moment** but with perfect
alignment of the two flat-open palms as contact is made. The
receiving 'to' hand then curls around the knife handle and the
transfer has been made.
A variant: For supposedly greater security/retention I used
to practice a variant of the 'clap hands' transfer as follows:
The 'from' hand releases only with the last three fingers
flat/opened; the forefinger/thumb control of the from hand is
retained until the last three fingers of the 'to' hand begin
to curl around the handle. Only as the last three fingers of
the 'to' hand obtain a degree of control is forefinger/thumb
control switched from the 'from' to the 'to' hand. A 'two-
stage' transfer, although a fast, nearly seamless one.
The 'two-stage' method might seem better/more-secure to some
(it did to me at one time) but I abandoned it as unnecessarily
complicated and probably difficult to perform if the 'from'
hand had been injured (e.g., seriously cut thumb). The
unadorned 'clap-hands' version is simpler and just as secure
and can be performed with a badly injured 'from' hand. It's
my version of the nurse's 'firmly slap the scalpel into the
surgeon's hand'.
I have at least one additional method (strip from the pommel)
that I use and a number of others that I've rejected but I'll
leave just my primary method out there for now for comments
and critiques.
So: How do YOU transfer a knife from one hand to the other?
Regards,
series - it looks like I'm preaching into a void, a black
hole. Or maybe what I've said is so obvious or well-known
that I'm preaching to the choir.
In the hopes of kickstarting dialogue, here's a post on a very
secondary and tangential knife subject, but one about which I
hope folks have strong opinions that they will feel moved to
voice...
The topic is switching the knife from one hand to the other.
It might be done for any of several reasons:
1) because one's dominant knife hand has been injured
2) because one's dominant hand has been pressed, grabbed, or
locked
3) as a tactical ploy
4) other?
I'm not a big fan of number 3, although I must concede it IS
an option. As for number 1 it presupposes the injury was not
so severe as to result in you dropping the knife. And for
number 2, I assume the press, trap, or lock isn't an 'instant
disarm' by stripping, etc. (However, such strips and disarms
are ASTOUNDINGLY DIFFICULT to carry out against a resisting
opponent in a real fight at 'large' distance, despite the
great amount of training effort that some Filipino styles
devote to the topic).
First out of the gate, I'm going to *utterly disregard* any
'tossing' of the knife from one hand to the other so beloved
of 1950s Jimmy-Dean-style punk movies - it's suicidal
stupidity!
One important criterion for a passing method, aside from the
KISS principle in general, is that the passing method must be
simple enough to be workable with an injured 'from' hand -
this rules out anything tricky.
So here's my *primary* method (I've got several others), one I
suspect (hope?) will get a lot of criticismů
The guiding principle is illustrated as followsů With empty
hands (i.e., no knife) try closing your eyes and 'clapping'
your flat-open hands together starting with the dominant
'from' hand in any of a number of positions. Unless you are
an utter 'spaz' you will likely find you can repeatedly do
this with perfect alignment of the two hands on contact for a
wide variety of initial positions of the dominant ('from')
hand. It's purely tactile/kinesthetic in nature, no 'eye',
as in hand/eye coordination, required.
Now practice the same move holding a knife. The trick is
this: the closed 'from' hand doesn't open into the flat-palm
position until the clapping flat 'to' hand is within an inch
(or less)! Practice clapping your hands with one loosely
clenched and the other flat-open, only opening the clenched
hand **at the last possible moment** but with perfect
alignment of the two flat-open palms as contact is made. The
receiving 'to' hand then curls around the knife handle and the
transfer has been made.
A variant: For supposedly greater security/retention I used
to practice a variant of the 'clap hands' transfer as follows:
The 'from' hand releases only with the last three fingers
flat/opened; the forefinger/thumb control of the from hand is
retained until the last three fingers of the 'to' hand begin
to curl around the handle. Only as the last three fingers of
the 'to' hand obtain a degree of control is forefinger/thumb
control switched from the 'from' to the 'to' hand. A 'two-
stage' transfer, although a fast, nearly seamless one.
The 'two-stage' method might seem better/more-secure to some
(it did to me at one time) but I abandoned it as unnecessarily
complicated and probably difficult to perform if the 'from'
hand had been injured (e.g., seriously cut thumb). The
unadorned 'clap-hands' version is simpler and just as secure
and can be performed with a badly injured 'from' hand. It's
my version of the nurse's 'firmly slap the scalpel into the
surgeon's hand'.
I have at least one additional method (strip from the pommel)
that I use and a number of others that I've rejected but I'll
leave just my primary method out there for now for comments
and critiques.
So: How do YOU transfer a knife from one hand to the other?
Regards,
Timo
May 4, 2013, 8:04:53 PM5/4/13
to
On Sunday, 5 May 2013 09:30:08 UTC+10, nemo_outis wrote:
> OK, I haven't got any response or feedback on my 'knife 101'
> series - it looks like I'm preaching into a void, a black
> hole. Or maybe what I've said is so obvious or well-known
> that I'm preaching to the choir.
It's standard knife-vs-knife fencing. What is there to say?
> OK, I haven't got any response or feedback on my 'knife 101'
> series - it looks like I'm preaching into a void, a black
> hole. Or maybe what I've said is so obvious or well-known
> that I'm preaching to the choir.
Well, one could say more about grips. There are more major choices than hammer grip, your pinch grip, and sabre grip. Namely foil grip and handshake grip. Also hammer grip with thumb extended, which many call sabre grip, but is different. And variants for short-hilted knives. But in a knife-fencing style coming from sabre fencing, of course sabre grip is the standard. I will use handshake grip instead if it is more comfortable with the particular knife, or sabre grip if it is more comfortable (typical with very short hilts). Handshake works for knives that you can't sabre grip, is more secure for large knives, but it's similar in action.
> A variant: For supposedly greater security/retention I used
> to practice a variant of the 'clap hands' transfer as follows:
>
> The 'from' hand releases only with the last three fingers
> flat/opened; the forefinger/thumb control of the from hand is
> retained until the last three fingers of the 'to' hand begin
> to curl around the handle. Only as the last three fingers of
> the 'to' hand obtain a degree of control is forefinger/thumb
> control switched from the 'from' to the 'to' hand. A 'two-
> stage' transfer, although a fast, nearly seamless one.
> So: How do YOU transfer a knife from one hand to the other?
I do this, but the other way around. Release thumb and forefinger, grab with thumb and forefinger of "to" hand, release last three fingers.
This works for large heavy knives, and for short-hilted knives. Grabbing a very short hilt with the last three fingers is iffy.
Haven't seriously tried "clapping". How is it for security if bumped/hit/pushed?
nemo_outis
May 4, 2013, 9:09:00 PM5/4/13
to
What about the 'off' hand?
What to do with the off hand (the one not holding the knife)
is important. The off hand has a number of functions to
perform:
1) bony shield (better to take hurt there than on your core
or knife hand)
2) blocks, parries, 'pops', and sweeps,
3) presses, grabs, wraps, and traps,
4) punches and other strikes.
5) (rarely) to add a little extra 'zip' to a lunge.
First, let's consider 'home base' for the off hand which puts
it in position to perform those other functions. The key
thing to note about this 'home base' is that it's fully
retracted, not leaving anything 'hanging out there' to get
cut.
There are two variants of hand position: open-hand and very-
loosely-curled fist (to minimize losing fingers). I'll just
discuss the open variant (although I sometimes use the curled
fist variant).
Extend your open left hand so that the tip of its index finger
just touches your right earlobe. Your thumb is very high on
the left side of your neck, aligned just under and along your
jawbone. The whole of your arm (upper arm and forearm) is
touching your body. Try to bring your elbow as far across
towards your centerline (belly-button) as you can without
tensing up your shoulder and arm. Good, the bone-shield of
your arm is in place protecting heart, lungs, etc. as best it
can and your hand acts as a 'gorget' protecting your neck.
This bone-shield base position for the off hand is the mostly
static one from which you will do most of your knife fighting.
In short, the left arm really is the 'reserves &
auxiliaries' - don't bring it into play too readily for either
active offence or active defence - your knife must do most of
the work . ( A master can bend or break this rule - an
apprentice should mostly just follow it.)
Pay attention to where the tip of your left thumb is
positioned - you're going to use it (at least while learning)
as the 'index' for the odd time when you must redeploy your
'gorget' to the other side. During a knife fight you might
sometimes bend/turn/twist your body so that your opponent
(more specifically, his knife) can 'see' the left side of your
neck (and all the vulnerable structures therein!). In such
cases you must switch your 'gorget' (off hand) to primarily
protect the left side of your neck rather than its usual job
of protecting the right side.
To protect the left side of your neck, leave your forearm
exactly where it is. Pivot your hand around the tip of your
thumb (which remains in place) so that, (roughly) the tip of
your left ring or pinky finger just touches your left earlobe
(this involves some wrist extension but no forearm movement).
Pivot back around that static thumb-tip to the original hand
position when you return to a position where the right side of
your neck is more vulnerable than the left side. Practice in
front of a mirror to see what how much unprotected target you
are giving the opponent.
Regards,
What to do with the off hand (the one not holding the knife)
is important. The off hand has a number of functions to
perform:
1) bony shield (better to take hurt there than on your core
or knife hand)
2) blocks, parries, 'pops', and sweeps,
3) presses, grabs, wraps, and traps,
4) punches and other strikes.
5) (rarely) to add a little extra 'zip' to a lunge.
First, let's consider 'home base' for the off hand which puts
it in position to perform those other functions. The key
thing to note about this 'home base' is that it's fully
retracted, not leaving anything 'hanging out there' to get
cut.
There are two variants of hand position: open-hand and very-
loosely-curled fist (to minimize losing fingers). I'll just
discuss the open variant (although I sometimes use the curled
fist variant).
Extend your open left hand so that the tip of its index finger
just touches your right earlobe. Your thumb is very high on
the left side of your neck, aligned just under and along your
jawbone. The whole of your arm (upper arm and forearm) is
touching your body. Try to bring your elbow as far across
towards your centerline (belly-button) as you can without
tensing up your shoulder and arm. Good, the bone-shield of
your arm is in place protecting heart, lungs, etc. as best it
can and your hand acts as a 'gorget' protecting your neck.
This bone-shield base position for the off hand is the mostly
static one from which you will do most of your knife fighting.
In short, the left arm really is the 'reserves &
auxiliaries' - don't bring it into play too readily for either
active offence or active defence - your knife must do most of
the work . ( A master can bend or break this rule - an
apprentice should mostly just follow it.)
Pay attention to where the tip of your left thumb is
positioned - you're going to use it (at least while learning)
as the 'index' for the odd time when you must redeploy your
'gorget' to the other side. During a knife fight you might
sometimes bend/turn/twist your body so that your opponent
(more specifically, his knife) can 'see' the left side of your
neck (and all the vulnerable structures therein!). In such
cases you must switch your 'gorget' (off hand) to primarily
protect the left side of your neck rather than its usual job
of protecting the right side.
To protect the left side of your neck, leave your forearm
exactly where it is. Pivot your hand around the tip of your
thumb (which remains in place) so that, (roughly) the tip of
your left ring or pinky finger just touches your left earlobe
(this involves some wrist extension but no forearm movement).
Pivot back around that static thumb-tip to the original hand
position when you return to a position where the right side of
your neck is more vulnerable than the left side. Practice in
front of a mirror to see what how much unprotected target you
are giving the opponent.
Regards,
nemo_outis
May 4, 2013, 9:22:48 PM5/4/13
to
...
one practitioner to the next regarding switching hands (to the
extent that anybody regularly practices this - I suspect few do)
The method you use seems workable even with an injured thumb on
the 'from' hand, so it has some appeal.
Clapping has been 'very secure' for me - whether that's an
inherent property of the method or just from lots of practice
with it is hard to say. One advantage of 'clap hands' is that
it virtually guarantees a perfect 'mirror position' in the
receiving hand - no grip adjustments necessary.
Regards,
> I do this, but the other way around. Release thumb and
> forefinger, grab with thumb and forefinger of "to" hand,
> release last three fingers.
>
> This works for large heavy knives, and for short-hilted
> knives. Grabbing a very short hilt with the last three
> fingers is iffy.
>
> Haven't seriously tried "clapping". How is it for security
> if bumped/hit/pushed?
I suspected there would be a lot of variation in methods from
> forefinger, grab with thumb and forefinger of "to" hand,
> release last three fingers.
>
> This works for large heavy knives, and for short-hilted
> knives. Grabbing a very short hilt with the last three
> fingers is iffy.
>
> Haven't seriously tried "clapping". How is it for security
> if bumped/hit/pushed?
one practitioner to the next regarding switching hands (to the
extent that anybody regularly practices this - I suspect few do)
The method you use seems workable even with an injured thumb on
the 'from' hand, so it has some appeal.
Clapping has been 'very secure' for me - whether that's an
inherent property of the method or just from lots of practice
with it is hard to say. One advantage of 'clap hands' is that
it virtually guarantees a perfect 'mirror position' in the
receiving hand - no grip adjustments necessary.
Regards,
Mighty Wannabe
May 4, 2013, 10:58:10 PM5/4/13
to
Aussie clappers (clap-infested BJJ idiots), Fraser Johnston and Peter
Dellys (aka GDS GreenDistantStar), will "take you to the ground" and
hump your leg.
nemo_outis
May 4, 2013, 11:10:36 PM5/4/13
to
Now that I've given the basic off-hand position, I'll introduce
a variant:
Instead of placing the 'Y' between your thumb and forefinger
high on your throat you can place it on your chin in a
'thoughtful man' position. But be sure not to lift your forearm
off your body!
The advantage of 'thoughtful man' is a high 'flicking backhand'
parry is a little easier/faster without first having to
maneuver/unhook your hand to clear your chin. The downside is
the tendency to lift the forearm off the body and less
'indexing' consistency when switching your gorget from right to
left or back again.
Regards,
PS A 'very-loosely-curled fist' version can be done with
fingernails touching cheek to mouth to alternate cheek. Less
chance of fingers getting cut off but a shorter hand & arm
shield, no good indexing/registry points, and more tendency to
let the forearm lift off the body.
Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice...
a variant:
Instead of placing the 'Y' between your thumb and forefinger
high on your throat you can place it on your chin in a
'thoughtful man' position. But be sure not to lift your forearm
off your body!
The advantage of 'thoughtful man' is a high 'flicking backhand'
parry is a little easier/faster without first having to
maneuver/unhook your hand to clear your chin. The downside is
the tendency to lift the forearm off the body and less
'indexing' consistency when switching your gorget from right to
left or back again.
Regards,
PS A 'very-loosely-curled fist' version can be done with
fingernails touching cheek to mouth to alternate cheek. Less
chance of fingers getting cut off but a shorter hand & arm
shield, no good indexing/registry points, and more tendency to
let the forearm lift off the body.
Ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice...
nemo_outis
May 5, 2013, 12:16:00 AM5/5/13
to
Ok, my secondary knife transfer method: strip from the pommel
end
This method works somewhat like the two-stage transfer I
described in a previous post. The difference is that the
'to' hand comes towards the 'from' hand, not from the side as
with the 'clap' method, but directly from behind, from the
pommel end of the knife.
First, a 'get the feel of it' exercise and then a step-by-step
description.
Start the 'get the feel' exercise by holding an imaginary
knife in your dominant (right) 'from' hand with your arm
extended enough in front of you for its elbow to be just clear
of your body. Next slide your left hand along your right
forearm with your thumb and last three fingers loosely
circling your forearm but with forefinger extended (not
rigidly so - a bit of curl is OK). The 'Y' between thumb and
forefinger of your left hand slides lightly along the inside
of your right forearm and then over your right hand (where the
imaginary transfer takes place). Then repeat with right hand
sliding along the left arm and then over the left hand.
