- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Messages
- 59
There are skilled throwers who browse this forum, and the moderator, Mr. Branton, is a nationally-renowned expert. I know my question is borne of ignorance, but I will persist. (As they say in the oilfields, "Do SOMETHIN, Even If It's WRONG"):
Suppose I have my Tru-Bal Mountain Bowie out in the backyard with a paper target. I pace off about 8 ft., throw following Branton Co.'s instructions, the knife hits but does not stick. I keep experimenting: a step forward, throw, a step back, throw, until I find I find that with my personal(awkward) stance and motion, if I stand precisely 10.5 ft. from the target, I can reliably stick my thrower in the target 9 out of 10 times. I can see that from that distance my knife is making 3 1/2 complete revolutions; when I take one step back, the knife makes 4 complete revolutions, and the knife lands point-down; similarly, if I take one step forward, the knife only finishes 3 whirls, and lands flat, point-up.
Hey, I know nothin about this stuff; but is what I've said so far reasonable?
So. I will presume the above is not ridiculous. Next, suppose, now, I'm getting better; I step back 3 steps; I find I can reach my
9-out-of-10 ratio, again, at 12.5 feet. Gradually I can see that my thrower is now making 4 1/2 revolutions, each time. And if I move forward one step, the blade comes in too high by half a rev; if I step one step to the rear, the blade noses down. At precisely 12.5 feet I stick it 9-out-of-10 times.
My question is this: the question has been raised, on Mr. Branton's discussion site, whether a throwing knife could be part of a
self-defense. To me, the question is FASCINATING. Think of all the means of self-defense. Martial arts--they work at ZERO distance. TASERS, etc. zero distance. OC sprays, any other gas defense sprays: well, that's worth considering. They claim (FoxLabs, et. al.) to function reliably at 8 - 10 feet. Of course, knives -- zero distance. The ONLY FULLY ACCEPTED form of self-defense that (i)DOES work at a distance, and at (ii) GREATER than 10 feet --- is a pistol. Now, if a thrower were accurate, it would join with handguns ALONE as the ONLY methods of defense that can work at a distance greater than 8 (or 10) feet. Further, if a thrower is thrown but does not penetrate; if it is 'close-to-sticking'---the defensivehit strike, the mechanical force is probably so shocking awe-inspiring and stunningdisruptive, the thrower can now either (i) flee or
(ii) follow up the thrower with a smothering groundfighting defense. If deployed instantly the defense would likely meet little resistance.
But now I return to the puzzle I began with. Suppose, to 'land,' to 'stick' the landing/ target; to KNOW I am going to stick the target, I **MUST** BE STANDING (i) 10.5 or (ii)12.5 feet from the target. And, if don't want to be surprised, and take unknown risks, I must KNOW, in advance of throwing, that I AM at one of the approved sites/distances.
All that sounds a bit artificial, an unreal depiction of a defensive manuever. Everybody of course knows that an imminent assault by a
no-neck monster approaching is NO TIME to be stepping off distances, putting pepples next to 8.5 ft., 10.5 feet, 12.5 ft from the doorway you expect the deadender to come in; you can't know he won't move suddenly, and ruin all your calculations. And there MAY be reason for YOU to move, suddenly, that, too, upsetting your plan to stick your throw. An assault is a fluid, dynamic configuration; your success at throwing, thus far, seems to me dependent on your ability to eliminate unknowns; which seems unrealistic, impractical, in the self-defense setting.
I've gone on too long, it's just a 'thought-experiment'; I certainly would be happy if it elicited any responses from the knowledgeable readers out there. --- JDM
Suppose I have my Tru-Bal Mountain Bowie out in the backyard with a paper target. I pace off about 8 ft., throw following Branton Co.'s instructions, the knife hits but does not stick. I keep experimenting: a step forward, throw, a step back, throw, until I find I find that with my personal(awkward) stance and motion, if I stand precisely 10.5 ft. from the target, I can reliably stick my thrower in the target 9 out of 10 times. I can see that from that distance my knife is making 3 1/2 complete revolutions; when I take one step back, the knife makes 4 complete revolutions, and the knife lands point-down; similarly, if I take one step forward, the knife only finishes 3 whirls, and lands flat, point-up.
Hey, I know nothin about this stuff; but is what I've said so far reasonable?
So. I will presume the above is not ridiculous. Next, suppose, now, I'm getting better; I step back 3 steps; I find I can reach my
9-out-of-10 ratio, again, at 12.5 feet. Gradually I can see that my thrower is now making 4 1/2 revolutions, each time. And if I move forward one step, the blade comes in too high by half a rev; if I step one step to the rear, the blade noses down. At precisely 12.5 feet I stick it 9-out-of-10 times.
My question is this: the question has been raised, on Mr. Branton's discussion site, whether a throwing knife could be part of a
self-defense. To me, the question is FASCINATING. Think of all the means of self-defense. Martial arts--they work at ZERO distance. TASERS, etc. zero distance. OC sprays, any other gas defense sprays: well, that's worth considering. They claim (FoxLabs, et. al.) to function reliably at 8 - 10 feet. Of course, knives -- zero distance. The ONLY FULLY ACCEPTED form of self-defense that (i)DOES work at a distance, and at (ii) GREATER than 10 feet --- is a pistol. Now, if a thrower were accurate, it would join with handguns ALONE as the ONLY methods of defense that can work at a distance greater than 8 (or 10) feet. Further, if a thrower is thrown but does not penetrate; if it is 'close-to-sticking'---the defensivehit strike, the mechanical force is probably so shocking awe-inspiring and stunningdisruptive, the thrower can now either (i) flee or
(ii) follow up the thrower with a smothering groundfighting defense. If deployed instantly the defense would likely meet little resistance.
But now I return to the puzzle I began with. Suppose, to 'land,' to 'stick' the landing/ target; to KNOW I am going to stick the target, I **MUST** BE STANDING (i) 10.5 or (ii)12.5 feet from the target. And, if don't want to be surprised, and take unknown risks, I must KNOW, in advance of throwing, that I AM at one of the approved sites/distances.
All that sounds a bit artificial, an unreal depiction of a defensive manuever. Everybody of course knows that an imminent assault by a
no-neck monster approaching is NO TIME to be stepping off distances, putting pepples next to 8.5 ft., 10.5 feet, 12.5 ft from the doorway you expect the deadender to come in; you can't know he won't move suddenly, and ruin all your calculations. And there MAY be reason for YOU to move, suddenly, that, too, upsetting your plan to stick your throw. An assault is a fluid, dynamic configuration; your success at throwing, thus far, seems to me dependent on your ability to eliminate unknowns; which seems unrealistic, impractical, in the self-defense setting.
I've gone on too long, it's just a 'thought-experiment'; I certainly would be happy if it elicited any responses from the knowledgeable readers out there. --- JDM
