The Point

K

Ken Cox

Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 1998
Messages
15,923
The dirk and dagger thread got me thinking about an essay I read recently by Jeff Cooper, the gun guru.

Chairman Jeff makes a compelling argument for the point of the blade as more effective in combat/self-defense than the edge.
That would explains why, in pre-gun days, when men truly depended upon a personal blade for self-protections, they universally carried dirks and daggers instead of meat cleavers.
I should find the essay so others can read it.

In the meantime...
 
Fictional character Swordmaster Duncan Idaho in Dune said something like: "Killing with the tip lacks artistry. But if the need arises, do it however you can, edge or tip."

Just a tidbit.:)
 
Fiction being the operable word in that statement.

Its like how some people in martial arts who say that guns lack the grace and elegance of a sword. So its graceful to lop parts of another human off and perforate someones body??

Its all nasty, its all horrid and it all lacks artistry.

Does it matter what the style is? Bujinkan, Kali, US Military H2H or learn it from a biker gang's head enforcer, it all works and none of its nice if used outside of training.
 
Like I said...just a tidbit.

In spite of being fictional, however, I think the quote was relevent to Mr. Cox's statement about the point vs. the edge. He's saying the point is more effective for killing, and the Idaho quote essentially agreed, and even went so far as to imply that in combat, one should take the opportunities that arise, without regard of your own penchants or preferences.

I agree that none of these things are pretty to do, but I think the idea expressed in the quote is somewhat masked by the term "artistry." I think he's basically saying the point is easier to kill with, and the edge less so.
:)
 
I don't know about killing.

In the Marine Corps of the mid 1960's they taught us we did not need to kill our adversary: we needed to remove his will to fight.
They wanted us to "think outside the box;" a phrase that probably didn't even exist then.
In any event, one can remove an adversary's will to fight in many ways, from pain to pleasure.

I think the point may work well to remove the adversary's will to fight because first, it communicates injury and second, one can effectively sneak/poke/reach through an adversary's guard with a blade optimized for using the point.

With the edge, one takes away the adversary's means to attack one cut at a time, and drains the adversary's blood one cut at a time.
I have the impression that in combat a person may not realize he has received numerous cuts until he notices the amount of blood and the fact that parts of his body don't work anymore.

Anecdotally, my experience as an EMS helicopter pilot suggests to me that people who suffer a punctured abdomen or chest tend to stop moving around almost immediately.
The depth of puncture doesn't seem to matter so much as long as the puncture suffices to create a loss of cavity pressure.
The body seems to say, "Uh Oh, serious, lay down and stop moving."

However, in a life and death combat situation where the adversary's body does not have any other options than fight or die, then it might help if the blade can reach deep into critical systems and disrupt them.
Death will put a hitch in the adversary's giddyup.

Finally, I don't think it takes as much skill, training, coordination or athletic ability to "poke" a moving adversary with a sharp object as it does to butcher him on the hoof.
 
I think you use what is availible. Getting a slash in is better than looking for a opening to stab and getting gigged.

This thread has made me remember back to a book I read in my gradeschool days. The book is called TARIK. Anyhow after his parents are killed he is taken in by these guys to learn how to fight El Muerte who killed his parents. The thing they tell him about the knife is that, to paraphrase,

the point is for lovers to prick themselves in a summers romance. The edge is the part that deals death.

Take it for what it is worth, this post just made me think of it. It is put more eloquently in the book. Maybe I can dig up a copy and get the proper quote.
 
Most of you guys have probably read Mick Strider's thread over in the Strider forum on knife-fighting. For those who haven't, Mick essentially says "Close and destroy by stabbing to the head and neck." It makes sense to me that with any blade but the largest (kukhuri, bowie) stabbing will be more effective than slashing simply because of the severity of the wound. Interesting to read what Mr. Cox has to say to the body's response to cavity trauma; I'll have to file that away in the memory banks.

The converse of this is that if you want to just get out of a confrontation with less danger of facing charges for killing someone, you're better off with a slasher like the Spyderco Civilian or Emerson La Griffe. Maybe something to think about if you're planning on self-defense carry (I know, I know, lots of y'all will say "Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six").
 
