Ground Fighting w/ Knife / Gracie

My jiu-jitsu teacher also told me he would rather fight unarmed. The thing is, that a guy well versed in grappling would rather have both his hands free to use. If you pull a weapon at all, it shouild just be a handgun, if it is available.

I've heard the argument that you can escalate and de-escalate a fight easier if you pull a knife. I disagree with this concept. Once you pull a knife, your opponent has the right to shoot you, period. This is obviously a problem. I have pulled a gun twice in confrontations. Both times the fight stopped right there, with nothing further coming out of it. And it stopped very fast. Once was against two guys; once was against about 10 guys. If you are facing these odds, pull a gun. If you pull a knife, God help you.

I've debated the riddle in my head about how to best carry and use a weapon. I tend to agree with the concept that you want both hands free... until you pull a gun. The only blade that would enable me to grapple and at the same time hang onto the blade is perhaps a kerambit. I'm thinking about buying one just for the hell of it. But the problem again lies with the fact that, if I am grappling with a knife- any knife- in my hand, my opponent, and his buddies, have the green light to kill me, whether it be by gun, numbers, whatever.

So if you have to pull a weapon, make it a gun. Until then, keep both hands free.
 
I remember in a group discussion someone asked our Marine Corps H2H instructor to name the deadliest weapon.
He answered, "The open hand."

"No, no, no," we said.
We couldn't believe he meant what he said.
What about a handgun?

I'll never forget what he said.
I paraphrase:

If someone has a weapon in his hand and in plain sight and has not yet used it, then he does not want to use it to injure or kill anyone but rather to intimidate and coerce.
In this case, the open-handed defender has the advantage both psychologically and physically.
The armed extortionist already has his mind going down the path of not using his weapon.
In order to use it, he first has to reverse his thinking and then start down the path of using his weapon.
Whatever fraction of a second this takes, it gives the advantage to the open-handed defender.

Balancing this, though, James Carse in Finite and Infinite Games describes thieves and robbers as motivated rarely by hunger or privation and more often by politics.
The mugger, according to Carse, does not steal for bread but for social justice.
Correspondingly, someone with a weapon may actually hope for an excuse to use it, especially against someone who belongs to a different social class or to a different language/appearance group.
Something to think about.

Continuing with our H2H instructor, we insisted that he name a weapon other than the open hand.
Reluctantly he named the 22" hickory stick.
Interestingly, at the time, Marine Corps officers and Staff NCO's could and did carry what they called a "Swagger Stick."
With these sticks under their arms they looked a little bit like the Brits who did the same.
The people who carried Swagger Sticks carried everything from dark tropical woods with polished metal ends, to plain hickory sticks, to sticks with a cartridge head on one end and a bullet on the other.
Having seen my father and his peers carry these sticks for all of my growing-up years, I had seen them as an article of clothing and not as a weapon.
I can't remember when the Commandant declared Swagger Sticks non-uniform; but he did.
Weapons, y'know.
The men of the Old Corps, Raiders, professionals, thought of themselves as both dangerous and gentle men.
Of course they had a weapon on them at all times.

As far as the knife goes, our instructor said a knife should remain hidden against the leg, behind the seam of the trousers until the exact moment of use.
The adversary should only know the knife exists because he has felt it cut him or penetrate his body.

Things change and they remain the same.
I don't know how much of what our instructor said still applies to today's reality.
Food for thought, though.
 
