Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BlockyPS" data-source="post: 4724556" data-attributes="member: 80677">Hi APC,   Define combat – do you mean warfare? If so then it’s more likely to be 100-1. However, on the street it’s probably more like 1000-1 the other way. And I’m not making an anecdotal argument here. Stop and consider the body. A cut can kill! It’s as simple as that. Slide a razor sharp blade across a person’s neck open the carotid and they’re dead. Cut the Brachial under the arm or femoral in the leg and its game over. Similar story with tendons cut a hamstring, the person can’t stand, they can’t fight.    Well, APC you have no idea what I do as you’ve never seen it. You’re simply guessing from your own experience and references. Fair enough, what else can you go on? I’d say you’d be surprised what can be done with two knives, in this case you simply don’t know what you don’t know. How would I go against them? It depends. Assume equal level of training and equal quality of weapons. Each poses their own problems and challenges but each is also manageable if you think about the dynamics of the fight.  You seem to constantly assume that the person with the longer/bigger weapon automatically hits. No matter what weapon they use, be it a sword, spear, pole, it has to enter my defensive zone in which case I have a chance of stopping the attack. You also seem to think that a larger weapon CAN’T be stopped, but you are simply wrong. It can be up to a certain point and beyond that the weapon is usually so heavy and unwieldy that it creates its own problems for the user.    Maybe, maybe not, but I wouldn’t risk it. For a guy your size I wouldn’t use one knife.   Assuming I have no idea what I’m doing, that I have no idea of how to use proper body structure and force to block. Sure.  Actually no I wouldn’t. You’re assuming I would fight how you would fight. I treat a feint as an attack. That probably sounds like a silly notion but it’s not, as I have found in practice. There are many good reasons for this approach but I’d have to write something akin to an article to explain it. Which I don’t have time for here. Hang on a second. You’re now bringing shields and armour into this equation when the original argument was over two daggers vs a single weapon. As I said before, I have no experience with this combo so can’t comment unless you want me to consider it further.  True. You can’t replicate reality when training or else people die. However, you can replicate a) power – to test defensive structure, b) speed – to test reaction times and c) strategy – to test counters. And yes, those Kali guys are good. They follow many of the principles I use but not all of them <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> And need I say it again – I agree that a second weapon shouldn’t necessarily grant a second attack in D&D <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />    Yes, you are right but you’d be surprised where this point is. Some weapons are just too heavy to block. I wouldn’t even try to block a Chinese Maul which weights 80 pounds. Your strategy has to change under those circumstances but not for swords, spears, poles etc.   As I said before, you are assuming that that one attack hits. It might miss or be blocked. If possible, you want to initiate the first attack but if they have a longer weapon you have to go after it first. If it’s in my defensive zone (about 3 feet from my body) I can do this. If it’s not, I wait for the weapon to come closer.   Not at all. If you want to try and use an empty hand to control a live blade be my guest. I see where you’re trying to come from here but the reality is 2 blades against one has the advantage and if you try to commit your empty hand to the fray it’s just lights up as a huge target and is more than likely to get cut up very badly.   I commend your gallantry! Good job!   Fully agree!   At the risk of sounding like a broken record; cut the artery and the person’s dead. You can have a team of crack surgeons standing by on the spot and they wouldn’t be able to save them. You’re right that generating the right piercing power is difficult but a cut is always my preferred attack type. You’re right about armour giving a person a distinct advantage but our originally argument wasn’t about daggers vs armour. It was daggers vs weapons.   Reach has its advantages but weapons that grant reach also have their drawbacks. My position is that I think there are more drawbacks with a reach weapon then there are with 2 knives and 2 knives have the advantage over one sword even though it has greater reach than the knives.  The major reason for this is that I can reach and control the weapon when it enters my zone and that’s all that I need. It’s irrelevant that I can’t reach the person as I don’t need to at that point.   Maybe, maybe not. Again you have no idea what I do so you are making statements from a position of assumption, not knowledge. And lead leg vulnerability is something I am acutely aware of and know how to manage.  I haven’t argued this at all APC. You seem to think that closing the range means advancing on the attacker by dodging and weaving. I don’t close the range until I have the weapon under control. At a guess I’d say you have little exposure to this concept. Once my weapon touches the opponents, one of my two weapons stays in contact with it the WHOLE time.  You’re getting off track again APC. We’re not talking about fighting animals. We’re talking about fighting MEN who have weapons. And we’re certainly not talking about fighting dragons lol.  