Alternate again and again. OK, that's the 'feel' of the knife
transfer (although there's no modeling of the actual transfer
itself).
Next here's a description of the mechanics. For expository
reasons I list a number of discrete steps but in reality it's
just one integrated movement with the steps flowing together.
1) Curl the last three fingers of the 'to' (left) hand into
a very loose fist (a broomstick would slide freely in the
'hole'). The thumb is comfortably straight or nearly so and
the forefinger is only slightly curled (nearly straight)
2) Release and uncurl (nearly straighten) the last three
fingers of the 'from' (right) hand holding the knife. The rear
part of the handle of the knife should be slightly clear of
the palm.
3) The 'to' hand approaches the 'from' hand directly from
the pommel end of the knife (but with no actual 'brushing' of
the forearm as in the exercise) with the knife's handle
sliding into the 'hole' formed by its curled last three
fingers (which pass inside the nearly straight last three
fingers of the 'from' hand)
4) Forward motion of the 'to' (left ) hand stops when its
major finger touches the still-gripping forefinger of the
'from' hand. (This guarantees accurate indexing of the soon-
to-be-transferred grip.)
5) The 'from' forefinger and thumb release and the 'to'
forefinger and thumb grip completing the transfer.
Once again, note the similarities with the two-stage transfer
I described earlier.
One good way to practice this is as an alternating transfer
from one hand to the other combined with simultaneous stepping
so the new lead hand and new lead foot match with each
transfer.
Regards,
end
This method works somewhat like the two-stage transfer I
described in a previous post. The difference is that the
'to' hand comes towards the 'from' hand, not from the side as
with the 'clap' method, but directly from behind, from the
pommel end of the knife.
First, a 'get the feel of it' exercise and then a step-by-step
description.
Start the 'get the feel' exercise by holding an imaginary
knife in your dominant (right) 'from' hand with your arm
extended enough in front of you for its elbow to be just clear
of your body. Next slide your left hand along your right
forearm with your thumb and last three fingers loosely
circling your forearm but with forefinger extended (not
rigidly so - a bit of curl is OK). The 'Y' between thumb and
forefinger of your left hand slides lightly along the inside
of your right forearm and then over your right hand (where the
imaginary transfer takes place). Then repeat with right hand
sliding along the left arm and then over the left hand.
Alternate again and again. OK, that's the 'feel' of the knife
transfer (although there's no modeling of the actual transfer
itself).
Next here's a description of the mechanics. For expository
reasons I list a number of discrete steps but in reality it's
just one integrated movement with the steps flowing together.
1) Curl the last three fingers of the 'to' (left) hand into
a very loose fist (a broomstick would slide freely in the
'hole'). The thumb is comfortably straight or nearly so and
the forefinger is only slightly curled (nearly straight)
2) Release and uncurl (nearly straighten) the last three
fingers of the 'from' (right) hand holding the knife. The rear
part of the handle of the knife should be slightly clear of
the palm.
3) The 'to' hand approaches the 'from' hand directly from
the pommel end of the knife (but with no actual 'brushing' of
the forearm as in the exercise) with the knife's handle
sliding into the 'hole' formed by its curled last three
fingers (which pass inside the nearly straight last three
fingers of the 'from' hand)
4) Forward motion of the 'to' (left ) hand stops when its
major finger touches the still-gripping forefinger of the
'from' hand. (This guarantees accurate indexing of the soon-
to-be-transferred grip.)
5) The 'from' forefinger and thumb release and the 'to'
forefinger and thumb grip completing the transfer.
Once again, note the similarities with the two-stage transfer
I described earlier.
One good way to practice this is as an alternating transfer
from one hand to the other combined with simultaneous stepping
so the new lead hand and new lead foot match with each
transfer.
Regards,
Mighty Wannabe
May 5, 2013, 2:23:07 AM5/5/13
to
and Peter Dellys (aka GDS GreenDistantStar) will ignore your knife,
"take you to the ground", hump your leg and make you cry mama.
nemo_outis
May 5, 2013, 4:54:42 PM5/5/13
to
One last, fairly obvious, point about my secondary 'pommel-end'
hand transfer method: It can also be performed by the 'from'
hand moving *backwards* towards the 'to' hand - the relative
motion between the hands is essentially the same.
The 'feeling' of the backwards version is: you retract the
(injured?) 'from' hand to then 'insert' the knife handle in the
'socket' of the awaiting loosely-curled 'to' hand.
The 'to' hand then takes over (usually also involving a lead leg
switch).
Regards,
hand transfer method: It can also be performed by the 'from'
hand moving *backwards* towards the 'to' hand - the relative
motion between the hands is essentially the same.
The 'feeling' of the backwards version is: you retract the
(injured?) 'from' hand to then 'insert' the knife handle in the
'socket' of the awaiting loosely-curled 'to' hand.
The 'to' hand then takes over (usually also involving a lead leg
switch).
Regards,
TimR
May 5, 2013, 5:38:39 PM5/5/13
to
On Saturday, May 4, 2013 7:30:08 PM UTC-4, nemo_outis wrote:
>
> The topic is switching the knife from one hand to the other.
>
> It might be done for any of several reasons:
>
> 1) because one's dominant knife hand has been injured
>
> 2) because one's dominant hand has been pressed, grabbed, or
>
> locked
>
> 3) as a tactical ploy
>
> 4) other?
>
Movie, Princess Bride.
>
> The topic is switching the knife from one hand to the other.
>
> It might be done for any of several reasons:
>
> 1) because one's dominant knife hand has been injured
>
> 2) because one's dominant hand has been pressed, grabbed, or
>
> locked
>
> 3) as a tactical ploy
>
> 4) other?
>
"Why are you smiling?"
"Because I'm not left handed either!"
nemo_outis
May 5, 2013, 6:51:12 PM5/5/13
to
OK, I'm going to give you a sneak preview of where I'm going
regarding the next stage in basic techniques: I want to get
you used to automatically using a preemptive/proactive cut (or
parry/cut) on the retraction (i.e., whether or not the
opponent is actively trying to cut your hand/arm on the
retraction). And there's a fair bit of subtlety/technique in
doing this.
But I've got a lot of other ground to cover before you can do
this 'retractive cut' well. So let's get going...
We begin with tedious, but I hope instructive, exercises:
First, hold your knife out with extended (but not necessarily
locked) arm. Now trace a smallish circle with the tip of your
knife using only wrist movement, with the wrist more or less
kept in a fixed position in space. You can add a little bit
of finger play along with the wrist if you wish. Clockwise
and counterclockwise - get the feel.
Next, same exercise, but this time with a medium-sized circle
originating primarily from your nearly-fixed-in-space elbow
(it's a cone with the knife tip tracing the circular base and
your elbow forming the apex).
Lastly, same exercise, but now 'big circle' originating from
your shoulder.
Try combining the motions, wrist, elbow, and shoulder in
varying degrees (you'll seldom use much shoulder with the
knife - or even with lighter/shorter swords - but it's worth
including it as an exercise).
Next try the wrist and elbow 'cones" (alone/combined) but this
time with the cones turned/tilted somewhat sideways off to
either your inside or outside. Explore how far you can
'tilt' the cones axis sideways before you hit your limit of
flexibility and how smoothly and fluidly you can trace the
circles.
Next, same exercise, but tilt the cones up or down. Explore
the limits, remembering to do the exercises both clockwise and
counterclockwise.. For instance, how much do you gain in
circle size or fluidity by involving finger play? How much
security of grip do you trade for those increased limits?
Finally, repeat all the exercise but starting with a fair
amount of initial bend in your arm and your hand closer to
your body (say, elbow touching ribs). Then finally with your
hand very close to your body in the 'ready' stance that I
advocate.
_____
Next I'll do the 'wagon-wheel' of cuts - but I'm going to
really race through it with little detail - I'm on my way
elsewhere for the moment:
The wagon-wheel of cuts may be thought of as a superposition
of a '+' and an 'x' with the intersection forming the hub and
8 spokes radiating out from it. Straight thrusts originate
from the hub thrusting along the 'axle'. Cuts traverse the
wheel on a line from the tip of one spoke to the tip of its
opposite spoke, resulting in 8 basic cuts. Obviously,
however, in reality there are an infinite number of spokes and
cuts - it's a continuum.
The 'wagon-wheel' can be thought of as a target centred on
some part of your opponent's body or head (high, medium, or
low) or even on a limb. Moreover, the wheel can be of small,
medium, or large diameter. One precept of good cutting is not
initiating or ending a cut (significantly) outside the
silhouettete of his body (or limb) - this sets an upper limit
on the diameter of the circle of perhaps 0.5m (20-inch).
However, it is sometimes convenient to generalize the circle
into an ellipse with a somewhat larger vertical 'diameter'.
The mark of a skilled cutter is 'fast, tight, and linked' cuts
- a small circle is generally better than a large one in terms
of speed, vulnerability of the cutting hand/forearm, and
predictability/time-on-determinable-path. A cut is not a wild
slash and any movement past the silhouette of the target at
either the beginning or end of a cut is wasted time and motion
during which you are both vulnerable and can't do anything
effective offensively.
Explore the cuts with extended and with bent arm, different
circle sizes, all cutting angles, and with different size
circles using corresponding amounts of fingers/wrist/elbow/
(shoulder). Note ESPECIALLY on which cut angles you have
trouble keeping your *edge aligned with the cut* - you may
find you're *ineffective* over a whole quadrant as starting
point depending on the degree of involvement of wrist and
elbow and how bent your arm is initially.
Lastly, note that the wagon-wheel need not be right in front
of you - it can be angled to one side or the other (in some
cases possibly as much as 90 degrees) and possibly tilted
forwards or backwards as well.
More to come...
Regards,
regarding the next stage in basic techniques: I want to get
you used to automatically using a preemptive/proactive cut (or
parry/cut) on the retraction (i.e., whether or not the
opponent is actively trying to cut your hand/arm on the
retraction). And there's a fair bit of subtlety/technique in
doing this.
But I've got a lot of other ground to cover before you can do
this 'retractive cut' well. So let's get going...
We begin with tedious, but I hope instructive, exercises:
First, hold your knife out with extended (but not necessarily
locked) arm. Now trace a smallish circle with the tip of your
knife using only wrist movement, with the wrist more or less
kept in a fixed position in space. You can add a little bit
of finger play along with the wrist if you wish. Clockwise
and counterclockwise - get the feel.
Next, same exercise, but this time with a medium-sized circle
originating primarily from your nearly-fixed-in-space elbow
(it's a cone with the knife tip tracing the circular base and
your elbow forming the apex).
Lastly, same exercise, but now 'big circle' originating from
your shoulder.
Try combining the motions, wrist, elbow, and shoulder in
varying degrees (you'll seldom use much shoulder with the
knife - or even with lighter/shorter swords - but it's worth
including it as an exercise).
Next try the wrist and elbow 'cones" (alone/combined) but this
time with the cones turned/tilted somewhat sideways off to
either your inside or outside. Explore how far you can
'tilt' the cones axis sideways before you hit your limit of
flexibility and how smoothly and fluidly you can trace the
circles.
Next, same exercise, but tilt the cones up or down. Explore
the limits, remembering to do the exercises both clockwise and
counterclockwise.. For instance, how much do you gain in
circle size or fluidity by involving finger play? How much
security of grip do you trade for those increased limits?
Finally, repeat all the exercise but starting with a fair
amount of initial bend in your arm and your hand closer to
your body (say, elbow touching ribs). Then finally with your
hand very close to your body in the 'ready' stance that I
advocate.
_____
Next I'll do the 'wagon-wheel' of cuts - but I'm going to
really race through it with little detail - I'm on my way
elsewhere for the moment:
The wagon-wheel of cuts may be thought of as a superposition
of a '+' and an 'x' with the intersection forming the hub and
8 spokes radiating out from it. Straight thrusts originate
from the hub thrusting along the 'axle'. Cuts traverse the
wheel on a line from the tip of one spoke to the tip of its
opposite spoke, resulting in 8 basic cuts. Obviously,
however, in reality there are an infinite number of spokes and
cuts - it's a continuum.
The 'wagon-wheel' can be thought of as a target centred on
some part of your opponent's body or head (high, medium, or
low) or even on a limb. Moreover, the wheel can be of small,
medium, or large diameter. One precept of good cutting is not
initiating or ending a cut (significantly) outside the
silhouettete of his body (or limb) - this sets an upper limit
on the diameter of the circle of perhaps 0.5m (20-inch).
However, it is sometimes convenient to generalize the circle
into an ellipse with a somewhat larger vertical 'diameter'.
The mark of a skilled cutter is 'fast, tight, and linked' cuts
- a small circle is generally better than a large one in terms
of speed, vulnerability of the cutting hand/forearm, and
predictability/time-on-determinable-path. A cut is not a wild
slash and any movement past the silhouette of the target at
either the beginning or end of a cut is wasted time and motion
during which you are both vulnerable and can't do anything
effective offensively.
Explore the cuts with extended and with bent arm, different
circle sizes, all cutting angles, and with different size
circles using corresponding amounts of fingers/wrist/elbow/
(shoulder). Note ESPECIALLY on which cut angles you have
trouble keeping your *edge aligned with the cut* - you may
find you're *ineffective* over a whole quadrant as starting
point depending on the degree of involvement of wrist and
elbow and how bent your arm is initially.
Lastly, note that the wagon-wheel need not be right in front
of you - it can be angled to one side or the other (in some
cases possibly as much as 90 degrees) and possibly tilted
forwards or backwards as well.
More to come...
Regards,
Mark T
May 8, 2013, 12:50:14 AM5/8/13
to
On Apr 25, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> The following is an introduction to knife dueling: fights
> against another skilled knifer.
> I will restrict the discussion to 'small' knives: Ka-bar and
> under size (8-inch blade max, most often 3-to-5-inch
> folders). What I say has *some* carryover to heavier knives
> like the Bowie but Bowies, Kukris, and other such 'big' knives
> also have some distinct differences. Swords (say 14" blade
> and up) are a very different beast from knives.
>
> 2. Unlike swords there is no blade versus blade engagement
> and so the blade cannot be used to truly 'close' a line, to
> bind or force an opponent's blade offline and prevent it
> attacking, to ward off attacks, etc. The knife can't truly
> defend - it can only attack (albeit sometimes in 'defensive
> mode')
> 7. With blade arts 'tempo' and 'misura' are critical. Tempo
> is 'timing' (not speed) and 'misura' is 'distancing' (not
> distance). For instance, waltz tempo is every bit as valid
> as polka or jitterbug tempo. The emphasis is the
> 'relationship' of two people in time and space in a profoundly
> 'intimate' encounter (literally, life and death). You do NOT
> just 'do your thing' - you must be as 'sensitive and
> responsive' to your opponent as you would be to a ballroom
> dance partner.
>
> You will stand with (right/dominant) hand forward with body
> strongly angled away (but not quite sideways ). This is a
> pure knife-against-knife stance with less provision for
> adapting to a scramble, rush, corp-a-corps, etc. in which case
> you might angle less strongly (but with more exposure to the
> opponent's blade).
Good stuff.
Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
pass. How would you train, in that case?
There's an entire novel resting behind this idea....
Mark
> The following is an introduction to knife dueling: fights
> against another skilled knifer.
> I will restrict the discussion to 'small' knives: Ka-bar and
> under size (8-inch blade max, most often 3-to-5-inch
> folders). What I say has *some* carryover to heavier knives
> like the Bowie but Bowies, Kukris, and other such 'big' knives
> also have some distinct differences. Swords (say 14" blade
> and up) are a very different beast from knives.