I'm glad this thread turned out so well. As a grappler (even though I train/teach JKDC:), I can understand the desire to have one's hands free, but I always remain vigilant to the need to transition to a weapon, IF THE SITUATION CALLS FOR IT.
For example, In a situation and/or if I want to draw a weapon because of the type of situation changes, I would definitely go to a weapon WHEN I could create the space (if I don't already have it)and maintain control of it. I like to teach to enter for HKE-throw, etc (I don't look to go to the ground automatically)and if I want to draw a weapon I do a two-hand push to create space or bounce the opponent into another/wall table/etc and draw a weapon. The entry (usually high level w/ a crash cover) works very well for those w/ training in Judo, JJ, Wrestling, etc because they have a highly developed and strong base w/ the ability to penetrate and disrupt their opponents balance. This makes HKE->throws or the push, sooo much more effective.
Even if on the ground and engaged in grappling, I would not go for my weapon w/o control of the opponent's arms, on their back (bottom position use them as a shield) or creating the space w/ kicks.
Ken, good point, surprise is the best way to use a knife.Your son sounds like he has an excellent background and training.
Leo,I know what you mean about your instructor's preference to using only BJJ, I'm like you, if there's reason for me to go to a weapon....I'm there. :)
Ad, you must live in a good state,Hawaii don't let you carry a gun, knives (excluding dirks and daggers) are our only options. I carry a small fixed blade (usually neck) and a folder. When I traveled on the mainland I carried a gun when I could.
I hope this post makes some sense, I'm writing off my laptop and rushing (my typing sucks) so if I don't make sense I'll be happy to clarify
 
armlok: actually I live in one of the worst states for carrying arms for self-defense - Kalifornia. Some of the counties (like Orange County) are starting to get a lot more lenient, however, in issuing concealed carry permits.

Just about everyting is illegal in CA. The only thing I'm left with for concealed carry without a permit is a folded blade and a tomahawk. I spend a lot of my time in L.A., so I go just about everywhere with a handgun. Lately I've been supplementing it with my Strider AR.

The 2nd Amendment gives you the RIGHT to keep and bear handguns, no matter how the anti-gun people and politicians try to interpret it. So if you go armed without a concealed carry permit, just do it discreetly and soberly. If you ever have to use a gun in self defense, the charge of homocide will be treated separately from the charge of carrying a concealed firearm. Thus, if the shooting is truly in self defense, you should get off on the homocide charge, but you will be tried for carrying a concealed firearm. For a first time offender, it is routinely treated as a misdemeanor.

So in short, whether you carry a fixed blade or a handgun, you are looking at the same charge in CA. It behooves you just to carry a handgun if you are going to break the law anyway.
 
Ad, here in the socialist republic of Hawaii carrying a concealed deadly weapon is a misdemeanor, Place to Keep a firearm is a Class-C Felony. This applies to transport of firearms anywhere except a sojourn to and from ranges, hunting, exhibitions, etc and weapons and ammo must be seperate and not easily accessible. This being a public forum I won't say I do anything contrary to my states laws:) The 2nd does not GIVE me the right to bear arms, it is my god-given or natural born right as a citizen to keep and bear arms, but tghis is off topic and impolite

armlok
 
armlok: you are 110% right; I stand corrected. It is your God given right. The 2nd Amendment backs it up. ;)
 
Agree with both armlock and Ad on the basic human right to self-preservation and how it relates to firearms ownership and carry. It's good to be able to defend this point of view here without being scolded like an unruly child.
 
Originally posted by hank_rearden
Grand Master Leo Gaje of Pekiti Tirsia Kali teaching US soldiers knife fighting in the Philippines in the ongoing "Balikatan" military excercises
Click to expand...

as a filipino, i'd like to offer my condolences to marcia burnham and her kids and to all the families of americans who were victims of terrorism in my country.
 
Originally posted by Ad
...So in short, whether you carry a fixed blade or a handgun, you are looking at the same charge in CA. It behooves you just to carry a handgun if you are going to break the law anyway.
Click to expand...

...well, it is against the law to carry a fixed blade concealed. You can carry one openly in most locations, though I understand there are some restrictions in LA.

What's the legal ramifications regarding carrying a firearm openly?
 
Regarding the preference to fight with empty hands instead of with a weapon, that is a personal choice. As a student of bladed CQC, I would much rather face an unarmed attacker than one with a knife. I will have a knife myself. It is very difficult to disarm a trained knife fighter. If it were easy to control the weapon hand, you could disarm an attacker, but it just isn't easy.
 
Originally posted by Ken Cox
My son has eight years of judo, and only one year of jujitsu as taught by a Marcello Gracie instructor.
My son recently fought and defeated a Marcello Gracie instructor, not his own, in a recognized Pankration event.
My son could do this because he has a strong interest in these types of things and because of the solid foundation of principles he learned from judo.

