Can Gi Chokes work for self-defense?

[ignatzami]

Your scenario assumes that A didn't produce the knife. And if A is the attacker, producing the knife is possibly the first thing he'll do, to intimadate you. If the knife is already drawn, going in for a throw is awfully risky.

If a person draws a weapon they most likely do not intend to use it. They are using the weapon as an intimidation factor, NOT as a combative factor.

If a person is intending to do harm with the knife then they will not draw it until it is most opportunistic.

I've trained Kali for a few years and I have NEVER been told to produce the knife till either a) your in the clinch, or b) until after the opponent has resisted a series of attacks and you need to increase the lethality of your strikes or c) the opponent is in a position where a single attack with the blade will definitively end the confrontation, i.e. I've taken his back and am going for a kidney shot with the blade.

Obviously solo baton y daga is different.

[ignatzami]

I have had a thought.....

I will re-do the previously mentioned experiment. Yet instead of a relatively new (~1 year) kali practitioner I'm going to ask my Kali instructor. See if experience helps.

Anyone care to take bets on me getting Kali-Owned?

[han090]

If a person draws a weapon they most likely do not intend to use it. They are using the weapon as an intimidation factor, NOT as a combative factor.

If a person is intending to do harm with the knife then they will not draw it until it is most opportunistic.

I've trained Kali for a few years and I have NEVER been told to produce the knife till either a) your in the clinch, or b) until after the opponent has resisted a series of attacks and you need to increase the lethality of your strikes or c) the opponent is in a position where a single attack with the blade will definitively end the confrontation, i.e. I've taken his back and am going for a kidney shot with the blade.

Obviously solo baton y daga is different.

It's certainly not the clever thing to do. But your average knife wiedling vagabond is hardly the poster child for intelligence.

Like people adopting complicated martial arts poses because they've seen it in films etc.

In any case, i made my point badly.I was more trying to get across the poor judgement in the assumption that they would only go for the knife while you were going for the throw, and the further assumption that they would get the throw before they managed to pull the knife out.

[ignatzami]

It's certainly not the clever thing to do. But your average knife wiedling vagabond is hardly the poster child for intelligence.

Like people adopting complicated martial arts poses because they've seen it in films etc.

In any case, i made my point badly.I was more trying to get across the poor judgment in the assumption that they would only go for the knife while you were going for the throw, and the further assumption that they would get the throw before they managed to pull the knife out.

Ah, my apologies, I think I see more where your coming from.

Let me see if I can elaborate on my point a little bit more.

We were testing a limited scenario, we wished to see would a person armed with a knife, with the intent to cause physical harm, not intimidate, be able to draw the weapon and bring it into play against a skilled (or semi-skilled) opponent.

Now, our reasoning was as such:

1) If my attacker has the weapon out at the start of the confrontation I'm going to adopt different tactics. For starters my primary goal will be to control, or neutralize the weapon. Attacks against the hand, limb destruction, etc. Would be my primary options then, and only then, would I seek to employ a throw.

2) If I know my attacker is armed yet the weapon is not visible I'm going to alter my tactics again, looking to control the dominant arm as much as possible as well as being much more cognizant of my opponents movements towards where a weapon might be concealed. i.e. his hand going for a pocket.

However we started with the following assumptions.

- There was going to be a fight, both parties had agreed to it.
- No concern for "is this going to land me in jail"
- One party was armed, albeit surreptitiously.
- One party was not and did not know the other party was armed.
- The unarmed party had to control the armed party and either submit or pin.

But above all....

- We just wanted to play Judo against Kali.

[1point2]

It's certainly not the clever thing to do. But your average knife wiedling vagabond is hardly the poster child for intelligence.

Like people adopting complicated martial arts poses because they've seen it in films etc.

I cannot disagree more. Assuming that someone with a knife is going to do something stupid or egregiously wrong is asking for your intestines to meet the pavement.

Just because they have a knife doesn't mean they aren't fast, vicious, or cunning. If they have a knife, they will try to keep it away from you and often try to hide it until it is used.

[ignatzami]

I cannot disagree more. Assuming that someone with a knife is going to do something stupid or egregiously wrong is asking for your intestines to meet the pavement.

Just because they have a knife doesn't mean they aren't fast, vicious, or cunning. If they have a knife, they will try to keep it away from you and often try to hide it until it is used.

Couldn't agree more.

[han090]

I cannot disagree more. Assuming that someone with a knife is going to do something stupid or egregiously wrong is asking for your intestines to meet the pavement.

Just because they have a knife doesn't mean they aren't fast, vicious, or cunning. If they have a knife, they will try to keep it away from you and often try to hide it until it is used.

I didn't mean to suggest that anyone with a knife was foolish, just that there are a lot of people who will pull a knife on you at the beginning of a fight, even if it's not the clever thing to do. Not everyone knows that. That's all.

Still ignatzami, it does sound interesting to try out situations like that.