>
> 2. Unlike swords there is no blade versus blade engagement
> and so the blade cannot be used to truly 'close' a line, to
> bind or force an opponent's blade offline and prevent it
> attacking, to ward off attacks, etc. The knife can't truly
> defend - it can only attack (albeit sometimes in 'defensive
> mode')
> 7. With blade arts 'tempo' and 'misura' are critical. Tempo
> is 'timing' (not speed) and 'misura' is 'distancing' (not
> distance). For instance, waltz tempo is every bit as valid
> as polka or jitterbug tempo. The emphasis is the
> 'relationship' of two people in time and space in a profoundly
> 'intimate' encounter (literally, life and death). You do NOT
> just 'do your thing' - you must be as 'sensitive and
> responsive' to your opponent as you would be to a ballroom
> dance partner.
>
> You will stand with (right/dominant) hand forward with body
> strongly angled away (but not quite sideways ). This is a
> pure knife-against-knife stance with less provision for
> adapting to a scramble, rush, corp-a-corps, etc. in which case
> you might angle less strongly (but with more exposure to the
> opponent's blade).
Good stuff.
Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
pass. How would you train, in that case?
There's an entire novel resting behind this idea....
Mark
nemo_outis
May 8, 2013, 1:54:24 AM5/8/13
to
As usual, I'm going to take a detour. (If I live long enough
we'll eventually get to cuts.)
The name of this thread is Knife Drills, not Knife Technique,
so I thought I'd pause to give two mental drills and one
physical drill.
The mental drills are predicated on my earnest belief that we
over-concentrate on technique and underestimate the
psychological aspects of knife combat - big time. The mental
component is HUGE - it's not for nothing that the samurai
turned to zen to compose the mind, or that Filipino blade-
wielders give great weight to anting-anting and Oracion. A
skill-ista will dismiss this - a combat fighter shouldn't!
Now for the rambling old-man story as preamble...
My brother is a superb fighter with the sword - rapiers and
sabers (not just better than I am, light-years better!). Note
that I said 'fighter' not fencer - his whole mindset is to
develop himself as a fighter, not as a encyclopedic repository
of technique (although he's gone a long way in that direction
as a byproduct of his primary goal). His mindset is that you
could, say, drop him at midnight into a piazza in 1650 Italy
and he could defeat a skilled trained swordsman of the period
with all that that entails: life & death. Not just tech
skill, but mindset, courage, coolness under pressure, ability
to control nerves under adrenaline dump, manage the
environment (footing, lighting, etc) etc..
I remember one demonstration (I say demo, not exercise, but
it's a close cousin of an exercise) that he used to do against
college fencers - athletic, quick-witted, and quick-reflexed
young men who had trained fencing (foil, epee, saber) as a
college sport. They had decent skill and sharp reflexes but
they lacked a 'combat mentality'.
My brother, who was in his mid-50s at the time (more than a
2:1 giveaway in age), would invite these college fencers to
stick him in a 'one-thrust' challenge. One time only (in
terms of the challenge) - although a person could repeat the
exercise as part of a learning process engaging my brother
afterwards.
My brother would stand with his back 6 inches or so from a
wall (no room to retreat). The attacking college fencer would
be invited to make a single simple direct thrust attack to
mid-chest from a (quasi-) static position *whenever he was
ready* (no feints, footwork, lateral movement, etc). However,
the college fencer could 'inch forward' until his point was as
close as he wished - the only limitation was his sense of
fairness and reality. Most thrust from about 6-8 inches away
from my brother's breastbone, a few as close as 3-4 inches.
All missed! My brother could consistently turn his body 90
degrees before the point landed, thereby evading it. The
young men were always amazed that they had missed such a 'sure
thing'.
When asked, as he inevitably was, to explain how he did it, my
brother would explain there were two aspects:
1) He knew, even before they did, when they would thrust,
and;
2) His attention was absolutely 'locked' onto them and did
not drift even for a microsecond.
I don't have an exercise, other than long and assiduous
practice, that will let you 'read' a person's intent, even as
or before it 'crystallizes' into action. However, the
exercise I give shortly may have some spillover effect here by
'quieting' your mind and letting it 'read the situation' -
unmediated by conscious reflection. Think of how a dog
'knows' what a person is going to do.
However, I do have an exercise for the second aspect,
focussing your mind and not letting your attention drift from
razor-sharp, even over a period of up to a minute or more
(which, believe me, is an 'eternity' compared to what the
untrained mind can do).
I want you to focus, but 'diffuse focus' not 'pinpoint focus'
and I want you to be able to maintain that focus without your
mind becoming 'busy', or 'drifting', or 'zoning-out' or
'spacing-out'.
Here's the first exercise: keep your mind directly 'in the
moment' - unmediated by analysis - and don't allow it to drift
into its conventional method of dealing with reality by
'thinking about it', especially in symbolic terms like words:
Here's the exercise: For the next minute (but if you last even
10 seconds you are to be congratulated) you must not think
about the number '7' (or the word 'zebra', or whatever). If
you're like most of us you'll find this exercise next to
impossible! It's very hard to stifle the 'busyness' of your
brain.
The objective of the exercise is NOT to turn off your brain -
quite the contrary. No, instead we want to actively use your
brain *directly*, not in *analytical, symbolic, rational
mode*. When you're bicycling and you hit a rock, you don't
think 'I must rapidly twist the handlebars to one side and
then instantly back again'. No, you just 'do it'. But your
brain isn't 'turned off' in that bicycling emergency, it's
very much involved - it's just turned on intensely at the non-
symbolic-reasoning level. That's where we want to get your
mind for most knife fighting (at least in terms of the
instantaneous flow - the symbolic mind may still get involved
at the 'strategic' level - as long as that doesn't fuck up
processing at the sub-symbolic level)
OK, now we've done the 'impossible' exercise: don't think of
the number 7 for a whole minute - perceive and act directly
unmediated by symbolic thought. The next exercise, while
difficult, is much more 'possible'. It can even help with the
impossible exercise.
This exercise is a cousin of the zen-ish 'stare at the
candle' exercise. But it's not a close cousin. The candle
exercise keeps attention focussed OK, but it's far too static
for my taste and has a gigantic risk of 'zoning out' or
'spacing out' - you become semi-hypnotized (unless you've got
a monk walking behind you who will hit you with a stick
whenever that happens). I want an exercise that requires
focus and concentration but that's much more active with
direct feedback if you fuck up.
So here's my 'don't let your attention wander' exercise:
Get a big plastic pop bottle with a narrow opening (say 2
litres/quarts and one-inch neck or so). Also get a big open
pitcher with a molded spout (plastic, ceramic, whatever - I
don't care) and fill it with water.
Here's the drill...
Hold the (initially empty) pop bottle in your left hand.
Slowly pour water from the jug/pitcher in your right hand into
the pop bottle taking great care *not to spill a drop* (i.e.,
never let the steam drift away from the narrow target opening
into the pop bottle). Do it slowly enough that we're talking
a *long* time.
Concentrate! You must focus and pay attention in order not to
spill and yet you cannot let yourself get hypnotized or
otherwise zone out. Don't cheat and support your arms or give
yourself any other advantage - quite the contrary, make it
difficult on yourself (perhaps holding both bottle and jug at
nearly arm's length). If you still find it too easy, try
never to let the stream touch the edge of the pop bottle's
opening - keep it centred. Sill too easy? - increase the
distance between pop bottle opening and pouring jug. Still
too easy? Then try starting and stopping without spilling a
drop - perhaps even on an unexpected signal from
someone/something else (e.g., an alarm timer behind you).
Don't forget to switch hands and do it the other way round as
well.
OK, you 'get the point' - focus and concentration, but
*active* concentration. You can now invent your own
exercises.
Regards,
we'll eventually get to cuts.)
The name of this thread is Knife Drills, not Knife Technique,
so I thought I'd pause to give two mental drills and one
physical drill.
The mental drills are predicated on my earnest belief that we
over-concentrate on technique and underestimate the
psychological aspects of knife combat - big time. The mental
component is HUGE - it's not for nothing that the samurai
turned to zen to compose the mind, or that Filipino blade-
wielders give great weight to anting-anting and Oracion. A
skill-ista will dismiss this - a combat fighter shouldn't!
Now for the rambling old-man story as preamble...
My brother is a superb fighter with the sword - rapiers and
sabers (not just better than I am, light-years better!). Note
that I said 'fighter' not fencer - his whole mindset is to
develop himself as a fighter, not as a encyclopedic repository
of technique (although he's gone a long way in that direction
as a byproduct of his primary goal). His mindset is that you
could, say, drop him at midnight into a piazza in 1650 Italy
and he could defeat a skilled trained swordsman of the period
with all that that entails: life & death. Not just tech
skill, but mindset, courage, coolness under pressure, ability
to control nerves under adrenaline dump, manage the
environment (footing, lighting, etc) etc..
I remember one demonstration (I say demo, not exercise, but
it's a close cousin of an exercise) that he used to do against
college fencers - athletic, quick-witted, and quick-reflexed
young men who had trained fencing (foil, epee, saber) as a
college sport. They had decent skill and sharp reflexes but
they lacked a 'combat mentality'.
My brother, who was in his mid-50s at the time (more than a
2:1 giveaway in age), would invite these college fencers to
stick him in a 'one-thrust' challenge. One time only (in
terms of the challenge) - although a person could repeat the
exercise as part of a learning process engaging my brother
afterwards.
My brother would stand with his back 6 inches or so from a
wall (no room to retreat). The attacking college fencer would
be invited to make a single simple direct thrust attack to
mid-chest from a (quasi-) static position *whenever he was
ready* (no feints, footwork, lateral movement, etc). However,
the college fencer could 'inch forward' until his point was as
close as he wished - the only limitation was his sense of
fairness and reality. Most thrust from about 6-8 inches away
from my brother's breastbone, a few as close as 3-4 inches.
All missed! My brother could consistently turn his body 90
degrees before the point landed, thereby evading it. The
young men were always amazed that they had missed such a 'sure
thing'.
When asked, as he inevitably was, to explain how he did it, my
brother would explain there were two aspects:
1) He knew, even before they did, when they would thrust,
and;
2) His attention was absolutely 'locked' onto them and did
not drift even for a microsecond.
I don't have an exercise, other than long and assiduous
practice, that will let you 'read' a person's intent, even as
or before it 'crystallizes' into action. However, the
exercise I give shortly may have some spillover effect here by
'quieting' your mind and letting it 'read the situation' -
unmediated by conscious reflection. Think of how a dog
'knows' what a person is going to do.
However, I do have an exercise for the second aspect,
focussing your mind and not letting your attention drift from
razor-sharp, even over a period of up to a minute or more
(which, believe me, is an 'eternity' compared to what the
untrained mind can do).
I want you to focus, but 'diffuse focus' not 'pinpoint focus'
and I want you to be able to maintain that focus without your
mind becoming 'busy', or 'drifting', or 'zoning-out' or
'spacing-out'.
Here's the first exercise: keep your mind directly 'in the
moment' - unmediated by analysis - and don't allow it to drift
into its conventional method of dealing with reality by
'thinking about it', especially in symbolic terms like words:
Here's the exercise: For the next minute (but if you last even
10 seconds you are to be congratulated) you must not think
about the number '7' (or the word 'zebra', or whatever). If
you're like most of us you'll find this exercise next to
impossible! It's very hard to stifle the 'busyness' of your
brain.
The objective of the exercise is NOT to turn off your brain -
quite the contrary. No, instead we want to actively use your
brain *directly*, not in *analytical, symbolic, rational
mode*. When you're bicycling and you hit a rock, you don't
think 'I must rapidly twist the handlebars to one side and
then instantly back again'. No, you just 'do it'. But your
brain isn't 'turned off' in that bicycling emergency, it's
very much involved - it's just turned on intensely at the non-
symbolic-reasoning level. That's where we want to get your
mind for most knife fighting (at least in terms of the
instantaneous flow - the symbolic mind may still get involved
at the 'strategic' level - as long as that doesn't fuck up
processing at the sub-symbolic level)
OK, now we've done the 'impossible' exercise: don't think of
the number 7 for a whole minute - perceive and act directly
unmediated by symbolic thought. The next exercise, while
difficult, is much more 'possible'. It can even help with the
impossible exercise.
This exercise is a cousin of the zen-ish 'stare at the
candle' exercise. But it's not a close cousin. The candle
exercise keeps attention focussed OK, but it's far too static
for my taste and has a gigantic risk of 'zoning out' or
'spacing out' - you become semi-hypnotized (unless you've got
a monk walking behind you who will hit you with a stick
whenever that happens). I want an exercise that requires
focus and concentration but that's much more active with
direct feedback if you fuck up.
So here's my 'don't let your attention wander' exercise:
Get a big plastic pop bottle with a narrow opening (say 2
litres/quarts and one-inch neck or so). Also get a big open
pitcher with a molded spout (plastic, ceramic, whatever - I
don't care) and fill it with water.
Here's the drill...
Hold the (initially empty) pop bottle in your left hand.
Slowly pour water from the jug/pitcher in your right hand into
the pop bottle taking great care *not to spill a drop* (i.e.,
never let the steam drift away from the narrow target opening
into the pop bottle). Do it slowly enough that we're talking
a *long* time.
Concentrate! You must focus and pay attention in order not to
spill and yet you cannot let yourself get hypnotized or
otherwise zone out. Don't cheat and support your arms or give
yourself any other advantage - quite the contrary, make it
difficult on yourself (perhaps holding both bottle and jug at
nearly arm's length). If you still find it too easy, try
never to let the stream touch the edge of the pop bottle's
opening - keep it centred. Sill too easy? - increase the
distance between pop bottle opening and pouring jug. Still
too easy? Then try starting and stopping without spilling a
drop - perhaps even on an unexpected signal from
someone/something else (e.g., an alarm timer behind you).
Don't forget to switch hands and do it the other way round as
well.
OK, you 'get the point' - focus and concentration, but
*active* concentration. You can now invent your own
exercises.
Regards,
ppint. at pplay
May 8, 2013, 6:12:12 AM5/8/13
to
- hi; in article,
<0fd8213a-d707-4d00...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
markta...@gmail.com "Mark T" suggested:
[]
Yesterday_) ? and a little patch of _Dune_ is apropos, of
course, with robot knife-fighting and swordfighting tutors.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
n.b. cross-posted thread
--
"c'est magnifique - mais ce n'est pas la guerre."
- marshal pierre bosquet
observing the charge of the light brigade at balaclava
<0fd8213a-d707-4d00...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
markta...@gmail.com "Mark T" suggested:
[]
>Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife fighting is the
>rule, even in war, as they developed an invisible impenetrable force
>field, which deflects any fast moving object, but permits slow motion
>to pass. How would you train, in that case?
>There's an entire novel resting behind this idea....
- charles harness' _The Paradox Men_ (merkin aka _Flight into
>rule, even in war, as they developed an invisible impenetrable force
>field, which deflects any fast moving object, but permits slow motion
>to pass. How would you train, in that case?
>There's an entire novel resting behind this idea....
Yesterday_) ? and a little patch of _Dune_ is apropos, of
course, with robot knife-fighting and swordfighting tutors.
- love, ppint.
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
n.b. cross-posted thread
--
"c'est magnifique - mais ce n'est pas la guerre."
- marshal pierre bosquet
observing the charge of the light brigade at balaclava
Howard Brazee
May 8, 2013, 9:53:59 AM5/8/13
to
On Tue, 7 May 2013 21:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Mark T
<markta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
>fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
>an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
>any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
>pass. How would you train, in that case?
I remember reading a SF story where a similar field resulted in using
<markta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
>fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
>an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
>any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
>pass. How would you train, in that case?
bows and arrows in space. Lots of inertia, for a relatively low
speed.
--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.
Greg Goss
May 8, 2013, 11:55:04 AM5/8/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 May 2013 21:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Mark T
><markta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
>>fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
>>an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
>>any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
>>pass. How would you train, in that case?