I’m not 100% sure what you mean here. I assume you mean reversing a knife so it acts like a Tonfa. Well, I would never reverse a knife. It’s a very silly thing to do in a fight for a variety of reasons. You’re Kali friends would no doubt disagree with me on that tho <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   Deflection or block entirely depends on the angle and type of attack. A thrust from a spear I’d deflect, a swing from a sword I’d block. And yes, they are full swings from a pretty big and strong guy. I can see how confused you can get when you’re imagining one thing (using a Tonfa) and I’m doing something entirely different. Limitations of a forum I’m afraid.   Yep, as I said before you can’t simulate reality as people will die. However, you can simulate aspects of reality which can give you the feedback you need to know whether what you’re doing is working or not. Also, the way we fight, if we block or deflect an attack, the opponent rarely gets a chance to make a second attack as we flow immediately into offence. Again hard to picture unless you see what we do.    Argument is Human v Human remember <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   You’re talking about a psychological situation here. I’m talking about the physical dynamics of a fight. Your psychological point is valid but not relevant to the concept of physical weapon control.  Yes, yes, you keep coming back to this; they attack you, you die it’s all over. And you seem to think that defence is near useless. Well, my experience, training and knowledge says otherwise. Historical combat? Do you mean warfare? We have already discussed the different dynamics there. See more below.    Well, I’m not sure what you mean by advance your position. Can you give me an example? I’m glad you’re aware of the concept of attacking the weapon/weapon hand.  Define ton’s of training? What percentage of historical armies were professional soldiers? What percentage were conscripts or levied workers? What sort of training did they get? The answer is the vast bulk of armies were made up of poorly trained conscripted troops. And my point is that armies weren’t made up of thousands of martial artists who trained everyday. In fact historically it was only the rich who could afford the cost of training in martial arts and martial artists were very family orientated. You’d have to be invited to learn. Even in the European societies it was only the rich lords who could afford armour and the tutors to learn to use weapons. It’s not like today where you can walk down the street and join a martial arts club.  So my point which you obviously missed was most battles occurred with relatively untrained troops, hence the need for weapons they could learn to use quickly and then use in simple formations to the greatest effect. So to use historical warfare as an argument for your point of view is fundamentally flawed.    And my point was casualty rates were much higher than you suggest because people who were rendered ineffective on the battlefield from injuries usually died. The true extent of casualties in past is probably more like 50-70%. My reference to a few seconds was between 2 highly skilled people who after initial contact, one would have got the advantage and killed their opponent. As I point out above, armies were not made up of people who trained for 10-20 years. Usually they got only several months to train and you can only get so good in that time.    If you say so. 3-5 days a week for 2-5 hours per training session. Entirely depends on how busy things get in my life. Like now, I haven’t trained for 3 months at all as I’m performing on stage or rehearsing every day. But my instructor, who’s continuously trained for the last 40 years spent a whole 10 year period where he trained 8 hours a day, everyday. Pretty incredible but then life styles were very different back in the 60/70’s.    No, I do not assume a miss! I always assume a serious attack that is trying to kill me! I don’t try and dodge, I try to use superior speed, structure and angles to get the advantage. Again you have no idea what I do, so you are making assumptions. A Gladius is a sword, it follows the same rules as all other swords. I’m not sure why you picked this weapon over any other sword to make a point with. I’m starting to sense a bit of a preoccupation with all things Roman? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />    Again, I haven’t been arguing about knives vs shields. Only about TWO knives vs ONE weapon. Some things you can test, some things are simply common sense and when you’ve trained 10+ years you get a certain insight into how things work. And if I find myself in the position that I have to stop several blows in a row, then I must have done something very very wrong to get into that position.   I appreciate the apology – whole heartedly accepted. A heavy sword, yes I can block. A maul, not much of a chance. It depends on the attacker.  But maybe a sword and shield is better than two knives. I don’t know. It would make an interesting experiment but I don’t know anyone who’s highly trained with them. Any answer I could give would be based on my current experience and knowledge, not real life application. However, sword and Shield vs 2 knives was never the argument I was trying to make. 2 knives vs a single weapon, I find superior.   And I think you have that perception because you have never seen anyone use 2 knives properly against someone attacking with a reach weapon <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification