"Gaming" vs. Blitzing attacks

Underground
1

A while ago there was a thread on here where the value of gaming was being discussed as a means to training knife defense. I believe it was mainly Demi that was proposing that gaming could sometimes be beneficial. On the other I think it was mainly Jerry W that was suggesting that gaming in knife training doesn't address the realities of a knife attack and the training should simulate a blitzing attack with constant pressure.

I can't go as far as to say that gaming has no benefit in learning how to deal with a knife attack, but I do think the reality of knife attacks is that they are blitzing with tons of pressure.

My question then is two fold. First, do you guys think that gaming has any benefit when it comes to knife defense? Second (and probably more important to this thread), if you don't believe that gaming has any real benefit because it doesn't accurately reproduce a real knife attack, then how does this information translate to your empty hand self defense training? I haven't been in many fights in my life. However, I've seen a lot of fights (violating the first rule of self-defense by hanging out with crazy people) and I know others who have had their fair share of altercations. Of these encounters, I've never seen or heard of someone using techniques like intricate faking, complex setups, illusive footwork, etc. Real empty hand attacks, like knife attacks, are blitzing. But the way most people train their empty hand skill (i.e. rolling, kick boxing sparring, clinch sparring) is in fact gaming. So, assuming some of you don't think gaming is appropriate for knife defense, why is it then the preferred method of training for empty hand self defense?

(For those that don't know what I'm talking about, it is my understanding that gaming in knife defense refers to like knife dueling or knife sparring where the attacker is trying to play "the game" just to score as opposed to using an aggressive blitz with constant stabbing pressure like a real attacker would.)

2

Great post Calbert, and I think it's a great subject for discussion.

Here's my 2 cents:

  • As many have posted on here before, not everybody trains for self-defense. People train for fun. This is why people roll in gi's, box with 16oz. gloves and head gear, and spar with foam sticks and knives. It's fun!! If you have a a training environment where realistic techniques (not scenarios) are utilized in a safe, ego-free environment, "gaming" type of sparring is very healthy both physically and mentally.

  • The beauty of this type of "gaming" type of sparring is that it can develop attributes, such as athleticism, control of distance, etc. These attributes are crucial ingredients for "scenario"-type training. However, just because realistic attributes are developed during "gaming" sparring, it doesn't mean that these attributes are good-to-go for scenario-specific training (e.g. multiple opponents, allowing "dirty" tactics, etc.).

  • If a practitioner is interested in self-defense, then it would be important to train for the specific scenarios that the practitioner feels they need to address. Highly pressurized, scenario-specific training (both physical and mental) will allow the practitioner to apply their attributes they developed during "gaming" sparring, and allowing them to hone it specifically to the needs of the scenario they're training.

  • All in all, I think it really depends on your specific goals. Gaming-style knife-sparring is a lot of fun and can develop good attributes that can cross-over into scenario-style training, but it should not be confused with what can happen in real-life attacks.

3

If my opponent had a knife drawn, and I had a knife drawn, and I absolutely had to fight and not run away...I would probably take more of a "gaming" approach, than a wild, reckless one.

That being said, the above scenario happening is very far fetched, and not really worth putting a lot of training time into.

Speaking of training methods, check this one out I read about in Grappling magazine, I guess this one guy who trains military people is doing it. The students are grappling, no strikes, but someone in the class has a stun gun hidden in their clothing. But only that person knows who's got it! So the intensity goes through the roof as every is looking for a weapon to come out at any time - no one wants to get shocked. :)

I wouldn't want to do that very often, I don't think, but a pretty cool, realistic knife drill.

4

"Speaking of training methods, check this one out I read about in Grappling magazine, I guess this one guy who trains military people is doing it. The students are grappling, no strikes, but someone in the class has a stun gun hidden in their clothing. But only that person knows who's got it! So the intensity goes through the roof as every is looking for a weapon to come out at any time - no one wants to get shocked. :)"

Wow, that sounds intense. Is there a separate goal to the training? As in, while they're rolling, they're frisking their opponent for the stun gun?

5

It has been called "gaming". I feel that was an agenda based term.

When what I was doing was called gaming it was the following:

Starting counter knife training in long range where you still have the
ability to puch and kick. Allowing the defender to train against a
progressive attacker so they can develop a few tools against a person
with a knife. Eye jabs, knee shots and even punches can come into play
"even though someone holds a knife".