>
>
>I remember reading a SF story where a similar field resulted in using
>bows and arrows in space. Lots of inertia, for a relatively low
>speed.
Was that one of the Haldeman "Forever War" episodes?
>On Tue, 7 May 2013 21:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Mark T
><markta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
>>fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
>>an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
>>any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
>>pass. How would you train, in that case?
>
>
>I remember reading a SF story where a similar field resulted in using
>bows and arrows in space. Lots of inertia, for a relatively low
>speed.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
May 8, 2013, 5:02:29 PM5/8/13
to
On May 7, 10:50 pm, Mark T <marktanne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
> fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
> an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
> any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
> pass. How would you train, in that case?
>
> There's an entire novel resting behind this idea....
Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
> fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
> an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
> any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
> pass. How would you train, in that case?
>
> There's an entire novel resting behind this idea....
just be a YASID.
John Savard
Moriarty
May 8, 2013, 6:31:47 PM5/8/13
to
the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. It spawned numerous
sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
fan-fic to this day. If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
will be one of the favourites.
Enough clues?
-Moriarty
TimR
May 8, 2013, 8:56:25 PM5/8/13
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:31:47 PM UTC-4, Moriarty wrote:
> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>
> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. It spawned numerous
>
> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>
> fan-fic to this day.
Not to mention being made into the worst.movie.ever.
> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>
> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. It spawned numerous
>
> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>
> fan-fic to this day.
Fraser Johnston
May 9, 2013, 11:48:37 PM5/9/13
to
On 26/04/13 9:22 PM, TimR wrote:
> Yes, it is interesting.
>
> Everything you say seems to make common sense.
>
> But the proof is in the testing, however good it sounds. And I don't know where you can find data, except maybe in prison.
(where you'll be anyway IF you win)
>
I've heard this is quite a good resource on the prison angle.
http://www.amazon.com/Put-Down-Take-Out-Techniques/dp/0873644840
--
Fraser
> Yes, it is interesting.
>
> Everything you say seems to make common sense.
>
> But the proof is in the testing, however good it sounds. And I don't know where you can find data, except maybe in prison.
(where you'll be anyway IF you win)
>
I've heard this is quite a good resource on the prison angle.
http://www.amazon.com/Put-Down-Take-Out-Techniques/dp/0873644840
--
Fraser
Sjouke Burry
May 10, 2013, 1:37:15 AM5/10/13
to
Mark T <markta...@gmail.com> wrote in news:0fd8213a-d707-4d00-bf69-
c0a95a...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
You mean like in the forever war?
This idea is a bit late.....
c0a95a...@ys5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
This idea is a bit late.....
Quadibloc
May 10, 2013, 8:36:23 AM5/10/13
to
Forever War".
I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
John Savard
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
May 10, 2013, 9:12:55 AM5/10/13
to
In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
knife fights.
Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in sections
of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
knife fights.
Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in sections
of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Juho Julkunen
May 10, 2013, 10:06:41 AM5/10/13
to
In article <av4a2n...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
says...
proficient with a knife.
> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in sections
> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
ISTR it was to do with the amount of kinetic energy concentrated on one
point to crack the personal shileds.
--
Juho Julkunen
says...
>
> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On May 8, 4:31ï¿œpm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On May 9, 7:02ï¿œam, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> >> > just be a YASID.
> >>
> >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
> >> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. ï¿œIt spawned numerous
> >
> >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> >> > just be a YASID.
> >>
> >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
> >> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
> >> fan-fic to this day. ï¿œIf they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
> >> will be one of the favourites.
> >>
> >> Enough clues?
> >
> >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
> >Forever War".
> >
> >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
> >
> >John Savard
>
> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> knife fights.
I think they used both. Certainly Paul and Feyd-Rautha were quite
> >>
> >> Enough clues?
> >
> >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
> >Forever War".
> >
> >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
> >
> >John Savard
>
> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> knife fights.
proficient with a knife.
> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in sections
> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
point to crack the personal shileds.
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
May 10, 2013, 10:09:19 AM5/10/13
to
> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On May 8, 4:31ï¿œpm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On May 9, 7:02ï¿œam, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> >> > just be a YASID.
> >>
> >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
> >> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. ï¿œIt spawned numerous
> >
> >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> >> > just be a YASID.
> >>
> >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
> >> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
> >> fan-fic to this day. ï¿œIf they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
> >> will be one of the favourites.
> >>
> >> Enough clues?
> >
> >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
> >Forever War".
> >
> >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
> >
> >John Savard
>
> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> knife fights.
Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> >>
> >> Enough clues?
> >
> >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
> >Forever War".
> >
> >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
> >
> >John Savard
>
> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> knife fights.
preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
In Paul's first real fight, which was a knife duel (in the formal sense
of "duel"), he dragged things out a lot longer than he needed to, making
a poor impression on the onlookers, because he was trained to shield-
fighting and was fighting as if there was one even though there wasn't.
I don't recall swords appearing in Dune at all.
> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in
sections
> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
David DeLaney
May 10, 2013, 12:19:44 PM5/10/13
to
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On May 8, 4:31�pm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>>> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>>> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. �It spawned numerous
>>> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>>> fan-fic to this day. �If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
>>> will be one of the favourites.
>>>
>>> Enough clues?
>>
>>Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
>>Forever War".
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>
>Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On May 8, 4:31�pm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>>> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>>> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. �It spawned numerous
>>> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>>> fan-fic to this day. �If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
>>> will be one of the favourites.
>>>
>>> Enough clues?
>>
>>Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
>>Forever War".
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>
>It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
>knife fights.
Tuned, maybe, but it was SHOWN mainly in crysknife fights. Remember those,
>knife fights.
the tooth of Shai-Hulud?
Not to be confused with the tongue of Shia-Lebouf.
>Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in sections
>of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
good against rays and bolts and coruscating linear lines of death, and bullets
too, but not so good against low-velocity stuff, so the high-grav shock-troop
Marine-analogs had short REALLY NASTY axes made of the heaviest stuff they
could find. Van Buskirk and his merry crew.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
May 10, 2013, 12:20:34 PM5/10/13
to
J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
>only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
>and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
>otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
>Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
Dureum? And no, 'twas axes.
>There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
>only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
>and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
>otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
>Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 10, 2013, 2:14:19 PM5/10/13
to
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 10, 2013, 2:16:13 PM5/10/13
to
On 5/10/13 10:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <av4a2n...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
> says...
>>
>> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On May 8, 4:31 pm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> In article <av4a2n...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
> says...
>>
>> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> On May 9, 7:02 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
>>>>> just be a YASID.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>>>> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. It spawned numerous
>>>
>>>>> Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
>>>>> just be a YASID.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>>>> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>>>> fan-fic to this day. If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
>>>> will be one of the favourites.
>>>>
>>>> Enough clues?
>>>
>>> Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
>>> Forever War".
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
>> knife fights.
>
> Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
> Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
> In Paul's first real fight, which was a knife duel (in the formal sense
> of "duel"), he dragged things out a lot longer than he needed to, making
> a poor impression on the onlookers, because he was trained to shield-
> fighting and was fighting as if there was one even though there wasn't.
> I don't recall swords appearing in Dune at all.
>
>> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in
> sections
>> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
>
> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
>
The material was dureum, but it wasn't immune to inertialessness, it
>>>>
>>>> Enough clues?
>>>
>>> Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
>>> Forever War".
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
>> knife fights.
>
> Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
> Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
> In Paul's first real fight, which was a knife duel (in the formal sense
> of "duel"), he dragged things out a lot longer than he needed to, making
> a poor impression on the onlookers, because he was trained to shield-
> fighting and was fighting as if there was one even though there wasn't.
> I don't recall swords appearing in Dune at all.
>
>> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in
> sections
>> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
>
> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
>
was the only material that could be used as a weapon within a
hyperspatial tube.
Brian M. Scott
May 10, 2013, 2:57:40 PM5/10/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 05:36:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
in rec.martial-arts,rec.arts.sf.written:
It certainly did.
Brian
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
<news:a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
in rec.martial-arts,rec.arts.sf.written:
Brian
Brian M. Scott
May 10, 2013, 3:00:44 PM5/10/13
to
On 10 May 2013 13:12:55 GMT, "Ted Nolan <tednolan>"
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in
<news:av4a2n...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.martial-arts,rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On May 8, 4:31�pm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>>> On May 9, 7:02�am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
>>> > just be a YASID.
>>> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>>> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. �It spawned numerous
>>> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>>> fan-fic to this day. �If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
>>> will be one of the favourites.
>>> Enough clues?
>>Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
>>Forever War".
>>I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
involved a knife fight: a training fight: one of Paul's
training fights early on, and his crysknife duel with one of
the Fremen, in which he seemed to the onlookers to toy
sadistically with his opponent when in fact his training was
just causing him to fight as if they had such shields.
Brian
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in
<news:av4a2n...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.martial-arts,rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On May 8, 4:31�pm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>>> On May 9, 7:02�am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
>>> > just be a YASID.
>>> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>>> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. �It spawned numerous
>>> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>>> fan-fic to this day. �If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
>>> will be one of the favourites.
>>> Enough clues?
>>Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
>>Forever War".
>>I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword
> fights than knife fights.
Every instance of it in _Dune_ that I actually remember
> fights than knife fights.
involved a knife fight: a training fight: one of Paul's
training fights early on, and his crysknife duel with one of
the Fremen, in which he seemed to the onlookers to toy
sadistically with his opponent when in fact his training was
just causing him to fight as if they had such shields.
Brian
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
May 10, 2013, 4:05:25 PM5/10/13
to
In article <10t94ciwqakz8$.1qp9tpkc...@40tude.net>,
Apparently I read it too long ago!
How about the (awful) Lynch movie? Did that have sword fights?
Although I'd hope I'd be blocking any memories from that one..
How about the (awful) Lynch movie? Did that have sword fights?
Although I'd hope I'd be blocking any memories from that one..
Brian M. Scott
May 10, 2013, 4:12:08 PM5/10/13
to
On 10 May 2013 20:05:25 GMT, "Ted Nolan <tednolan>"
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in
<news:av5284...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.martial-arts,rec.arts.sf.written:
not all that keen on movies in the first place -- my
lifetime consumption works out to an average of about one a
year -- and I'm especially leery of movies made from books
that I like.
Brian
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in
<news:av5284...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.martial-arts,rec.arts.sf.written:
> Apparently I read it too long ago!
> How about the (awful) Lynch movie? Did that have sword
> fights? Although I'd hope I'd be blocking any memories
> from that one..
Someone else will have to answer that: I never saw it. I'm
> How about the (awful) Lynch movie? Did that have sword
> fights? Although I'd hope I'd be blocking any memories
> from that one..
not all that keen on movies in the first place -- my
lifetime consumption works out to an average of about one a
year -- and I'm especially leery of movies made from books
that I like.
Brian
Quadibloc
May 10, 2013, 4:13:56 PM5/10/13
to
gimmick, but it was not used _by_ that gimmick: there was a lot of
other stuff in Dune, it wasn't _about_ sword fighting made possible by
a clever pretext. The one weapons limitation I remembered from Dune
was how it inspired the much later Eridani Edict of David Weber.
John Savard
Juho Julkunen
May 10, 2013, 4:49:41 PM5/10/13
to
In article <10t94ciwqakz8$.1qp9tpkc...@40tude.net>,
b.s...@csuohio.edu says...
There was that, but part of it was his reluctance to kill his opponent;
he had never deliberately killed a man in a one-on-one fight before.
I somehow formed the idea that an infantryman's weapon was a sword.
Duncan Idaho's is said to be a "Swordmaster of the Ginaz".
Fremen use knives, but, unlike the rest of the universe, it's not on
account of the shields--the Fremen don't use them. Paul and his father
are noted to have knives on their belts, but that might be considered
more appropriate for nobles.
But, yeah, I can't recall on-scene use of swords either.
--
Juho Julkunen
b.s...@csuohio.edu says...
he had never deliberately killed a man in a one-on-one fight before.
I somehow formed the idea that an infantryman's weapon was a sword.
Duncan Idaho's is said to be a "Swordmaster of the Ginaz".
Fremen use knives, but, unlike the rest of the universe, it's not on
account of the shields--the Fremen don't use them. Paul and his father
are noted to have knives on their belts, but that might be considered
more appropriate for nobles.
But, yeah, I can't recall on-scene use of swords either.
--
Juho Julkunen
Christian Weisgerber
May 10, 2013, 6:08:41 PM5/10/13
to
Mark T <markta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
> fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
> an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
> any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
> pass. How would you train, in that case?
Didn't the shield Lucky Starr received from the Martians work like
> Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
> fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
> an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
> any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
> pass. How would you train, in that case?
this as well?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Timo
May 12, 2013, 3:41:43 AM5/12/13
to
On Friday, 10 May 2013 13:48:37 UTC+10, Fraser Johnston wrote:
> On 26/04/13 9:22 PM, TimR wrote:
>
> > But the proof is in the testing, however good it sounds. And I don't know where you can find data, except maybe in prison.
>
> On 26/04/13 9:22 PM, TimR wrote:
>
> > But the proof is in the testing, however good it sounds. And I don't know where you can find data, except maybe in prison.
>
> I've heard this is quite a good resource on the prison angle.
> http://www.amazon.com/Put-Down-Take-Out-Techniques/dp/0873644840
Doesn't present data, though. Technique and some training methods, but not really relevant to the knife vs knife duelling in this thread (as noted in the OP, it isn't something you can expect to happen in modern Real Life).
> http://www.amazon.com/Put-Down-Take-Out-Techniques/dp/0873644840
I'd make the same comment as Pentecost as I did up-thread: there are more knife grips than discussed. (Pentecost does not like the sabre grip.)
Pentecost is more focussed on practical matters. He, quite sensibly IMO, notes the deficiency of knife-vs-knife in self-defence. Why would somebody choose a knife for defence against a knife, if they had anything better? Knife vs knife is worse than 50/50 if the other guy decides to fight. Why would somebody attack with a knife if the defender has a knife and is given time to deploy it? Why turn an overwhelming advantage into worse than 50/50? Knife versus knife is the stuff of duels, or failure in attack or defence. Apart from duels, it shouldn't happen. One can always train just-in-case, but the training time might be better spent elsewhere if SD is the aim. If entertainment is the aim, then that's a different thing.
Not all knife vs knife duelling was such fencing either; "slice their face open before they even touch their knife" assumes some of the rules of an even duel, but not all of them.
nemo_outis
May 12, 2013, 12:54:09 PM5/12/13
to
If you wish to read it, it's widely available for free on the
net (Har, har, matey!). For instance:
http://www.academyofselfdefence.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/Put-Em-Down-Take-Em-Out-Knife-
Fighting-Pentecost-Don.pdf
Pentecost is quite 'down' on the sabre grip - he prefers
hammer grip. I respectfully disagree!
In support of my case I invite you to look (inter alia) at the
photos on pages 8, 9 & 10 - notice, as my posts emphasized,
that with hammer grip the blade is strongly angled wrt the
forearm. Moreover, if you experiment with this grip you will
find you have quite limited wrist mobility. You can only stab
with a curving action (typically an upwards 'bolo punch'
movement - or a similar action in some other plane) or from
quite close (i.e., you have to get close enough for elbow bend
and elbow movement to contribute much of the variation in
direction of attack). Cuts also tend to be much 'slashier'
and less controlled, and truly *snappy* cuts are
difficult/impossible. In fact the hammer grip even has some
glaring weaknesses wrt to its stock-in-trade, security - for
instance, a circling counter cut against a wrist grab is more
awkward than with sabre grip.