A quote attributed to Cicero (I think):
"To wound, use the edge, to kill, use the point."
Skeletal remains from ancient battlefields have revealed evidence of "slash" wounds that had healed, yet the death blow came from a puncture-type wound.

Do a search, this has been discussed a bunch here.
 
Originally posted by Ken Cox
Anecdotally, my experience as an EMS helicopter pilot suggests to me that people who suffer a punctured abdomen or chest tend to stop moving around almost immediately.
The depth of puncture doesn't seem to matter so much as long as the puncture suffices to create a loss of cavity pressure.
The body seems to say, "Uh Oh, serious, lay down and stop moving."

However, in a life and death combat situation where the adversary's body does not have any other options than fight or die, then it might help if the blade can reach deep into critical systems and disrupt them.
Death will put a hitch in the adversary's giddyup.

Finally, I don't think it takes as much skill, training, coordination or athletic ability to "poke" a moving adversary with a sharp object as it does to butcher him on the hoof.
Click to expand...
That is excellent input.

Other factors impeding slashes are clothing and retraction.

In florida it is HOT; EDPs and street-scum are often wearing LAYERS of clothing in the middle of summer!

Practice slashes on a stationary object, then on an object that someone is pulling away from your cuts - you may get a cut but factor in the natural instinct to retract from the blade - even a committed slash with a sharp blade may only score a superficial cut on a retracting target.

Remember, most people that are stabbed to death are stabbed to death by SCREWDRIVERS.
 
"Remember, most people that are stabbed to death are stabbed to death by SCREWDRIVERS."

Good point James. Had a run in w/ a bunch of drunks in my mellow neighborhood bar circa 1990- they all (4 or 5 guys) had screwdrivers in their back pockets. We let the cops (or Shore Patrol in this instance) handle it. Bad juju.

Screwdrivers were reported to be the line grunt's best friend in the Pacific in WWII.
 
Over history the slash or point methods change with weapon systems and social driven battle etiquette. Some tribal systems with villages having brawls with their neighbors didn't want too many dead because of the blood vendettas that would follow. The exercise had a lot to do with swopping gene pools with the distribution of wealth being the excuse. Another was to gain slaves, which aren't much good dead. After the fight many could return home to lick their wounds, well stitch them up.

Poor metal bronze or steel limited what could be achieved. Armour also was a deciding factor as was training. The Samurai system has more to do with poor steel and armour type than anything else.

If you want your enemy dead then use puncture weapons be it a clever or stiletto.

The cut throat razor is a terror weapon; the sharpened screwdriver a killing weapon.

I have a cousen who gained his sergeon training from stitching machete slash wounds from the shanty towns of southern Africa. There it was ok to cut up your wife or husband but not to kill them.
 
I am a novice in the world of knife fighting. It seems to me, however, that a hard chop to the upper body, be it head, neck, arm, with a large chopper, such as a kukri or Battle Mistress, would go a long way in taking the fight out of the bad guy. It also seems that this move would enable you to back out of the melee faster and save yourself from harm. Would it be safer to use this type of technique before fully commiting yourself to multiple stabs to the head/neck area? To go the multiple stabs route seems like it would take full commitment to enter your opponent's perimeter of defense, thus exposing yourself to harm. If you can do so, great. But is it better to first try to wear the guy down a bit, then commit?

Talking to practitioners of some Silat systems versus the Escrima systems, it seems like this may be the difference. I am aware that some of the Silat systems go straight for the neck, and be damned with "defanging the snake." The Escrima systems seek to "defang the snake", then go for the kill. I guess it all depends on the situation, practioner, weapon, etc. But from a novice standpoint, it seems safest to me to whack the guy hard with a big chopper before entering to give him multiple stabs. Then again, I have never been in a knife fight and would rather have a handgun on me for defense.
 
