There is a big difference between using a throw to put an opponent on the mat and going there with him. They're opposites - one minimizes your exposure to a desperate opponent at the nothing-to-lose moment, one maximizes it. Does Ringen really emphasize BJJ style go-to-the-floor techniques over getting the other guy down?
No. Ringen does not emphasize BJJ style groundwork. I have not disputed that. I simply disagree with your assumptions as to why such groundwork is not included. You used the term “closing” which I have typically heard used as a description moving from outside of fighting range into the free-standing range or moving from free-standing to the clinch. Because you don’t actually get closer to an opponent when taking them to the ground from a clinch, such action isn’t typically described as “closing”. As a result I interpreted your comment “But the real point is that the risk of gouging and other desperation moves makes closing unwise in a life and death situation” to mean that you opposed standing wrestling as well as fighting on the ground. Given the contents of the fightbooks I was, naturally, rather surprised by that. I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.
I'm pre-supposing that visible weapons are out of the picture. If I have a knife, I'll try to stab you. If you have a knife and I don't, I'll run. I took this as being too obvious to say.
In the modern (civilian) context stabbing an unarmed man is murder & running from a man with a knife is obvious. Having said that, we are not discussing modern times. We are discussing combat in the 15th century. In a formal duel or the midst of a pitched battle retreat is not always an option. Further, controlling a man’s arms prevents him from drawing weapons you can’t see just as well as it addresses an obvious dagger.
I don't see any more reason to believe these systems work than modern ones. (Ok: other than armour.) As a bouncer said when asked about unarmed knife defense "If you ever hear of anything that works - tell me!"
Any conflict between an armed man & an unarmed one will have long odds for the unarmed man. Armour would certainly help. As for historical vs. modern; there are modern & historic systems which function. By function I do not mean they guarantee a man will escape a knife fight unscathed but that knowing appropriate defense will dramatically increase his chances of survival.
I do think it is important to distinguish between modern & historic knife fighting as technological & social differences effect which techniques & strategies are appropriate or practical.
Historically, knives were ubiquitous & obvious. Ringen seems to place an emphasis on arm control in the clinch, which minimizes (but does not eliminate) the possibility of a knife being drawn in the clinch. Historically it was likely that where one man had a knife, so did his adversary. The fightbooks show a lot of dagger fighting, from the free-standing range, in which one man catches his opponent’s dagger arm & either breaks the limb or counter-thrusts with his own weapon. The techniques of the fightbooks are highly functional given the weapons of their time & the social context in which they were used.
Modern knives tend to be small & concealed & used in ‘sucker-punch’ attacks within the clinch range. This makes techniques involving catching an arm at a distance rather impractical. Of the modern systems I’ve seen, I find Karl Tanswell’s Survival Tactics Against Blades to be the most credible & would recommend it to anyone who’s seriously concerned that they will be stabbed.
Well, yes. But in the real world - no.
You're describing an end-state, not a means - an end-state achieved in an environment with carefully constructed rules.
Getting into that end-state you're aiming for, against an opponent who is willing to rupture your ear drums, break your instep, gouge an eye, isn't going to happen as easily as you seem to think. A boxer might as well attempt to prove the superiority of his art by describing how unable an unconscious opponent is to hurt him. No one doubts that there are positions in which grappling has achieved the defeat of the opponent - you've described the victory parade and missed the battle.
Yes. I was describing an end state, but remember it was your scenario not mine. I had asserted that a position which is dominant for grappling or MMA is equally advantageous for gouging to which you replied that being pinned on the bottom was actually a superior position from which to eye gouge. You were the one arguing that an unconscious man would be the undoing of a boxer (to borrow from your metaphor).
As for getting there, I’ve stated that cross-sides is a position which results directly from many takedowns; so it is (potentially) the first position in a ground fight. In the clinch “against an opponent who is willing to rupture your ear drums, break your instep, gouge an eye” I would be willing to reciprocate in kind if necessary; but if this opponent has never learned to grapple on the grounds that all he’ll need to win is “to rupture your ear drums, break your instep, gouge an eye” then (barring any substantial difference in physical attributes) it shouldn’t be terribly difficult to take him down. The strategies you describe may be useful but are unlikely (in themselves) to defeat a trained fighter & (again) there is nothing preventing a boxer/wrestler/Judoka/BJJ player/Mixed Martial Artist/etc. from using such ‘foul tactics’ in addition to their normal fighting repertoire.
By throwing him and hurting him with the throw, you are geting rid of him.