You can get away with the hammer grip against an unarmed man
- the knife gives such a great advantage that you can afford
to 'squander' some of that advantage. However, I think it's a
poor tradeoff - NO unarmed adversary has a fucking hope of
disarming your sabre grip if you have practised well and the
improved dexterity, blade alignment, and blade control is too
important to be lightly pissed away. In short, hammer grip
only works at medium/short range and even then gives away
quite a lot for a small improvement in security.
However: Your life, your call!
Regards,
PS All in all, it's an excellent book.
Fraser Johnston <fra...@cjmanagement.com.au> wrote in
news:av390l...@mid.individual.net:
net (Har, har, matey!). For instance:
http://www.academyofselfdefence.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/Put-Em-Down-Take-Em-Out-Knife-
Fighting-Pentecost-Don.pdf
Pentecost is quite 'down' on the sabre grip - he prefers
hammer grip. I respectfully disagree!
In support of my case I invite you to look (inter alia) at the
photos on pages 8, 9 & 10 - notice, as my posts emphasized,
that with hammer grip the blade is strongly angled wrt the
forearm. Moreover, if you experiment with this grip you will
find you have quite limited wrist mobility. You can only stab
with a curving action (typically an upwards 'bolo punch'
movement - or a similar action in some other plane) or from
quite close (i.e., you have to get close enough for elbow bend
and elbow movement to contribute much of the variation in
direction of attack). Cuts also tend to be much 'slashier'
and less controlled, and truly *snappy* cuts are
difficult/impossible. In fact the hammer grip even has some
glaring weaknesses wrt to its stock-in-trade, security - for
instance, a circling counter cut against a wrist grab is more
awkward than with sabre grip.
You can get away with the hammer grip against an unarmed man
- the knife gives such a great advantage that you can afford
to 'squander' some of that advantage. However, I think it's a
poor tradeoff - NO unarmed adversary has a fucking hope of
disarming your sabre grip if you have practised well and the
improved dexterity, blade alignment, and blade control is too
important to be lightly pissed away. In short, hammer grip
only works at medium/short range and even then gives away
quite a lot for a small improvement in security.
However: Your life, your call!
Regards,
PS All in all, it's an excellent book.
Fraser Johnston <fra...@cjmanagement.com.au> wrote in
news:av390l...@mid.individual.net:
nemo_outis
May 12, 2013, 1:31:44 PM5/12/13
to
"nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1BE64BC...@69.16.185.250:
Once again, I'm teaching the 'classic knife fight' - the duel
between two similarly equipped and trained skilled knifers. You
know, the event that **WILL NOT HAPPEN** to you!
I teach it, NOT because it's a realistic real-life scenario in
our culture - IT ISN'T - but because it cultivates *maximum
skill* with the short blade. And those knife skills ARE
transferable to real life self-defence scenarios! ... with
adaptations, of course :-) The study of the knife may also be
interesting in itself as a hobby, activity, etc.
In support of this point - which I made strongly in my first
post on the subject - you may wish to read the following:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html
There are also many other informative articles on MacYoung's
site.
I may also direct you to some online books about knife-fighting
(I leave to you conscience and judgment what position you adopt
on 'intellectual property rights' versus 'knowledge wants to be
free'.)
Regards,
news:XnsA1BE64BC...@69.16.185.250:
Once again, I'm teaching the 'classic knife fight' - the duel
between two similarly equipped and trained skilled knifers. You
know, the event that **WILL NOT HAPPEN** to you!
I teach it, NOT because it's a realistic real-life scenario in
our culture - IT ISN'T - but because it cultivates *maximum
skill* with the short blade. And those knife skills ARE
transferable to real life self-defence scenarios! ... with
adaptations, of course :-) The study of the knife may also be
interesting in itself as a hobby, activity, etc.
In support of this point - which I made strongly in my first
post on the subject - you may wish to read the following:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html
There are also many other informative articles on MacYoung's
site.
I may also direct you to some online books about knife-fighting
(I leave to you conscience and judgment what position you adopt
on 'intellectual property rights' versus 'knowledge wants to be
free'.)
Regards,
nemo_outis
May 12, 2013, 4:01:35 PM5/12/13
to
I was next going to do was a footwork drill: withdraw and
return of the front leg. But I've changed my mind yet again;
instead, I'm going to do 'curved' stabs.
Curved stabs add variety to our tip-work over pure linear
thrusts. But from the outset I'm going to push the point (I
must have my puns!) of only *slightly* curved stabs, not great
looping arcs.
Earlier I briefly discussed the 'wagon-wheel' in terms of
*cuts* from various angles , notionally aligned along
'spokes' obtained by superimposing a '+' and a 'x'. I also
pointed out that, in reality, there are an infinite number of
spokes and corresponding cut angles.
The curved stabs also make use of the notion of spokes of a
wheel. But 'curved stabs' are delivered with the hand at the
end of a spoke, thumb (in sabre grip) aligned towards the
centre of the wheel, and with blade edge directed radially
outwards in line with the spoke. The tip of our blade is at
or pointing towards the centre of the wheel as it nears its
target.
To prevent our curved stabs becoming great looping arcs or
bolo punches, perform the following gedanken experiment:
From outside range let's say we wish to stab our opponent on
the tip of his nose (it doesn't have to make sense!).
However, our opponent is (craftily :-) holding a pie-plate a
foot or so directly in front of his nose as a shield. How to
get past his shield and stab his nose?
The answer: with a curved stab! But (at least while we are
learning) we will deliver it as follows:
Our curved stab is going to have a LOT of 'linear' to it and
only a bit of 'curve'. From standard position with hand well
back, do a *direct completely-linear thrust*' to *just*
outside the imaginary pie-plate with hand/blade aligned along
one of the spokes radiating from its centre (any spoke will
do, i.e., just outside any point on the circumference of the
pie-plate). As we approach the pie-plate our blade is aligned
along some spoke, thumb towards the hub and our edge directly
away from the hub. Our elbow is bent (a little, not a lot)
because we haven't got to full arm extension.
Now here's the 'curved' part… As the tip *starts* to pass by
the pie plate shield we start to bend our wrist considerably,
almost entirely by radial (thumb side) deviation. This radial
deviation combined with the *slight* elbow bend 'curves' our
thrust and allows our knife tip to get past the pie-plate
shield and stab the tip of his nose. In short we do an 'pure
linear' thrust initially and only curve it into a 'curved
stab' at the last second by radial deviation and residual
elbow bend.
Once you get the hang of it you can slightly compromise how
pure the thrust is in the initial part of the stroke - but
only *slightly* - it's best if you still think of a curved
stab as 'linear, then curved', not 'curved from the outset'.
But if you do think 'curved from the outset', be sure to add
'slightly'!
Never say never, of course; there will be times to use a
looping arc for a strongly curved stab. But think of these
big looping curved stabs as exceptions for special
circumstances - not the core technique. The core technique
for curved stab is: Puely linear thrust directed *slightly
off-line* from the real target but then 'converted' at the
last second into a curved stab landing on target through
radial deviation and residual elbow bend.
Regards,
return of the front leg. But I've changed my mind yet again;
instead, I'm going to do 'curved' stabs.
Curved stabs add variety to our tip-work over pure linear
thrusts. But from the outset I'm going to push the point (I
must have my puns!) of only *slightly* curved stabs, not great
looping arcs.
Earlier I briefly discussed the 'wagon-wheel' in terms of
*cuts* from various angles , notionally aligned along
'spokes' obtained by superimposing a '+' and a 'x'. I also
pointed out that, in reality, there are an infinite number of
spokes and corresponding cut angles.
The curved stabs also make use of the notion of spokes of a
wheel. But 'curved stabs' are delivered with the hand at the
end of a spoke, thumb (in sabre grip) aligned towards the
centre of the wheel, and with blade edge directed radially
outwards in line with the spoke. The tip of our blade is at
or pointing towards the centre of the wheel as it nears its
target.
To prevent our curved stabs becoming great looping arcs or
bolo punches, perform the following gedanken experiment:
From outside range let's say we wish to stab our opponent on
the tip of his nose (it doesn't have to make sense!).
However, our opponent is (craftily :-) holding a pie-plate a
foot or so directly in front of his nose as a shield. How to
get past his shield and stab his nose?
The answer: with a curved stab! But (at least while we are
learning) we will deliver it as follows:
Our curved stab is going to have a LOT of 'linear' to it and
only a bit of 'curve'. From standard position with hand well
back, do a *direct completely-linear thrust*' to *just*
outside the imaginary pie-plate with hand/blade aligned along
one of the spokes radiating from its centre (any spoke will
do, i.e., just outside any point on the circumference of the
pie-plate). As we approach the pie-plate our blade is aligned
along some spoke, thumb towards the hub and our edge directly
away from the hub. Our elbow is bent (a little, not a lot)
because we haven't got to full arm extension.
Now here's the 'curved' part… As the tip *starts* to pass by
the pie plate shield we start to bend our wrist considerably,
almost entirely by radial (thumb side) deviation. This radial
deviation combined with the *slight* elbow bend 'curves' our
thrust and allows our knife tip to get past the pie-plate
shield and stab the tip of his nose. In short we do an 'pure
linear' thrust initially and only curve it into a 'curved
stab' at the last second by radial deviation and residual
elbow bend.
Once you get the hang of it you can slightly compromise how
pure the thrust is in the initial part of the stroke - but
only *slightly* - it's best if you still think of a curved
stab as 'linear, then curved', not 'curved from the outset'.
But if you do think 'curved from the outset', be sure to add
'slightly'!
Never say never, of course; there will be times to use a
looping arc for a strongly curved stab. But think of these
big looping curved stabs as exceptions for special
circumstances - not the core technique. The core technique
for curved stab is: Puely linear thrust directed *slightly
off-line* from the real target but then 'converted' at the
last second into a curved stab landing on target through
radial deviation and residual elbow bend.
Regards,
David Dyer-Bennet
May 12, 2013, 9:26:07 PM5/12/13
to
"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> writes:
> In article <av4a2n...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
> says...
>>
>> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >On May 8, 4:31 pm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> In article <av4a2n...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
> says...
>>
>> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> On May 9, 7:02 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
>> >> > just be a YASID.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>> >> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. It spawned numerous
>> >
>> >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
>> >> > just be a YASID.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>> >> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>> >> fan-fic to this day. If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
>> >> will be one of the favourites.
>> >>
>> >> Enough clues?
>> >
>> >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
>> >Forever War".
>> >
>> >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>> >
>> >John Savard
>>
>> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
>> knife fights.
>
> Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
> Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
This was *before* they went to Dune -- Paul training with one of his
>> >>
>> >> Enough clues?
>> >
>> >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
>> >Forever War".
>> >
>> >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>> >
>> >John Savard
>>
>> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
>> knife fights.
>
> Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
> Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
father's men, maybe Gurney Halleck. They were having a little
discussion about 'mood" as it applies to fighting.
> In Paul's first real fight, which was a knife duel (in the formal sense
> of "duel"), he dragged things out a lot longer than he needed to, making
> a poor impression on the onlookers, because he was trained to shield-
> fighting and was fighting as if there was one even though there wasn't.
> I don't recall swords appearing in Dune at all.
trained that it wasn't mediated by the conscious mind at all, so it's
hard to quickly change your way of doing things. And his training was
for fighting while protected by a shield.
>> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in
>> sections of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic
>> there now..
given the descriptions of using it. Which makes sense, concentating
force in a very small area is how you defeat armor.
> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
the only thing that both sides of a partially materialized hyper-space
locus could touch (and be touched by).
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
May 12, 2013, 9:28:31 PM5/12/13
to
universe. In the Lensman universe, it was just that they could apply
more force than a bullet. Which I don't actually believe, but never
mind that.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 12, 2013, 9:32:33 PM5/12/13
to
Mark T <markta...@gmail.com> writes:
> Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
> fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
> an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
> any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
> pass. How would you train, in that case?
>
> Now, if you're a scribe, imagine a land where knife
> fighting is the rule, even in war, as they developed
> an invisible impenetrable force field, which deflects
> any fast moving object, but permits slow motion to
> pass. How would you train, in that case?
>
> There's an entire novel resting behind this idea....
As usual, no, it's much better as a justification for background details
in a truly great novel -- Dune. (There are no sequels.) The use knives
and "slow-pellet stunners" because shields stop fast-moving things. And
their knife-fighting training is all built around shields, so they're
interested in deceptive counters rather than fast attacks.
J. Clarke
May 12, 2013, 10:19:15 PM5/12/13
to
In article <ylfkr4hb...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> writes:
>
> > In article <av4a2n...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >On May 8, 4:31ï¿œpm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> writes:
>
> > In article <av4a2n...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >> On May 9, 7:02ï¿œam, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> >> >> > just be a YASID.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
> >> >> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. ï¿œIt spawned numerous
> >> >
> >> >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> >> >> > just be a YASID.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
> >> >> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
> >> >> fan-fic to this day. ï¿œIf they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
> >> >> will be one of the favourites.
> >> >>
> >> >> Enough clues?
> >> >
> >> >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
> >> >Forever War".
> >> >
> >> >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
> >> >
> >> >John Savard
> >>
> >> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> >> knife fights.
> >
> > Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> > preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
> > Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
>
> This was *before* they went to Dune -- Paul training with one of his
> father's men, maybe Gurney Halleck. They were having a little
> discussion about 'mood" as it applies to fighting.
And then they engaged in a knife fight in which Paul did much better.
> >> >>
> >> >> Enough clues?
> >> >
> >> >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
> >> >Forever War".
> >> >
> >> >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
> >> >
> >> >John Savard
> >>
> >> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> >> knife fights.
> >
> > Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> > preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
> > Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
>
> This was *before* they went to Dune -- Paul training with one of his
> father's men, maybe Gurney Halleck. They were having a little
> discussion about 'mood" as it applies to fighting.
David DeLaney
May 12, 2013, 11:15:38 PM5/12/13
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
version of neutronium, except that it seemed to be stable in small quantities.
>"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> writes:
>> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
>> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
>> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
>> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
>> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
>
>Yes, dureum. It was never adequately, um, explained; what it was was
>the only thing that both sides of a partially materialized hyper-space
>locus could touch (and be touched by).
Internal evidence indicates this may have been the Lensmen's universe's
>> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
>> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
>> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
>> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
>> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
>
>Yes, dureum. It was never adequately, um, explained; what it was was
>the only thing that both sides of a partially materialized hyper-space
>locus could touch (and be touched by).
version of neutronium, except that it seemed to be stable in small quantities.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 13, 2013, 1:39:36 AM5/13/13
to
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> writes:
>>> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
>>> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
>>> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
>>> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
>>> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
>>
>>Yes, dureum. It was never adequately, um, explained; what it was was
>>the only thing that both sides of a partially materialized hyper-space
>>locus could touch (and be touched by).
>
> Internal evidence indicates this may have been the Lensmen's universe's
> version of neutronium, except that it seemed to be stable in small quantities.
And MUCH less dense than actual neutronium.
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> writes:
>>> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
>>> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
>>> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
>>> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
>>> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
>>
>>Yes, dureum. It was never adequately, um, explained; what it was was
>>the only thing that both sides of a partially materialized hyper-space
>>locus could touch (and be touched by).
>
> Internal evidence indicates this may have been the Lensmen's universe's
> version of neutronium, except that it seemed to be stable in small quantities.