Tricks will work for a natural fighter, or someone who has made it his life's interest to study fighting.
Such a person can incorporate and apply these tricks out of body wisdom, or keep them at surface readiness on top of a solid foundation of principles.
The average person, though, should carry a weapon.
Click to expand...
i'd like to speak on behalf of the barehand advocates. i practiced sport judo for a good many years. MA styles can (narrowly) be classified as either combat-oriented or competition-oriented. both will give one some semblance of readiness and atenuation in any combat situation.

free-style wrestling
judo
boxing
karate
olympic fencing

the above arts have a decided competitive sport orientation to them. however, the phenomenon of competition benefits a practioner in two ways. first, the techniques are safe to practice, even at the most rigorous pace. the teaching methods are scientific and very progressive. new techniques are developed regularly. performance standards go all the way to olympic level.

second, the enormous popularity of the above styles make for a harsh darwinian environment for competition. world champions in these arts are among the most finely-conditioned athletes around. in addition, these world champions are, in all probability, genetically gifted; having been selected from such a tough pool of competitors. for an ordinary person to defeat them in their respective arts is next to impossible.

the last statement brings me to the gist of combat-oriented styles which focus primarily on SITUATIONAL COMBAT. how can a below-average guy like me come out of a knife fight against a 300-pounder in one piece?

BJJ
jujitsu
aikido
JKD
arnis/kali

now these styles really focus on giving an average guy the upper hand in a combat situation. this philosophy would suite law enforment and the military since you want a general improvement in the ability of all your 'fighters'.

for the private individual, on the other hand, i prefer that he/she follow the first path which is training in an environment conducive to attaining excellence.
 
It's always safer to face a guy without a weapon. I guess the quandary lies as to when you should pull your weapon. If a guy comes at you empy hand, are you going to automatically pull a knife - or gun - because that's how you've been trained? You'll wind up in jail if you do this to an opponent who is just some average unarmed joe.

My whole argument is that, when the threshold comes for you to pull a weapon - any weapon - legally speaking (in CA) you are on the same ground whether you pull a fixed blade or a gun. If the situation has escalated to the point where a weapon is necessary, why not use a gun? And if you go into the fight with a knife in hand, your opponent can always step it up a level and pull a gun. I agree with the statement above that said that, if you decide to pull a knife, your opponent should not even see it coming; it should be a surprise. But as soon as you use it, obviously you tip your hand that you have a knife. You better finish the guy off fast. A guy with a small handgun may get cut but not finished, in which case he'll be shooting.

As far Mr. Reardon's points, I agree with one exception. BJJ is taught at the sport level like judo and wrestling. I have always viewed BJJ as having all the nasty stuff you wanted to do in high school wrestling, but couldn't because it was illegal. That's one of the big advantages of BJJ; it trains good athletes and it allows you to spar 100% and work your technique against an unwillling opponent.

This is a great thread. Thanks to everyone so far for the input.
 
I forgot to add one more thing. As to Mr. Harvey's questions above, in CA you cannot carry a gun in the open. They'll nail you for brandishing. I believe you can do so, however, in Arizona and Nevada. Ahh, the wild west. ;)

My reading of the annotated CA Gov't Code (I believe section 12020) indicates that it is not illegal to carry a folder in the state of CA. But there are certain cities (I think L.A. is one) where they have passed their own ordnances concerning the length of a folding blade for concealed carry. Talk about confusion.

I guess it boils down to, if you live in CA, just carry a gun, because everything is illegal anyway. In fact, I can see a prosecutor coming at you harder for packing a sap or switchblade than if you were packing a gun. They are all felony arrests. But a handgun offense is routinely reduced to a misdemeanor your first time out. I don't know about the others. There is almost less of a stigma attached to a handgun than there is to some of the more "exotic" weapons, like saps, switchblades, push daggers, shurikens, etc. It's a bunch of BS, but that seems to be the attitude in CA. The Diane Feinsteins have really f***ed things up.
 
Steve Harvey's observations pushed a (friendly) button regarding apples and oranges.

Imagine a highly-trained knifeman against a highly-trained jujitsu player.

Imagine the same knifeman against a typical street-aggressor (whatever that means).

