Copyright © Geoff Thompson 2004
The right of Geoff Thompson to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with section 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, nor transmitted, nor translated into a machine language, without the written permission of the publisher.

'As she put the key in to the ignition, her driver's door was wrenched open and she found herself looking at a man who was a total stranger. He produced what she believed to be a hand gun with a barrel about six inches long. Bending his head into the car and thrusting the gun against her side, he said, "If you do what I say you won't get hurt." He pushed her as if he wanted her to move into the front passenger seat while continuing to push the gun at her. 'With great presence of mind, Julia Holdman swung her legs around and kicked out at him, at the same time pushing him off balance with her hands. She also shouted at him and let out a loud scream. As the man straightened up, she slammed the car door shut, started the car and rapidly drove out of the car park.' – Ladykiller

'A knife-wielding man forced his way in to a mother's flat, held a knife to her throat and ordered her to take her clothes off. For 15 minutes whilst still clutching her six month old son she refused. The man departed leaving the victim uninjured. The detective constable in charge of the investigation praised the victim saying that "Her brave defiance had stopped an even more serious assault from taking place."' – Unleash the Lioness

The use of weapons is getting more and more common place these days and attacks of this kind are always potentially fatal, especially with edged weapons such as knives. The first line of defence here is, always, avoidance. In a real encounter there is no similarity to the movies where the attacker makes a deliberate strike with his weapon and you skillfully defend with a textbook block and counter attack. Attacks with a weapon are nearly always frenzied and multiple. To pick out one of such a myriad to grab or block is nearly always impossible, and therefore impractical.

From my experience with knife-wielding assailants, 'a stabber rarely shows and a shower rarely stabs.'

Those that show the weapon do so to frighten the victim into capitulation, those that do not usually intend to stab.

Knife defence is a highly-skilled art; in all honesty it cannot be learned through the pages of a book. I also have to be honest and say that knife defence is not my speciality. I have faced attackers with knifes and been glassed several times, and while that certainly qualifies me to talk about the reality of knife defence, I'm not sure that it qualifies me to talk about how best to defend against it other than to avoid or escape an armed attacker. What I have done is enlist the help of someone who is expert in the field, Peter Robins of S.T.A.B. (Strategy and Tactics Against Blades). This is what Peter had to say:

S.T.A.B. Strategy & Tactics Against Blades

Thoughts on Attacks from Edged Weapons

by Peter Robins

The mention of a knife in an everyday conversation would pass off without a second thought, but the mere mention of a knife in any connection whatsoever to a criminal or combat situation makes alarm bells start ringing! In the latter example, with criminal or combat connections, it is understandable that one starts to feel alarm. What is it that triggers a basic instinct in us all to fear the very thought of a knife (or any edged weapon) being used against us? That fear even extends to the thought of a knife being used anywhere near us. A knife (and for the sake of brevity I will refer to any edged weapon as a knife from here) is an implement that we all use, usually every day, without giving it any consideration. These can be extremely sharp pieces of cutlery and even quite fearsome if we cared to look at them in that way, yet we feel no danger.

One of my former instructors made a very good point in a class one day when he made us think about a knife in a different way to the setting in which it was presented. This was during a martial arts class and so the mention and sight of a knife put us into the 'alarm bell' mode. Yet there was no threat or danger involved. The basic instinct rising again. We were asked what we thought of the knife and how we would describe it. Most answered that they considered it to be a weapon. Yet that same knife could have been produced in another place and or time and it would have been considered to be just an everyday implement. We were asked to think this, that the knife was an implement or tool. Nothing more or less than that. How was this done? By placing the knife on the floor in front of the whole class and then suggesting that if it remained there for a thousand years, save someone falling on it, it would do no harm to anyone. What turned it into a weapon was the person using it. Of course what really turns it into a weapon has much to do with the intention of the person wielding it. That simple lesson has stayed with me. Why? Because it stops me from becoming paranoiac. I say this in view of the recent knife amnesty brought on by the tragic and cowardly killing of a headmaster in North London. It is right to want to do something positive in the light of what happened but just how much of an effect an amnesty is going to have in stopping this kind of thing I am not wholly convinced.