AD,

Some very interesting thoughts there. The original "debate" was about thrusting versus slashing. Chopping is an entirely different animal. A chop with a Battle Mistress, tomahawk, or khukuri would be different than a slash or a thrust. Kind of in between, I'd imagine. I have an article form an old SOF mag (I think) of an officer who learned how to use a khukuri and used it for sentry removal. They lop heads of nicely, if the article can be trusted!!

But, as far as staying away and so on, knives are close quarter weapons by their design. IF you could use the range of your BM and keep the guy away, that is great. Mick's approach in his stabbing thread is that if you are going to kill, your most efficient method will be a stab. So, crash the line and run down the guy's throat with stabs. If you need to slash to get on top of the guy, so be it. But everything should be about getting to the stab. FORWARD PRESSURE is important here.

You can imagine one scenario where you hold your knife in a forward grip and trhust from a distance at the opponent's attacking hand. When you score a hit and the opponent is distracted, you RUN at the bad guy, switching to reverse grip, and finish the job with much aggression.
 
This slash or thrust debate for small knives is a very 20th/21st centry. Any other centry then reach would be equally as important. The present dbate is wholely due to the fact that weapons are not generally carried in the civilised world. If they weren't banned then everybody would carry handguns. So the alternative is to carry something concealable and sharp.

Carrying an ofensive/defensive knife has consequences, especially with the legal systems that go with the general disarmament. If you are a criminal its a choise between cutting someone up or killing them. If cought how many years do you want (death penalty)? If you are carrying to protect yourself from criminals will your defence get you off or make you the criminal. The decision happened when you left home with your concealed choise of weapon.

Training for knife fighting may give you an edge but could just give you too much confidence that ends you in trouble. Most knife fights are so fast and one sided that the one that commits wins. Real life isn't fare. Training has very little oportunity to help in a meaningful way unless you are an official good guy and then you can be armed properly with a gun.

Theory and practice in training is only interesting to those who want to have fun with it. Like any matial art, its a good thing when done responsibly. The man v man scenario, tournament stand off, makes slashing followed by thrusts the method. But thats because the scenario is false to start with.
 
I am confused by what you mean when you say "training has very little opportunity to help in a meaningful way."? Any training you have makes you that much better prepared,IMO.
 
I followed James Sass's links and found a chart which described in terms of seconds how long it would take a person to bleed to unconsciousness if cut in different places/arteries.
Sobering.
Surprising.
Relevant to this discussion.

I have two knives which one could call self-defense knives, and only one of them qualifies by size (small) for daily carry.
Looking at the bleed-out chart, I noticed the vulnerability of the sub-clavicle artery, and that it would take a stab to reach it; a stab for which my Greco Persian seems particularly suited in the reverse or ice-pick grip.
I also noticed the extreme vulnerability of the brachial artery, and its accessiblity to a slash even by my 2.5" Native.
Scary stuff.

Going back to the stabbing thing, though, I find everyone's input valid.
The distinction between stabbing, slashing and hacking, which has started to come into focus for me as the result of this discussion, has to do with ease of application, timing and rhythm (efficiency?); and not so much the effectiveness of a delivered stab, slash or hack.

As a measure of efficiency, I imagine myself standing flat-footed, square to the aggressor, with blade in hand but not raised or poised in any particular posture of unusual readiness.
I paint this word picture for the purposes of comparing efficiency and not as a suggestion that anyone should stand this way when confronted by an aggressor.

In any event, to stab someone requires only a single forward movement towards a large, general target; it could involve skill if the defender had to direct the "poke" through or around guarding hands and arms, but not much skill.

To slash effectively requires a target, a small target, and two movements; the first movement to the target and the second movement in a draw cut.
Yes, a person can make a single-movement general slash, in what one would call in tennis a "forehand."
This would require a step with the diagonally opposing foot, say a step with the left foot for someone holding a knife in the right hand, and the cut would progress from outward to inward, which presents few really vulnerable targets other than the knee and the side of the neck.
Generally, the fight-stopping slash requires two initial movements and then a succession of movements which hopefully will have a cumulative effect.