Imagine the jujitsu player against the street-aggressor.

In the case of the knifeman against the jujitsu player, I would call it even; unless the jujitsu player handicapped himself by putting a knife in his hand.

In case of either knifeman or jujitsu player, assuming competence, I would give the advantage to training over the typical street-aggressor's bad intent.

Now, take an older person like myself, regardless of what I did or could do ten years ago, and the knife takes on a new relevance.
At some point in life, the balance begins to tilt in advantage of raw youth.
In fact, any weapon takes on new relevance when the defender lacks physical ability, time to train, or natural talent.

Yes, training with a knife increases its effectiveness; and yet, simple intuitive use of a knife will work well against most street-agressors, at least better than the bare hand for the very small, aged, female or disabled defender.

A handgun works even better than a knife, taking less physical ability and allowing the advantage of distance.

Nonetheless, a good judo or jujitsu player will disarm an untrained person wielding either a knife or a handgun.

Which brings us full circle back to trained knifeman against expert grappler.

Very complex and a lot of grey areas.
 
Once in Ayabe, when O Sensei was perhaps fifty years of age, he was visited by a very accomplished kendo master.
Anxious to test himself and to prove a point, the kendo master challenged O Sensei.

They walked into the garden together, the kendo master carrying his katana (sword), O Sensei empty-handed.
The sun flashed off the brightly polished steel as the kendo master moved into his kamae (preparatory stance), O Sensei standing quietly before him.

And they stood.

Sweat began to break on the kendo master's forehead, rolling down his cheeks like tears.
It fell like a thousand prisms from the strained and glistening muscles of his powerfully developed forearms.

And still they stood.

O Sensei, calm and detached, aware but not waiting, only reflected the image of the man and the glittering steel before him.
Five, seven, maybe ten minutes passed.
Exhausted from the struggle...the kendo man
surrendered...
 
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. Having the training in both Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (a very effective unarmed combat art which I truly love) and Filipino Kali, I have no doubt in my mind that a fight between a knifeman and a grappler would be anything but even. The blade in trained hands makes an enormous difference.

I used to practise knife defenses with my very talented BJJ instructor in Rio; though I'm sure those techniques could work against an untrained attacker, they are no match to a competent Kali player. That's my perspective anyway, from studying both systems.
 
He'll probably whoop me for this (lol) but I believe armlok mentioned that Burton Richardson (JKD) and Rickson Gracie had a little knife vs BJJ session.

Rickson took off the gi top while Burton had a knife trainer. The encounter took a few moments (dodging & attacking) but Rickson supposedly snagged Burton in the end and got an armlock. FWIW.

One thing I've always asked BJJ folks particularly black belts is when they learn weapon defenses. A lot of them don't, those that do are 2nd or 3rd degree and above going with club, knife, then gun defenses. This is the same type of training 'schedule' I've seen in other arts.

I've been told that BJJ weapon defenses are not much different than judo or jujutsu. From the little I've seen, that's true. Folks like M. DeAlba, Dogbrothers, R. Balicki, T. Blauer, S. Sonnon, H. Hochheim, M. Janich, K. Worden, B. Jacques, and J. Maffei have taken BJJ or grappling concepts and tried to work them with weapons.

I once asked R. Harris (BJJ/JKD) about knife defenses, he still preferred FMA moves over BJJ. I asked another instructor (quit JKD, now teaches BJJ) and he said "I'll let LEO/Military work on that."

I've done groundfighting with the knife and it's very interesting. The only problem is isolating working on a street situation vs. playing against a good grappler with a knife. It gets more complicated when you add different weapons. But I've said enough, carry on.
 
Rickson is a truly exceptional fighter, the greatest name in Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, so his match with Burton Richardson probably doesn't prove much, IMO (not that it isn't an interesting story - BTW, thanks for sharing, Smoke :)).

In more than two years of regular (make it pretty much daily) BJJ training in Rio, I only received instruction in knife disarming during private lessons, at my request; never saw it being taught during regular classes, where the emphasis is on unarmed ground fighting. That is true for most if not all schools, as far as I know.

And yes, the techniques I learned are pretty much the same found in Japanese Jiu-Jitsu systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top