Rabid Weasel Lawson
May 13, 2013, 1:20:10 PM5/13/13
to
On May 5, 6:51 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Next I'll do the 'wagon-wheel' of cuts - but I'm going to
> really race through it with little detail - I'm on my way
> elsewhere for the moment:
>
> The wagon-wheel of cuts may be thought of as a superposition
> of a '+' and an 'x' with the intersection forming the hub and
> 8 spokes radiating out from it. Straight thrusts originate
> from the hub thrusting along the 'axle'. Cuts traverse the
> wheel on a line from the tip of one spoke to the tip of its
> opposite spoke, resulting in 8 basic cuts. Obviously,
> however, in reality there are an infinite number of spokes and
> cuts - it's a continuum.
http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/angles/angles.html
Some modern knife instructors prefer the Clock Face.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
> Next I'll do the 'wagon-wheel' of cuts - but I'm going to
> really race through it with little detail - I'm on my way
> elsewhere for the moment:
>
> The wagon-wheel of cuts may be thought of as a superposition
> of a '+' and an 'x' with the intersection forming the hub and
> 8 spokes radiating out from it. Straight thrusts originate
> from the hub thrusting along the 'axle'. Cuts traverse the
> wheel on a line from the tip of one spoke to the tip of its
> opposite spoke, resulting in 8 basic cuts. Obviously,
> however, in reality there are an infinite number of spokes and
> cuts - it's a continuum.
http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/angles/angles.html
Some modern knife instructors prefer the Clock Face.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Rabid Weasel Lawson
May 13, 2013, 1:25:59 PM5/13/13
to
sounds like it but with a little bit of other stuff thrown in for good
measure.
Rabid Weasel Lawson
May 13, 2013, 1:29:39 PM5/13/13
to
On May 10, 9:12 am, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in sections
> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
No. Smith's "Space Armor" sported defensive fields which would stop
> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in sections
> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
hand-held energy weapons ("blasters" such as DeLameters).
Rabid Weasel Lawson
May 13, 2013, 1:34:48 PM5/13/13
to
On May 10, 10:09 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <av4a2nFf0b...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee-981e-501d3bf70...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > >On May 8, 4:31 pm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
material. Not inertialess.
> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
The "Space Marines" lead by VanBuskirk (from the planet "Valaria" ims)
used a "Space Ax" which was described as a long-ish handled, one-
handed, device with a front beak (traditional tomahawk-like axe) and a
rear "pick" described as almost like a "can opener." There are
analogs the Knightly Pole-Axes used against armor in the 16th-ish
Century. May have been the inspiration for Smith.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
> In article <av4a2nFf0b...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <a48632af-7cdb-46ee-981e-501d3bf70...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > >On May 8, 4:31 pm, Moriarty <blue...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> > >> On May 9, 7:02 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> > >> > just be a YASID.
>
> > >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
> > >> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. It spawned numerous
>
> > >> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
> > >> > just be a YASID.
>
> > >> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
> > >> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
> > >> fan-fic to this day. If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
> > >> will be one of the favourites.
>
> > >> Enough clues?
>
> > >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
> > >Forever War".
>
> > >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>
> > >John Savard
>
> > It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> > knife fights.
>
> Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
> Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
> In Paul's first real fight, which was a knife duel (in the formal sense
> of "duel"), he dragged things out a lot longer than he needed to, making
> a poor impression on the onlookers, because he was trained to shield-
> fighting and was fighting as if there was one even though there wasn't.
> I don't recall swords appearing in Dune at all.
>
>
>
> > Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in
> sections
> > of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
>
> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
Later in the books, when they entered the Vortex tube. Ultra-dense
>
> > >> Enough clues?
>
> > >Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The
> > >Forever War".
>
> > >I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>
> > >John Savard
>
> > It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> > knife fights.
>
> Remember that the Fremen were knife fighters--the Crysknife was their
> preferred weapon. A training match with shields ended up a draw as both
> Paul and his instructor had their knives in position for lethal strokes.
> In Paul's first real fight, which was a knife duel (in the formal sense
> of "duel"), he dragged things out a lot longer than he needed to, making
> a poor impression on the onlookers, because he was trained to shield-
> fighting and was fighting as if there was one even though there wasn't.
> I don't recall swords appearing in Dune at all.
>
>
>
> > Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in
> sections
> > of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
>
> There was a material, the name of which escapes me now, that was the
> only substance that could not be rendered inertialess by a Bergenholm,
material. Not inertialess.
> and so was useful for weapons to be used in hand to hand combat under
> otherwise inertialess conditions. For some reason I thought that van
> Buskirk & company used hammers, though--maybe I'm misremembering.
used a "Space Ax" which was described as a long-ish handled, one-
handed, device with a front beak (traditional tomahawk-like axe) and a
rear "pick" described as almost like a "can opener." There are
analogs the Knightly Pole-Axes used against armor in the 16th-ish
Century. May have been the inspiration for Smith.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Rabid Weasel Lawson
May 13, 2013, 1:45:10 PM5/13/13
to
On May 12, 9:28 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
> > Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) writes:
> > Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
"Space Armor" was composed of a hardened steel alloy, vacuum proof,
armored space suit with portable defensive screens. The steel alloy
protected against handguns and the energy shields against handheld
directed energy weapons. In the Lensman Universe, "Kim" Kinnison was
seriously injured in one of his early solo missions by the "Wheel Men"
using high velocity machine guns to swiss-cheese his standard issue
"Space Armor." The then had a special suit constructed to withstand
all small arms fire, which allowed him to overcome Helmuth when, as
they were grappling both rolled through high velocity machine gun
fire, Helmuth's "Space Armor" was penetrated but Kinnison's was not.
Will in New Haven
May 13, 2013, 2:03:08 PM5/13/13
to
LoL. I've read the book and heard Phil make the "I can dodge bullets"
claim several times and I never made the connection before now.
--
Will in New Haven
nemo_outis
May 13, 2013, 2:32:11 PM5/13/13
to
Rabid Weasel Lawson <lkla...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e4c433d2-5427-475c...@n11g2000yqe.googlegr
oups.com:
...
I was making a distinction between a 'pure linear' thrust
where the hand moves on an *absolutely straight line* from its
starting position to the target to insert the knife point, and
a 'curving stab' where the hand moves over a *curved arc* from
starting position to insert the point in the target.
I then added the subtlety to 'substitute' for the single
curved arc a two-part connected path: a straight line for the
first half or 2/3 of the stroke 'as if' you were doing a
direct linear thrust to a *different* target somewhat
*offline* from your true target followed by an arc in the
second stage of the stroke that brings your point back onto
that true target for the stab.
As for Mandritti and Reversi, my understanding is that *at
core* they are about the degree of pronation/supination of the
hand. For instance, if (using sabre grip) you thrust into the
target with thumb at 9 o'clock, fingernails at 6 o'clock, and
edge at 3 o'clock, you are in Mandritti; if you land with
thumb at 3 o'clock, fingernails at 12 o'clock, and blade at 9
o'clock, you are in Reversi.
In my view you can be in Mandritti or Reversi for either a
purely linear thrust or a curved stab. In fact, you can be a
lot of positions between or even beyond Mandritti/Reversi;
depending on your degree of flexibility the hand can rotate in
pronation/supination somewhere between 270-degrees and 450-
degrees.
Personally (in sabre grip, with arm extended, and with 'no
help' from bending my elbow) I can go from thumb at 4 o'clock
(maximum counterclockwise rotation of right hand - pronation)
to thumb at 5 o'clock (maximum clockwise rotation of right
hand - supination). In principle, the hand could be rotated
anywhere within this range when doing a thrust, although some
positions are rather strained and impractical.
Regards,
PS More range of rotation of the hand/blade can be obtained
if a bent elbow 'helps'.
news:e4c433d2-5427-475c...@n11g2000yqe.googlegr
oups.com:
...
> Are you talking about the Mandriti and Reversi type
> attacks? It sounds like it but with a little bit of other
> stuff thrown in for good measure.
>
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
Not quite.
> attacks? It sounds like it but with a little bit of other
> stuff thrown in for good measure.
>
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
I was making a distinction between a 'pure linear' thrust
where the hand moves on an *absolutely straight line* from its
starting position to the target to insert the knife point, and
a 'curving stab' where the hand moves over a *curved arc* from
starting position to insert the point in the target.
I then added the subtlety to 'substitute' for the single
curved arc a two-part connected path: a straight line for the
first half or 2/3 of the stroke 'as if' you were doing a
direct linear thrust to a *different* target somewhat
*offline* from your true target followed by an arc in the
second stage of the stroke that brings your point back onto
that true target for the stab.
As for Mandritti and Reversi, my understanding is that *at
core* they are about the degree of pronation/supination of the
hand. For instance, if (using sabre grip) you thrust into the
target with thumb at 9 o'clock, fingernails at 6 o'clock, and
edge at 3 o'clock, you are in Mandritti; if you land with
thumb at 3 o'clock, fingernails at 12 o'clock, and blade at 9
o'clock, you are in Reversi.
In my view you can be in Mandritti or Reversi for either a
purely linear thrust or a curved stab. In fact, you can be a
lot of positions between or even beyond Mandritti/Reversi;
depending on your degree of flexibility the hand can rotate in
pronation/supination somewhere between 270-degrees and 450-
degrees.
Personally (in sabre grip, with arm extended, and with 'no
help' from bending my elbow) I can go from thumb at 4 o'clock
(maximum counterclockwise rotation of right hand - pronation)
to thumb at 5 o'clock (maximum clockwise rotation of right
hand - supination). In principle, the hand could be rotated
anywhere within this range when doing a thrust, although some
positions are rather strained and impractical.
Regards,
PS More range of rotation of the hand/blade can be obtained
if a bent elbow 'helps'.
Brian M. Scott
May 13, 2013, 5:09:24 PM5/13/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 20:32:33 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfkehdb...@dd-b.net> in
rec.martial-arts,rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> a truly great novel -- Dune. (There are no sequels.)
_Chapterhouse: Dune_, the last one that he wrote, is
actually quite decent, albeit nowhere near the level of
_Dune_.
[...]
Brian
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfkehdb...@dd-b.net> in
rec.martial-arts,rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> a truly great novel -- Dune. (There are no sequels.)
actually quite decent, albeit nowhere near the level of
_Dune_.
[...]
Brian
nemo_outis
May 13, 2013, 5:43:50 PM5/13/13
to
"nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1BF755AD...@69.16.185.247:
Let me add a further clarification:
I'm going to describe what I think you mean by, say, punto
reverso. In doing so I will be making some crude
approximations and chopping the technique up into pieces,
which somewhat unfairly characterizes it. But this is only
for the sake of clarity in exposition; I realize the actual
technique would be smooth and seamless.
With your punto reverso (as I understand or misunderstand it)
from standard position you would, either in preparation for
the stroke or very early in execution of the stroke, move your
right hand a 10-inches or so to your left - but not advancing
it forward to any significant degree. (You might even augment
this initial sideways movement of the blade with a step
sideways/circling with your left foot.)
From this new more-leftwards hand position you would then arc
a thrust, fingernails up, into the opponent.
The distinction is this:
1) In both your punto reverso and my 'curved stab' to 9
o'clock, we would stab the opponent in the same place. We
*end* the same.
2) However, my 'curving stab' makes no 'early' change in hand
position; I initiate the curving stab directly from 'standard
position'. No left step either (in the basic version).
3) I do a purely linear thrust from basic position
towards/just-outside the opponent's left shoulder - a thrust
that, if continued, wouldn't/couldn't hit anything (it's
offline from his body). This linear thrust is (typically)
done with edge at 6 o'clock.
4) Only once my guaranteed-to-miss linear thrust is 1/2 to 2/3
extended do I instantly turn my hand over to fingernails up
(blade at 9 o'clock), radially flex my wrist strongly, and arc
my thrust bringing it back in from my left to stab the target.
In short, it's sorta, kinda the same technique, but I reach my
'furthest left' position, not near the beginning of the
stroke, but when I'm 1/2 or more extended. Only then do I arc
back in. Moreover, my furthest left position is much less
than yours.
I use the same principle for all the other 'o'clocks'
(mandritti, etc.) when executing curved stabs.
For reverso, you move the blade max-left early in the stroke;
I get to max-left much later in the stroke and it's to a
lesser degree.
Does this make sense to you?
Regards,
news:XnsA1BF755AD...@69.16.185.247:
Let me add a further clarification:
I'm going to describe what I think you mean by, say, punto
reverso. In doing so I will be making some crude
approximations and chopping the technique up into pieces,
which somewhat unfairly characterizes it. But this is only
for the sake of clarity in exposition; I realize the actual
technique would be smooth and seamless.
With your punto reverso (as I understand or misunderstand it)
from standard position you would, either in preparation for
the stroke or very early in execution of the stroke, move your
right hand a 10-inches or so to your left - but not advancing
it forward to any significant degree. (You might even augment
this initial sideways movement of the blade with a step
sideways/circling with your left foot.)
From this new more-leftwards hand position you would then arc
a thrust, fingernails up, into the opponent.
The distinction is this:
1) In both your punto reverso and my 'curved stab' to 9
o'clock, we would stab the opponent in the same place. We
*end* the same.
2) However, my 'curving stab' makes no 'early' change in hand
position; I initiate the curving stab directly from 'standard
position'. No left step either (in the basic version).
3) I do a purely linear thrust from basic position
towards/just-outside the opponent's left shoulder - a thrust
that, if continued, wouldn't/couldn't hit anything (it's
offline from his body). This linear thrust is (typically)
done with edge at 6 o'clock.
4) Only once my guaranteed-to-miss linear thrust is 1/2 to 2/3
extended do I instantly turn my hand over to fingernails up
(blade at 9 o'clock), radially flex my wrist strongly, and arc
my thrust bringing it back in from my left to stab the target.
In short, it's sorta, kinda the same technique, but I reach my
'furthest left' position, not near the beginning of the
stroke, but when I'm 1/2 or more extended. Only then do I arc
back in. Moreover, my furthest left position is much less
than yours.
I use the same principle for all the other 'o'clocks'
(mandritti, etc.) when executing curved stabs.
For reverso, you move the blade max-left early in the stroke;
I get to max-left much later in the stroke and it's to a
lesser degree.
Does this make sense to you?
Regards,
nemo_outis
May 13, 2013, 5:58:30 PM5/13/13
to
"nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1BF95D91...@69.16.185.247:
SHIT - CORRECTION!
> 3) I do a purely linear thrust from basic position
> towards/just-outside the opponent's ***RIGHT*** shoulder - a
news:XnsA1BF95D91...@69.16.185.247:
SHIT - CORRECTION!
> 3) I do a purely linear thrust from basic position
TimR
May 14, 2013, 9:11:29 AM5/14/13
to
You may have covered this already, but the thread is long and I've been in and out.
It is very likely the knife you have handy when you need it is a folder. (if you know ahead of time, you bring a shotgun and grenades)
Do you have any worries about a folder collapsing during a thrust, cutting off your fingers and making the knife slippery? Do you change your preferred technique to prevent this?
It is very likely the knife you have handy when you need it is a folder. (if you know ahead of time, you bring a shotgun and grenades)
Do you have any worries about a folder collapsing during a thrust, cutting off your fingers and making the knife slippery? Do you change your preferred technique to prevent this?
Rabid Weasel Lawson
May 14, 2013, 10:22:08 AM5/14/13
to
On May 13, 2:32 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote:
> Rabid Weasel Lawson <lklaw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:e4c433d2-5427-475c...@n11g2000yqe.googlegr
They take on a completely different dimension when performed with a
saber with a decent amount of curve to it. If it has enough curve,
you can even get an actual push-cut from one, as strange as that
sounds.
> Rabid Weasel Lawson <lklaw...@gmail.com> wrote innews:e4c433d2-5427-475c...@n11g2000yqe.googlegr
saber with a decent amount of curve to it. If it has enough curve,
you can even get an actual push-cut from one, as strange as that
sounds.
Rabid Weasel Lawson
May 14, 2013, 10:24:29 AM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 9:11 am, TimR <timothy...@aol.com> wrote:
> You may have covered this already, but the thread is long and I've been in and out.
>
> It is very likely the knife you have handy when you need it is a folder. (if you know ahead of time, you bring a shotgun and grenades)
>
> Do you have any worries about a folder collapsing during a thrust, cutting off your fingers and making the knife slippery?