In order to hack, the defender must raise the blade to a beginning position, lead with his elbow and, again, step with the diagonally opposing foot.
The defender must also have proper distance.
Somone attacking through this defense can do so by moving inside the arc of the blade and/or controlling the weapon elbow.
It requires very little force applied to the weapon elbow to cause the blade to miss its mark.
Raising a blade to the beginning position for a hack also opens up the defender to either a jab to the nose or a jujitsu/wrestling takedown.

-----

This said, I find myself thinking of my mental picure of the "original Bowie knife".
Yes, we can only speculate regarding the "original Bowie knife".
However, one very good candidate for the title "original Bowie" would have worked best if held in an edge-up grip, with the "clip" down.
An edge-up grip allows for a single-movement slash, especially to the inside of the agressor's thighs (femoral artery) and groin, as well as a backhand upward-flip to the agressor's neck by the defender.

My candidate for "original Bowie" does not have a traditional crescent-shaped clip, but a straight clip from spine to point.
Imagine hitting someone in the head with either the last four sharpened inches (clip) of the blade or with the unsharpened, downward-held heavy spine.

With my candidate for "origianl Bowie," if one draws a line from the butt of the handle through the center of the guard, the line continues forward to the very sharp point of my "original Bowie," making it a perfect for thrusting.
When we hold this Bowie in our modern way of holding it, edge-down, it appears to sweep upwards in a really strange and awkward manner.
However, if we hold it edge-up, the sharpened clip fall below the center-handle line, about where one would find the leading edge of a Kukri.

So, with this knife, one could slash upwards into the groin or neck, and, continuing or following through, the blade would come up to a raised hacking position, ready for a downward blow to the head, shoulder or neck, and then to a final jab.

Bowie presented Black with a design that Bowie wanted made.
We think that design, following the pattern of a knife designed and made by his brother Rezin and used by James Bowie at the Vidalia Sandbar Fight, resembled a large, heavy Chef's knife.
Black made two knives; one to Bowie's design and one to Black's own design.
Bowie chose Black's design over his own.
I think Bowie used it edge up and clip down so that he could slash, hack and stab with maximum speed and effect.

Talk about yer digression.
 
Ken, as an interesting support for your argument regarding Bowie knife use, you might want to check out Don Rearic's post in the trench-knife thread linking to his recent article on brass knuckles. One of the knives he pictures is a bowie-styled blade, clearly designed to be used "upside-down" based on knuckle position. I think your comments make a great deal of sense.
 
Originally posted by James Sass

Other factors impeding slashes are clothing and retraction.
In florida it is HOT; EDPs and street-scum are often wearing LAYERS of clothing in the middle of summer!
Click to expand...

Great observation James. It is also very true. Homeless people wear all of thier clothes all the time. It is the best way to keep them with you. They also use all of the pockets to hold thier stuff. Beware a slash or stab into a can of tuna! Also, street folks ALWAYS have a knife. (or something)

Afraid of badddies with blades, The Magician
 
One2gofst, I'll try to clarify what I said.

Most knife attacks are suden and from ambush. Even the highly trained can be shocked to the extent that their reaction is too slow for them to take advantage of their training. Its already over. From ambush even the untrained will get a hit in. You would need to be highly trained and already hyped up to react faster than instinctively, and even then if the attacker is already in your zone it may be too late.

Those who like to train please do because there is a lot one can get out of it. Its just that in the big picture, statistically, it doesn't show any real advantage.

The exceptions are those, in lets say law inforcement, that regularly find themselves encountering knives. Training and operation drills return the advantage. Experience and counter measures are already switched on.
Examples: the off duty policeman who ends up mugged. He is off duty, switched off, and walks right into it. Or, the doorman monitoring for trouble and sees it in time to get the disarm in first.

I am refering to attacks, not abandoned attacks before they have started. Confident looking people are not in general a criminals target. Martial arts training usually makes them look more confident.

This reminds me of a recorded incident of two thugs that went at each other with cut throat razors. Both bled to death from their wounds.
 
Green, I agree that most attacks are surprise in nature. But when you say that martial arts are not that statistically effective, what is your source for your statistics. Proper training will teach you to react in a manner than has been engrained in muscle memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top