We allow these options to be explored and developed in the first part
of the counter knife program.

The training is very progressive so it starts off slow. Hence, gaming.

We then move on to pressure and close rage attacks.

I also promote knife sparring - Knife vs Knife. Again we start of with
basics and "cut the knife limb" and then quickly move on to cutting
whatever presents itself. Also training with both hands against
orthodox and unorthodox knife opponents as well.

Often times you find you can cut the throat/eyes and groin/thigh areas
of a person who has been defeanging the snake forever because they
have never had any other energy coming at them other than someone
going for their hand.

Demi (rock legend) Barbito

6

"Wow, that sounds intense. Is there a separate goal to the training? As in, while they're rolling, they're frisking their opponent for the stun gun?"

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they are always looking for the weapon, physically (frisking) as well as mentally. Another thing the guy said in the article is that the one who starts out with the stun gun is not always the one who ends up with it! So weapon retention is something they're trying to train as well, I think.

7

JRockwell:

Thanks. Sounds like an awesome drill.

I remember an old classmate who was LEO, and he took a private with Royler. He said that Royler built my classmate's entire game around keeping his holster safe while on the ground. That's a pretty good example of how someone can change the "gaming" style training into a "scenario"-style.

8

Hi guys,

I'd guess I'd have to agree with Demi that the use of the term "gaming" is a bit agenda based, that agenda being developing useful skills in the shortest time possible.

4 Ranges hit the nail on the head with the point that people train for different reasons and enjoy different types of training. I also agree that it is possible to develope athleticism and footwork that can be transferred to scenario type training.

Since Calbert asked about self defense, that's what I'll address here in an effort to clarify my view on this. I think the reason that I am wary of "gaming" when it comes to "self defense" type training is that the practitioners can quickly lose sight of the context that their training for and this renders the rest of the training session pointless.

As an example, I am a big advocate of the "get the heck out of dodge as soon as there is a window of opportunity" approach. With that said, the only thing that would make me engage is if the assailant was forcing the action. Now if in training my training partner becomes more interested in protecting his blade than attacking me that's all the window I need. If you want to smack the guy in the eyes or whatever, that's cool too. I'd much prefer to bail immediately.
Once people start dancing around playing tag it moves too far away for productive "self defense" training for my taste. I think that this can also be detrimental as the training that the student is experiencing bears no resemblence to an actual encounter at this point. There are, in my opinion, more efficient ways of doing things that will not waste the paying clients time (providing they are paying strictly for "self defense").

I think the majority of the responsibilty for avoiding "gaming" rests on the shoulders of the coach/trainer as opposed to the client. It needs to be clearly understood what a the goal of the training is and is not and the coach needs to watch that the g

As far as empty hand training goes, again I refer to 4 Ranges post. It really depends on what your focus is. If we're speaking strictly about "self defense" training, then I say keep the "gaming" out. However, in order to develop the physical skills necessary, one does need to spend time developing the delivery systems for the techniques they might use. This WOULD require a gaming approach which brings up an interesting point.

When we talk about defending against a knife pretty much everyone agrees that the best thing to do is avoid and escape with minimal contact. However, when it comes to empty hand "self defense" there are all different kinds of approaches from knockout chops to throws and sweeps to eye jab straightblast and HKE to "pull out my gun" and so on.

If one is truly only interested in "self defense" why wouldn't they just use the same tactics and avoid and escape? Why go hands on if you don't absolutely have to? There's something to be said about the difference between "self" defense and "ego" defense.

That being said, there are some significant differences between edged weapon and empty hand attacks (aside from the obvious). One of these is that the opponent has two hands that they are likely to attack with and they are more likely to demonstrate a wider variety of tactics (hence the benefit of cross training).

One of the significant differences, in my mind, between empty hand training and knife defense training
is how they develope skills for the practitioners. In boxing, for instance, both athletes get to work timing, distance, offense, defense, combinations, dealing with impact, etc. AT THE SAME TIME. This allows both people to bring up their game simultaneously. The goal in defense against the blade is to escape. If both people were to work their games, it would leave too much of an opening for escape for the defender (unless you're training to hunt and kill).

Because of the variety of reasons people train, at my gym we offer stand up and ground classes which cover more "gaming" approaches, training methods, etc. We also have practical application classes where people can work on applying their skills within a more realistic context.

Sorry for the rant:) I hardly get time to post on forums these days.

Jerry

9

Great post Jerry. Totally agree.

"assuming some of you don't think gaming is appropriate for knife defense, why is it then the preferred method of training for empty hand self defense?"

Because they're deluded, plain and simple.

As mentioned earlier, these training sessions contribute to developing tools and attributes, but not overall preparedness.

A serious instructor who teaches a student/client to defend themselves against being mugged or raped would be irresponsible if he were to focus their training solely on sparring in the ring, or having them roll on the mats.

10

"""If you want to smack the guy in the eyes or whatever, that's cool too. I'd
much prefer to bail immediately."""

It would be ideal to be able to dictate the scenario but the bad guy gets to
do that. You can only run as fast as the slowest member of your party. If
you have multiple kids you can't just take off.

Sometimes you actually may have to fight and the fight may not go
according to your plan.

11

"It would be ideal to be able to dictate the scenario but the bad guy gets to do that. You can only run as fast as the slowest member of your party. If you have multiple kids you can't just take off.

Sometimes you actually may have to fight and the fight may not go according to your plan"

Fair enough, although in my view, there can't really be a set plan. Just guidelines. In the case of multiple kids, the handicapped, etc. you're right a fast escape may not be an immediate option. That said, unless the person is actively attacking, I am putting myself between the bad guy and everyone else and focusing on getting everyone out safely. If the person is already attacking, then myfocus will be on immediately controlling the weapon bearing limb and so on...striking the bad guy is secondary to nullifying the weapon. Attempting strikes against an aready attacking bad guy almost always turns out bad. It can and has worked, but the success rate is pretty low.

Jerry

12

Here's a question for the forum:

I'm of the firm belief that in an empty-hand vs. knife situation, the empty-handed fellow has to sprint away from the knife-wielder.

However, there's a rather popular notion around these parts where a trained and athletic muay thai expert or boxer has a GREAT chance of defeating and outright incapacitating an "untrained" knife-wielder. I think someone once told a story here (I think it was Burton, but not sure) of a muay thai expert who got into a "road rage" situation, and actually got sliced in the arm, but proceeded to KO the knife-wielder. I believe the story was brought up as part of a discussion where the knife has been given too much superiority, and that athleticism can prevail in this type of situation.

How does this popular notion compare (a "gaming" empty-hand athlete vs. a knife-wielder) to the generally accepted strategy that one should run away in most, if not all, empty-hand vs. knife situations?

13

The best empty-hand to knife defense I know I learned from Takeshi Kitano: wrap your jacket around your hand and make the other guy swing at that, meanwhile buying a few split seconds to clock him or throw him down. Sounds goofy but apart from running away or kicking him in the knee and silly stuff like that it's a solution that makes sense to me :)

14

4 Ranges,

I remember hearing that story somewhere. There was an incident not far from my house where a knife weilding assailant was ko'd by an unarmed third party as well. It does happen.

I think when discussing varying approaches that as an instructor it is my responsibility to teach techniques and tactics that have the highest probability to enable my clients to protect themselves and their families. There are lots of things that "could" work but it really boils down to what is going on in "that moment".

As I said earlier, at best we can have a general idea of how we would repond, but it has to be flexible in orde to adapt as the situation evolves. For some reason, the kickboxer in the story felt it was safe to go ahead and swing figuring the guy was just brandishing. Perhaps he just lost his temper and didn't even think about the possible outcomes of the situation. If he had been stabbed or seriously injured, people would just come onto all kinds of forums and say "see, that's what happens when you face a knife. That sports stuff is for the birds."

It's kind of like when Alex Gong was killed. So many idiots were ready to jump in and talk about how "that sports stuff is no good in the street!". If Alex had yanked the guy from his car and thrown him a beating before he was able to fire his gun there would be people claiming the superiority of combat sports training.

There are valuable lessons to be learned in both.

Good post, Banco.

Jerry

15

"it really boils down to what is going on in "that moment."

I think this is the heart of it. Each individual is different, and each situation is different.

I think that the story about the muay thai fighter is good to remember because its a great example of how a "gaming"-trained athlete, with highly developed tools and a high level of athleticism, CAN overcome a resisting opponent in a so-called "assault" scenario.

I personally wouldn't RECOMMEND that approach (lol!!), but it does work.