Not if you buy a quality knife with a good locking mechanism.
> You may have covered this already, but the thread is long and I've been in and out.
>
> It is very likely the knife you have handy when you need it is a folder. (if you know ahead of time, you bring a shotgun and grenades)
>
> Do you have any worries about a folder collapsing during a thrust, cutting off your fingers and making the knife slippery?
> Do you change your preferred technique to prevent this?
nemo_outis
May 14, 2013, 12:18:02 PM5/14/13
to
TimR <timot...@aol.com> wrote in
news:e44c590d-edd7-4a12...@googlegroups.com:
1) Get a good LOCKING folder!
While knife fans endlessly debate which locking mechanism is
best, any of them done by a good quality manufacturer will NOT
fail. Nor will the knife break, etc. Good folding knives - not
some $3 Walmart paring knife made from old soup cans - will NOT
fail.
2) Your hand will NOT slip forward!
You have probably already proved this to yourself by pushing as
hard as you could while trying to drive/remove a rusty screw
using a Phillips screwdriver (which you were holding in a kinda,
sorta sabre grip). Your hand did not slip forward on the handle
then and it won't slip with a knife either. We apes can grip
real hard! Even with sweaty or greasy hands! And we grip even
tighter when our lives are on the line!
A good folding knife will have a more ergonomic handle (probably
with a hint of pistol-grip droop), checkered, and most have
'jimping' on the back of the blade to further secure your sabre-
grip thumb. Many Spyderco knives also have a 'hump' which
further guarantees no sliding. Larger fixed-blade knives (Ka-
bar, Bowie) usually have quillions (although I think of these in
terms of protecting me from cuts by my adversary, not preventing
slipping).
http://www.spyderco.com/catalog/details.php?product=208
Regards,
news:e44c590d-edd7-4a12...@googlegroups.com:
While knife fans endlessly debate which locking mechanism is
best, any of them done by a good quality manufacturer will NOT
fail. Nor will the knife break, etc. Good folding knives - not
some $3 Walmart paring knife made from old soup cans - will NOT
fail.
2) Your hand will NOT slip forward!
You have probably already proved this to yourself by pushing as
hard as you could while trying to drive/remove a rusty screw
using a Phillips screwdriver (which you were holding in a kinda,
sorta sabre grip). Your hand did not slip forward on the handle
then and it won't slip with a knife either. We apes can grip
real hard! Even with sweaty or greasy hands! And we grip even
tighter when our lives are on the line!
A good folding knife will have a more ergonomic handle (probably
with a hint of pistol-grip droop), checkered, and most have
'jimping' on the back of the blade to further secure your sabre-
grip thumb. Many Spyderco knives also have a 'hump' which
further guarantees no sliding. Larger fixed-blade knives (Ka-
bar, Bowie) usually have quillions (although I think of these in
terms of protecting me from cuts by my adversary, not preventing
slipping).
http://www.spyderco.com/catalog/details.php?product=208
Regards,
TimR
May 14, 2013, 1:49:53 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:18:02 PM UTC-4, nemo_outis wrote:
> While knife fans endlessly debate which locking mechanism is
>
> best, any of them done by a good quality manufacturer will NOT
>
> fail. Nor will the knife break, etc. Good folding knives - not
>
> some $3 Walmart paring knife made from old soup cans - will NOT
>
> fail.
Okay.
> While knife fans endlessly debate which locking mechanism is
>
> best, any of them done by a good quality manufacturer will NOT
>
> fail. Nor will the knife break, etc. Good folding knives - not
>
> some $3 Walmart paring knife made from old soup cans - will NOT
>
> fail.
Still you hate to maybe have to leave a good knife behind!
Rabid Weasel Lawson
May 14, 2013, 2:23:57 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 1:49 pm, TimR <timothy...@aol.com> wrote:
> Still you hate to maybe have to leave a good knife behind!
At that point, it's a Consumable.
> Still you hate to maybe have to leave a good knife behind!
Just as you can use the $0.15 per round ammo at the range but pop for
the $1.50 per round carry ammo, so too for your SD knife. Buy a good
one. If you have to leave it behind in someone, well, $50 is cheap
Life Insurance.
nemo_outis
May 14, 2013, 3:28:27 PM5/14/13
to
TimR <timot...@aol.com> wrote in
news:46a69561-bf93-4e7e...@googlegroups.com:
>
> Still you hate to maybe have to leave a good knife behind!
Carry two knives - the cheap one is a 'dropper' to leave in his
hand!
Take your good knife with you - but DESTROY it and DESTROY it
soon! Utterly! What can be done with DNA these days is scary
and even a good scrub with dnase and rnase, acid, etc., can't be
trusted to get all traces.
You might want to carry the dropper in a ziplock bag and have a
set of latex gloves too - but I don't want you to think I'm
paranoid or anything :-)
Regards,
news:46a69561-bf93-4e7e...@googlegroups.com:
>
> Still you hate to maybe have to leave a good knife behind!
hand!
Take your good knife with you - but DESTROY it and DESTROY it
soon! Utterly! What can be done with DNA these days is scary
and even a good scrub with dnase and rnase, acid, etc., can't be
trusted to get all traces.
You might want to carry the dropper in a ziplock bag and have a
set of latex gloves too - but I don't want you to think I'm
paranoid or anything :-)
Regards,
nemo_outis
May 14, 2013, 5:44:16 PM5/14/13
to
"nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1C07EE52...@69.16.185.250:
...
:-)
The core thesis of carrying a knife (at least here in Canada)
is the ability to *PLAUSIBLY* say, "It's not a weapon, officer
(your honour, etc.), it's a tool."
[It is a *criminal offence* to 'carry...a weapon...for a
purpose dangerous to the public peace...' - an offence that
lends itself to a very wide scope of interpretation, to say
the least!]
In short, the vibe you want is, "When I was attacked and
*feared for my life*, I just 'improvised' with this *tool* I
happened to be carrying." :-)
(In fact, except for the 'tool' excuse, why the fuck would
anyone ever carry a knife as his choice of defensive weapon?
For offence, for assassination, sure, a good case can be be
made for the knife. But for defence, it sucks! Except
compared to bare hands, that is!
I hate Canada's weapon laws - I'd much rather use a Monadnock
telescoping baton, at least for ordinary everyday carry.
Canada's asshole weapon laws push me out way too far on the
'force continuum' for my taste, using an inferior weapon to
boot! In Canada, carrying a pistol is out of the question,
except in expectation of a *specific identifiable threat*
rather than just a general possibility.)
In keeping with the 'tool' thesis, the knife must show signs
of regular use, of wear and tear, of cheese smears and pocket
lint, and of resharpening (even though it may break your heart
to scratch up your beautiful piece of cutler's craftmanship).
It must not be virgin!
And it should have a 'nice' name and a 'nice' look, not a
'mean' one! (Just as - somehow, to the bureaucratic mind! -
an assault rifle with wooden stock is 'less mean' than the
exact same rifle with a black nylon stock & pistol grips.) A
knife called 'Fisherman's Friend' is much better than the same
knife called 'Rambo Gut-Ripper IV'.
But here's my real tidbit of info...
Buy TWO of your main carry knife. No, not in case you lose
one :-)
If you ever have to use your knife under 'dubious'
circumstances, where perhaps you may even have been a bit
'hasty' in bringing it into play, this may save your ass. That
is, if you have a shot at credibly denying you were there and
used a blade.
You dispose of the knife that did the nasty business (utterly
dispose! - and a book could be written about what 'utterly'
entails)
When/if the cops search you or your house they will 'find'
your knife (or rather its twin) BUT, although well used and
possibly even a bit dirty, it will be marvellously free of
incriminating shit like the dead man's DNA! It will be
*exonerating* evidence!
Remember: I'm crazy, not stupid!
Regards,
PS Do I have to tell you that this second identical knife
should have been bought *for cash*, well in advance of need,
in a different city, etc., etc.?
news:XnsA1C07EE52...@69.16.185.250:
...
> You might want to carry the dropper in a ziplock bag and
> have a set of latex gloves too - but I don't want you to
> think I'm paranoid or anything :-)
I don't want you to just suspect I'm crazy, I want to prove it
> have a set of latex gloves too - but I don't want you to
> think I'm paranoid or anything :-)
:-)
The core thesis of carrying a knife (at least here in Canada)
is the ability to *PLAUSIBLY* say, "It's not a weapon, officer
(your honour, etc.), it's a tool."
[It is a *criminal offence* to 'carry...a weapon...for a
purpose dangerous to the public peace...' - an offence that
lends itself to a very wide scope of interpretation, to say
the least!]
In short, the vibe you want is, "When I was attacked and
*feared for my life*, I just 'improvised' with this *tool* I
happened to be carrying." :-)
(In fact, except for the 'tool' excuse, why the fuck would
anyone ever carry a knife as his choice of defensive weapon?
For offence, for assassination, sure, a good case can be be
made for the knife. But for defence, it sucks! Except
compared to bare hands, that is!
I hate Canada's weapon laws - I'd much rather use a Monadnock
telescoping baton, at least for ordinary everyday carry.
Canada's asshole weapon laws push me out way too far on the
'force continuum' for my taste, using an inferior weapon to
boot! In Canada, carrying a pistol is out of the question,
except in expectation of a *specific identifiable threat*
rather than just a general possibility.)
In keeping with the 'tool' thesis, the knife must show signs
of regular use, of wear and tear, of cheese smears and pocket
lint, and of resharpening (even though it may break your heart
to scratch up your beautiful piece of cutler's craftmanship).
It must not be virgin!
And it should have a 'nice' name and a 'nice' look, not a
'mean' one! (Just as - somehow, to the bureaucratic mind! -
an assault rifle with wooden stock is 'less mean' than the
exact same rifle with a black nylon stock & pistol grips.) A
knife called 'Fisherman's Friend' is much better than the same
knife called 'Rambo Gut-Ripper IV'.
But here's my real tidbit of info...
Buy TWO of your main carry knife. No, not in case you lose
one :-)
If you ever have to use your knife under 'dubious'
circumstances, where perhaps you may even have been a bit
'hasty' in bringing it into play, this may save your ass. That
is, if you have a shot at credibly denying you were there and
used a blade.
You dispose of the knife that did the nasty business (utterly
dispose! - and a book could be written about what 'utterly'
entails)
When/if the cops search you or your house they will 'find'
your knife (or rather its twin) BUT, although well used and
possibly even a bit dirty, it will be marvellously free of
incriminating shit like the dead man's DNA! It will be
*exonerating* evidence!
Remember: I'm crazy, not stupid!
Regards,
PS Do I have to tell you that this second identical knife
should have been bought *for cash*, well in advance of need,
in a different city, etc., etc.?
nemo_outis
May 14, 2013, 7:01:47 PM5/14/13
to
Rabid Weasel Lawson <lkla...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:aa5ce548-6169-4384...@a8g2000yqp.googlegro
ups.com:
> They take on a completely different dimension when
> performed with a saber with a decent amount of curve to it.
> If it has enough curve, you can even get an actual
> push-cut from one, as strange as that sounds.
bladework, have different perspectives and approaches but not
fundamental disagreement about, say, 20%, and only actively
disagree about the last 10%.
And I freely admit that 'to everything there is a season' -
for *every* technique there are some times when it could come
in handy. And I concede that even for the 'push cut'.
But I mostly consider the push cut to be a snare and a
delusion. Given my penchant for overstating my case, I will
even say it is a *pernicious* technique leading to bad habits
(despite its occasional - more like 'rare' - utility).
Yes, with a well-curved sabre blade the push cut could do more
than just 'scratch the surface' - its usual outcome. And the
push cut does have the advantage that it can be very fast and
slick to perform.
But, for instance, I see the push-cut as the 'glaring
symptom' - the poster-boy! - of the *ruination* of the sabre
in its descent into a sports game of tag devoid of even a
vestige of combat reality.
The modern fencing sabre weighs a maximum of 500g (17 oz) -
it's no heavier than a Bowie knife (despite having a 35-inch
blade) and nearly half of that weight is in the grip and
guard. It's like fencing with broken-off car aerials!
And the modern fencing sabre is straight or nearly so.
With this ridiculous weapon it is possible to speedily drop
its so-called 'edge' (Ha!) onto a target from an only-very-
slightly offline position while moving the blade forward to
deliver a push cut. A great way to score points in a game of
tag!
Or even, I'll concede, a way to deliver a trivial paper-cut to
the skin that draws blood, if a symbolic duel to 'first
blood' is all that is involved.
But it is a travesty of what the sabre is really all about!
The sabre - the true sabre - is a *combat* weapon, not a
symbolic toy.
The key feature of the sabre, is that, of all recent bladed
weapon types, it alone has true stopping power, as opposed to
mere killing power (eventually!). It doesn't cut or stab and
then let you slowly exsanguinate or strangle as your lungs
fill with blood - NO, it lops off whole hands, arms, head,
etc. and can cut a torso near in half with a single stroke.
Instant stopping power, a fight-ender.
There's a reason the sabre and its close cousins (cutlass,
etc.) were used in real multi-party combat (e.g., ship
boarding) until very late in the game. Until the multi-shot
pistol the sabre was the close-quarters melee weapon of
choice!
The perversion of the sabre followed the sportification of
dueling (which itself is a faint shadow of real multi-party
combat). Parisi and the boys were all for wrist and finger
cuts and thrusts - fast, subtle, elegant ways of scoring
points in a game of tag.
Barbasetti, the Greco brothers, Radaelli and others tried to
cling to the old combat ways, emphasizing the elbow and even
the moulinette to develop limb-lopping cuts. But while that's
a great way to kill in combat and not let the other fellow
'kill you right back', it's no way to score in a game of tag
with whippy steel aerials. Flicks from the wrist and push cuts
are the way to score points.
Here endeth the rant - thanks for your forbearance in letting
me use you as an excuse to unload :-)
Regards,
Timo
May 14, 2013, 8:38:38 PM5/14/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 09:01:47 UTC+10, nemo_outis wrote:
>
> But it is a travesty of what the sabre is really all about!
>
> The sabre - the true sabre - is a *combat* weapon, not a
> symbolic toy.
Sure. Modern fencing sabre is very disconnected from real fighting. There was still serious sabre fighting in Eastern Europe into the 20th century, duels with lopped-off limbs and so on. The difference between their technique and modern fencing sabre shows the difference between the modern sport and martial application.
>
> But it is a travesty of what the sabre is really all about!
>
> The sabre - the true sabre - is a *combat* weapon, not a
> symbolic toy.
But
> The key feature of the sabre, is that, of all recent bladed
> weapon types, it alone has true stopping power, as opposed to
> mere killing power (eventually!). It doesn't cut or stab and
> then let you slowly exsanguinate or strangle as your lungs
> fill with blood - NO, it lops off whole hands, arms, head,
> etc. and can cut a torso near in half with a single stroke.
> Instant stopping power, a fight-ender.
As a comment on the lack of stopping power of modern fencing weapons, quite fair, but over-generalised.
Push-cuts have genuine martial applications, such as in in-fighting with longsword (or messer). Again, the difference between these techniques and modern fencing sabre push-cuts shows the difference between the modern sport and martial application.
TimR
May 14, 2013, 10:53:31 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:44:16 PM UTC-4, nemo_outis wrote:
> In short, the vibe you want is, "When I was attacked and
>
> *feared for my life*, I just 'improvised' with this *tool* I
>
> happened to be carrying." :-)
Indeed.
> In short, the vibe you want is, "When I was attacked and
>
> *feared for my life*, I just 'improvised' with this *tool* I
>
> happened to be carrying." :-)
That's why I carry two hammers.
(only one of them poisoned)
John F. Eldredge
May 14, 2013, 11:11:35 PM5/14/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 13:12:55 +0000, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article
> <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> In article
> <a48632af-7cdb-46ee...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>>> On May 9, 7:02 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
>>> > just be a YASID.
>>>
>>
>>> > Somehow, I vaguely remember having _read_ that novel. So this might
>>> > just be a YASID.
>>>
>>> Hmmm, the novel in question won the Hugo, the Nebula and is allegedly
>>> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. It spawned numerous
>>> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>>> fan-fic to this day. If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
>>> will be one of the favourites.
>>>
>>> Enough clues?
>>
>>Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The Forever
>>War".
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>>
>>John Savard
>>> the world's best selling Science Fiction novel. It spawned numerous
>>> sequels and the estate of the author is still churning out authorised
>>> fan-fic to this day. If they ever award a Hugo-of-the-century, it
>>> will be one of the favourites.
>>>
>>> Enough clues?
>>
>>Not for me, I'm afraid. But I _didn't_ read Joe Haldeman's "The Forever
>>War".
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Dune didn't use this gimmick...
>>
>
> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> knife fights.
>
> It did, though I recall it being more tuned towards sword fights than
> knife fights.
>
> Something similar might have been why ax fighting was viable in sections
> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
The force fields in Dune had an additional property, which discouraged
> of Smith's lensmen books, but my memory is hazy on the logic there now..
the use of energy weapons. Firing an energy weapon into a shield
resulted in a nuclear-scale explosion, meaning that the main use for
energy weapons was to pair them with shields to create large-scale booby
traps.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
nemo_outis
May 14, 2013, 11:18:17 PM5/14/13
to
Timo <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in
news:303742ad-7717-4935...@googlegroups.com:
> Sure. Modern fencing sabre is very disconnected from real
> fighting. There was still serious sabre fighting in Eastern
> Europe into the 20th century, duels with lopped-off limbs
> and so on. The difference between their technique and
> modern fencing sabre shows the difference between the
> modern sport and martial application.
...and Schlager fighting continues to this day...
> Push-cuts have genuine martial applications...
HAD Few carry a longsword these days
> For non-sabre military weapons: smatchet/Welsh trench
> sword, sharpened entrenching tools, artillery/engineer
> swords...
I'll start working on my push-cuts with the sharpened
entrenching tool :-)
Regards,
news:303742ad-7717-4935...@googlegroups.com:
> Sure. Modern fencing sabre is very disconnected from real
> fighting. There was still serious sabre fighting in Eastern
> Europe into the 20th century, duels with lopped-off limbs
> and so on. The difference between their technique and
> modern fencing sabre shows the difference between the
> modern sport and martial application.
> Push-cuts have genuine martial applications...
HAD Few carry a longsword these days
> For non-sabre military weapons: smatchet/Welsh trench
> sword, sharpened entrenching tools, artillery/engineer
I'll start working on my push-cuts with the sharpened
entrenching tool :-)
Regards,
John F. Eldredge
May 14, 2013, 11:20:45 PM5/14/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 20:26:07 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> The thing called a "space ax" seems to have been more of a spear really,
> given the descriptions of using it. Which makes sense, concentating
> force in a very small area is how you defeat armor.
The war hammers used against armored opponents in the Middle Ages tended
to come down to a chisel-like or spear-point-like point. The thicker
part of the war hammer supplied the inertia needed to force the point
through armor.
Halberds had a broad blade for use against unarmored opponents, an
opposing spike for use against armored opponents, and a spear point at
the top, useful in tight quarters where there wasn't room to swing the
halberd, or if you needed to use the halberd as a makeshift pike against
a horseman. True pikes had much longer shafts.
> The thing called a "space ax" seems to have been more of a spear really,
> given the descriptions of using it. Which makes sense, concentating
> force in a very small area is how you defeat armor.
The war hammers used against armored opponents in the Middle Ages tended
to come down to a chisel-like or spear-point-like point. The thicker
part of the war hammer supplied the inertia needed to force the point
through armor.
Halberds had a broad blade for use against unarmored opponents, an
opposing spike for use against armored opponents, and a spear point at
the top, useful in tight quarters where there wasn't room to swing the
halberd, or if you needed to use the halberd as a makeshift pike against
a horseman. True pikes had much longer shafts.
nemo_outis
May 14, 2013, 11:24:02 PM5/14/13
to
TimR <timot...@aol.com> wrote in news:67cbfb47-a921-4dfe-9fa2-
6e8059...@googlegroups.com:
If you keep a baseball bat in the trunk of your car be sure to
throw in a well-used glove and ball too :-)
Regards,
PS Here in Canada the cricket bat rules, especially with lads
from the Subcontinent. Pray he hits you with the flat, not the
edge.
6e8059...@googlegroups.com:
throw in a well-used glove and ball too :-)
Regards,
PS Here in Canada the cricket bat rules, especially with lads
from the Subcontinent. Pray he hits you with the flat, not the
edge.
Timo
May 15, 2013, 12:09:13 AM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 13:24:02 UTC+10, nemo_outis wrote:
>
> PS Here in Canada the cricket bat rules, especially with lads
> from the Subcontinent. Pray he hits you with the flat, not the
> edge.
Samoan cricket (kilikiti) is even more fun - the bat is a traditional war club.
>
> PS Here in Canada the cricket bat rules, especially with lads
> from the Subcontinent. Pray he hits you with the flat, not the
> edge.
Timo
May 15, 2013, 12:28:29 AM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 13:18:17 UTC+10, nemo_outis wrote:
> > Push-cuts have genuine martial applications...
>
> HAD Few carry a longsword these days
Few carry any sword with martial intent. That it is not likely to occur does not detract from the technique having martial application (but does detract from its modern martial utility, but that's a different thing). Else why complain about the lack of martial application of modern fencing technique?
> > For non-sabre military weapons: smatchet/Welsh trench
> > sword, sharpened entrenching tools, artillery/engineer
> > swords...
>
> I'll start working on my push-cuts with the sharpened
> entrenching tool :-)
That was not related to push-cuts, but to your "the sabre [...] alone has true stopping power". The entrenching tool can manage OK in the stopping power department: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzpRh-ZE9Mo and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIlceAZBRdA
Even where push-cuts work, they're not likely limb-removers. Sometimes one must be content with cutting to the bone, instead of through the bone.
> Timo wrote:
>
> > Sure. Modern fencing sabre is very disconnected from real
> > fighting. There was still serious sabre fighting in Eastern
> > Europe into the 20th century, duels with lopped-off limbs
> > and so on. The difference between their technique and
> > modern fencing sabre shows the difference between the
> > modern sport and martial application.
>
> ...and Schlager fighting continues to this day...
While Mensur is not a sport, neither is it martial. Bloody, yes, but not martial. Big difference between Mensur "technique" and martial technique.
>
> > Sure. Modern fencing sabre is very disconnected from real
> > fighting. There was still serious sabre fighting in Eastern
> > Europe into the 20th century, duels with lopped-off limbs
> > and so on. The difference between their technique and
> > modern fencing sabre shows the difference between the
> > modern sport and martial application.
>
> ...and Schlager fighting continues to this day...
> > Push-cuts have genuine martial applications...
>
> HAD Few carry a longsword these days
> > For non-sabre military weapons: smatchet/Welsh trench
> > sword, sharpened entrenching tools, artillery/engineer
> > swords...
>
> I'll start working on my push-cuts with the sharpened
> entrenching tool :-)
Even where push-cuts work, they're not likely limb-removers. Sometimes one must be content with cutting to the bone, instead of through the bone.
nemo_outis
May 15, 2013, 1:30:17 AM5/15/13
to
Timo <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in
news:c1137669-64be-446b...@googlegroups.com:
...
>> I'll start working on my push-cuts with the sharpened
>> entrenching tool :-)
>
> That was not related to push-cuts, but to your "the sabre
> [...] alone has true stopping power". The entrenching tool
> can manage OK in the stopping power department:
Undoubtedly - as can a chainsaw 'blade' or even a helicopter
'blade'
I had hoped a gentle jibe would snap you out of your dogged
pursuit of irrelevancies - apparently I was wrong.
Regards,
news:c1137669-64be-446b...@googlegroups.com:
...
>> I'll start working on my push-cuts with the sharpened
>> entrenching tool :-)
>
> That was not related to push-cuts, but to your "the sabre
> [...] alone has true stopping power". The entrenching tool
> can manage OK in the stopping power department:
'blade'
I had hoped a gentle jibe would snap you out of your dogged
pursuit of irrelevancies - apparently I was wrong.
Regards,
Timo
May 15, 2013, 1:59:00 AM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 15:30:17 UTC+10, nemo_outis wrote:
> Timo wrote:
>
> Timo wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> I'll start working on my push-cuts with the sharpened
> >> entrenching tool :-)
> >
> > That was not related to push-cuts, but to your "the sabre
> > [...] alone has true stopping power". The entrenching tool
> > can manage OK in the stopping power department:
>
> Undoubtedly - as can a chainsaw 'blade' or even a helicopter
> 'blade'
Not weapons. Or if you think they are, then you now disagree with your own original statement ("the sabre ... alone").
>
> >> I'll start working on my push-cuts with the sharpened
> >> entrenching tool :-)
> >
> > That was not related to push-cuts, but to your "the sabre
> > [...] alone has true stopping power". The entrenching tool
> > can manage OK in the stopping power department:
>
> Undoubtedly - as can a chainsaw 'blade' or even a helicopter
> 'blade'
> I had hoped a gentle jibe would snap you out of your dogged
> pursuit of irrelevancies - apparently I was wrong.
What is irrelevant is your further comment on the correction, which had nothing to do with push-cuts, and nothing to do with chainsaws or helicopters.
It's really simple: if you really think that the "true" sabre is the only recent bladed weapon with real stopping power, provide some support for that statement. If you don't think it was important, don't comment on it. If you agree with the correction, and think it merits further discussion, discuss further. To whine about having your mistakes corrected is pointless.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 15, 2013, 2:03:33 AM5/15/13
to
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> writes:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 20:26:07 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> The thing called a "space ax" seems to have been more of a spear really,
>> given the descriptions of using it. Which makes sense, concentating
>> force in a very small area is how you defeat armor.
>
> The war hammers used against armored opponents in the Middle Ages tended
> to come down to a chisel-like or spear-point-like point. The thicker
> part of the war hammer supplied the inertia needed to force the point
> through armor.
>
> Halberds had a broad blade for use against unarmored opponents, an
> opposing spike for use against armored opponents, and a spear point at
> the top, useful in tight quarters where there wasn't room to swing the
> halberd, or if you needed to use the halberd as a makeshift pike against
> a horseman. True pikes had much longer shafts.
And the description in the Lensman books does resemble halberds some.
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 20:26:07 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> The thing called a "space ax" seems to have been more of a spear really,
>> given the descriptions of using it. Which makes sense, concentating
>> force in a very small area is how you defeat armor.
>
> The war hammers used against armored opponents in the Middle Ages tended
> to come down to a chisel-like or spear-point-like point. The thicker
> part of the war hammer supplied the inertia needed to force the point
> through armor.
>
> Halberds had a broad blade for use against unarmored opponents, an
> opposing spike for use against armored opponents, and a spear point at
> the top, useful in tight quarters where there wasn't room to swing the
> halberd, or if you needed to use the halberd as a makeshift pike against
> a horseman. True pikes had much longer shafts.
However, the description of using the things seems to have nothing but
thrusts.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
nemo_outis
May 15, 2013, 2:35:29 AM5/15/13
to
Timo <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in
news:3e9d616e-c89e-4598...@googlegroups.com:
...or an oar 'blade' or a lawnmower 'blade' or...
...a sharpened trenching tool - shades of the fat guy from Cold
Steel! ...or maybe the deadly 'special ops' combo toothpick and
oyster shucking tool
Timo, you can be as tenacious and OCD as you like about your
irrelevancies, you can even write a whole thread on the combat
use of push cuts with the sharpened pasta fork if you wish -
just don't expect me to engage you while you fixate on useless
techniques with grotesqueries as 'weapons'.
Regards,
news:3e9d616e-c89e-4598...@googlegroups.com:
...or an oar 'blade' or a lawnmower 'blade' or...
...a sharpened trenching tool - shades of the fat guy from Cold
Steel! ...or maybe the deadly 'special ops' combo toothpick and
oyster shucking tool
Timo, you can be as tenacious and OCD as you like about your
irrelevancies, you can even write a whole thread on the combat
use of push cuts with the sharpened pasta fork if you wish -
just don't expect me to engage you while you fixate on useless
techniques with grotesqueries as 'weapons'.
Regards,
Timo
May 15, 2013, 2:59:36 AM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 16:35:29 UTC+10, nemo_outis wrote:
> Timo wrote:
>
> Timo wrote:
>
> ...or an oar 'blade' or a lawnmower 'blade' or...
>
> ...a sharpened trenching tool - shades of the fat guy from Cold
> Steel! ...or maybe the deadly 'special ops' combo toothpick and
> oyster shucking tool
>
> Timo, you can be as tenacious and OCD as you like about your
> irrelevancies, you can even write a whole thread on the combat
> use of push cuts with the sharpened pasta fork if you wish -
> just don't expect me to engage you while you fixate on useless
> techniques with grotesqueries as 'weapons'.
OK, in your infinite wisdom, you declare that the smatchet is not a weapon, that the jian is not a weapon, and that the kukri is not a weapon (or that it's a sabre?). Or are you declaring that they have no stopping power?
>
> ...a sharpened trenching tool - shades of the fat guy from Cold
> Steel! ...or maybe the deadly 'special ops' combo toothpick and
> oyster shucking tool
>
> Timo, you can be as tenacious and OCD as you like about your
> irrelevancies, you can even write a whole thread on the combat
> use of push cuts with the sharpened pasta fork if you wish -
> just don't expect me to engage you while you fixate on useless
> techniques with grotesqueries as 'weapons'.
So be it; one cannot argue against such great all-knowing wisdom! At least it lets your original statement on "sabres [...] alone" stand "correct", and that's all that matters, rather than the actual facts.
nemo_outis
May 15, 2013, 3:11:47 AM5/15/13
to
Timo <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in
news:5bb7c8fd-fe16-4178...@googlegroups.com:
...the sharpened trenching tool ...the deadly latrine digger
How, oh how, could I have overlooked its devastating stopping
power? What was I thinking? Why did I pass over such a jewel
of a weapon?
Thank goodness there's the ever-alert Timo!
news:5bb7c8fd-fe16-4178...@googlegroups.com:
...the sharpened trenching tool ...the deadly latrine digger
How, oh how, could I have overlooked its devastating stopping
power? What was I thinking? Why did I pass over such a jewel
of a weapon?
Thank goodness there's the ever-alert Timo!
Timo
May 15, 2013, 3:38:43 AM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 17:11:47 UTC+10, nemo_outis wrote:
> Timo wrote:
>
> Timo wrote:
>
> ...the sharpened trenching tool ...the deadly latrine digger
>
> How, oh how, could I have overlooked its devastating stopping
> power? What was I thinking? Why did I pass over such a jewel
> of a weapon?
Decapitation isn't sufficient stopping power for you?
>
> How, oh how, could I have overlooked its devastating stopping
> power? What was I thinking? Why did I pass over such a jewel
> of a weapon?
You appear to be ignorant of the use of the entrenching tool as a deliberately-chosen weapon. You might like to read about its use in close combat in WW1 where it was often preferred over the bayonet, and more recent use (see, e.g., http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov6/01.html or FM 3-25.150). Or you might prefer to avoid such things - after all, who needs facts?
In your infinite wisdom, you declare that the smatchet is not a weapon, that the jian is not a weapon, and that the kukri is not a weapon. So be it! One cannot argue against such great all-knowing wisdom! At least it lets your original statement on "sabres [...] alone" stand "correct", and that's all that matters, rather than the actual facts.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages