Axiom: Weapon or Body

[Jeffrey Hull]

Axiom: When one is unarmed it is more important to take the weapon than control the body of an armed attacker.

If true, false, balance of both, or indeterminate -- then why?

[Bill Welch]

I think it would be better to try to control your opponents weapon arm or hand first, before you try to take a weapon.

[Jay Vail]

The initial core response of every manual I have seen so far dealing with unarmed defense against dagger is to grasp or otherwise gain control of the weapon bearing arm. All defenses, whether they are blows, locks, or throws, follow from the initial "cover" or grasp of the arm.

[TimSheetz]

I think it is important to control the greatest threat to your life, and that would mean the weapon arm and weapon.

But the opponent will have other threats that can't be ignored.

Tim

[Shane Smith]

I will always grab that weapon arm on closing to grapple if I safely can.

[Matt Bryant]

I completely agree with the previous statements.

Our group has started looking a little into unarmed .vs longsword techniques and from that I have learned a few simple rules:
1.) If you are unarmed/disarmed and your opponent still has his weapon... run. Run like hell. Unless, of course you have an extremely good grasp on timing and range.
2.) If you DO have the skill with which to execute the needed techniques go, with commitment, for the arm(s) holding the weapon. Specifically the elbows and wrists. From there you have sufficiant control to follow up with a break or throw. The follow up must be very quickly done, though, as not to allow your opponent to effectively react.

But always remember... running is a perfectly sound technique.

[Kevin Peterson]

I think that you need to control the weapon before moving in to the body. I find that in our dagger free play, it is much easier to overcome being unarmed when you can control the weapon arm. Even sweeping the blade aside to give you distance from the weapon threat, or a block that stops the movement of the weapon and gives time to move through the opening created by the block to move in and defeat the opponent. Granted that controlling the weapon arm is the best case scenario, but all of three options work and do control the weapon arm in different degrees. Just my two cents.

Kevin Peterson
ARMA Appleton

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Here is my take on that (and tyhis is no more than an opinion)
You cannot really control the weapon without controlling the body but the controlling the body does not necessarily means that you control the weapon.

So I believe you need both at the moment of entrance.
Controlling the weapon prevent to be hit and controlling the body prevent him to change direction quickly. (Like in the sword and buckler or the long sword really)
So you then apply the relevant technique to the armed arm to achieve a lock, a break or a throw.
This is what we do in aikido and in my opinion it is equivalent to ringeck strike so he can not change through (or Ringeck utilization of punches/strike in wrestling)

Ps you can control the body by different ways but in general you either use his momentum or you strike at his face or body with the other hand
Phil

[Tom Keesler]

Axiom: When one is unarmed it is more important to take the weapon than control the body of an armed attacker.

If true, false, balance of both, or indeterminate -- then why?

So... with all of that being said, I think that the answer to your question is (C) Balance of both. If you control the weapon arm, then you have a point of control on their body. It is actually the same in unarmed v. unarmed. When countering a strike, you control or redirect the weapon (in this case a fist) which gives you the initiative in the struggle. You don't attack the weapon or the body, you attack the connection between the weapon and the body.

[Stewart Sackett]

When you say "control the body" do you mean wrestling the torso as opposed to wrestling the arm/arms?

In any case, I think everyone's pretty much in agreement but I'll go ahead & chime in.

If you arm unarmed & fighting an armed opponent then you should first work to control the weapon arm, thus removing the immediate threat. After that you can work for, throws, blows, breaks, disarms or some combination of those techniques from a dominant controlling position.

Because a sword is larger then a dagger, & harder to wield in close quarters, it is more possible to close & grapple the body safely against an opponent with a sword then with a dagger. Many of the manuals show body throws against an opponent with a sword but the majority of dagger techniques begin by achieving control of the weapon arm.

[Tony_Klabunde]

Axiom: When one is unarmed it is more important to take the weapon than control the body of an armed attacker.

If true, false, balance of both, or indeterminate -- then why?

With any fight, you do what you can to control the fight.

Whether control of the weapon or body, depends on this one point. Where are you safest and in most control.

A dagger is easier to secure control of, than a sword. If you want to test which is better this was the “seeing of the light for me.”

Take a teenager with no or very little sword, dagger, knife experience. 13-16 will work well. Use both a boy and a girl. (Untrained They fight and attack very differently.) If fact I tend to have more challenges fighting an untrained female with knives than a trained one. I have found anticipating an untrained female is very different than a male. Its adds something to it. It actually keeps me more on my toes.


And train.


Either way I discovered, with the sword/Axe you need to close that space extremely fast. You need to get in and make yourself safe. Almost having to time it, which leaves a lot to skill and speed.

Knives tend not to be a problem if you have the skills for disarming. But a longer weapon, well…..

Practice, practice, practice, and then you tell me

Knives I like control of the hand more than the arm. But one will lead to the other quickly

Swords, I like control of the body, ie: Arms, throws, breaks, takedowns

Practice, you will see what I mean……

Again, just my humble opinion