Let me explain: to ensure that no one is ever stabbed or slashed on our streets again it would take a national amnesty that would mean every single one of us taking every knife we possess to the bins provided. After that we would need to take every edged implement that we have in or around our homes and places of work. It cannot be done, can it? Even if it were possible would it solve the problem? What we have to do is take away the intention of a person to use a knife against someone else. It is as simple – or as difficult – as that.

This brings me to the point behind this chapter. To make us all think about what an attack from an edged weapon consists of I have brought back the term edged weapon into the text. This is deliberate as it applies to many everyday objects, just like the ones that are actually used against the victim. Of all the weapons used, fewer fall into the combat-cum-fighting knife group than people imagine. Many people have been attacked and injured, even killed, with our everyday kitchen knives; screwdrivers; chisels, nail files, steel combs, craft and Stanley knives, bottles and glasses, and the list goes on. We must focus on the intention and view it from our own individual perspective as it applies from a self-defence standpoint.

I have also to make a point about that particular terminology – self-defence as it usually implies does not really exist.
If nothing else after many years looking at this frightening problem I have learnt this simple truth – that there is a vast chasm between two small but very important words – defence and offence. Defence can have a suffix 'less' added to it which sadly can often sum up the mental and physical state that it is all too easy to slip into (defenceless). Offence can never be anything less than trying your best to take the fight back to your attacker. There is no such word as offenceless! If this sounds extreme, I apologise, but ask the reader to think about it. Nothing was ever won by remaining on the defensive, you have to counter attack at some time. In the case of an attack from an edged weapon offensive action, sooner rather than later, will go some way to win the day. I must qualify that statement by saying that in the case of a knife being produced in any kind of altercation, dispute or potential attack, the age old advice RUN LIKE HELL is the first that comes to mind. Do not let anyone try to convince you that there is an easy solution. Beware the instructor that tells you he does not fear the knife!

We must be clear in such a discussion as this that there is a vast difference in a mugging situation and an actual attack with a knife. If the knife is present and used as a threat to induce you to hand over money, do so and get away as fast as you can; if a knife is going to be used to attack, your first option always is escape! If unable to escape you have to counter attack, but wisely. Fools rush in and all that!

What I also must make clear is that my comments are based on what has been a long road of research and some practical discovery along the way of looking at the vast subject of edged weapon use. I do not claim to be speaking from any base of authority. I view myself as a life long spectator and player. Very much the amateur! On this subject, we all are…

Now we have been truthful and admitted that there is a problem with potential knife attacks, not just because of their frequency, real or imagined, but because of the great physical and mental stress placed on us; let us examine it as far as we can.

It is a strange quirk of fate that in spite of the recent media focus on the subject of people carrying knives, buying knives and even collecting them, that for all the perceived danger as of now there is very little documented evidence on the subject. The Home Office Statistical Department only has documentary evidence for the number of times that edged weapons/sharp instruments have been involved in homicides, although they have the figures for crimes of violence recorded by the police in 1992, which are as follows:
Out of 284,000 crimes of violence, minor wounding totalled 184,000 and serious wounding (including homicide) totalled 18,000. They can not break the figures down into how many times an edged weapon was used nor which particular types.

The one thing we can look at is that in the 1994 homicide figures the stark fact emerges that of the 677 cases recorded, some 236 (35%) involved an edged weapon of one type or another. Up to 1994, the previous ten years have shown that the fluctuation in this percentage varies between 32% and 37%. Unless 1995 shows a dramatic upsurge in these figures we are left wondering has the problem actually exploded or is it the media focus that would have us believe that? This is said neither to trivialise these figures nor should we exaggerate them. What we must look at is this, that edged weapons are used in many fatal attacks, so it is very likely that they might be used in those attacks that end up as minor or serious woundings.

One thing we must bear in mind as martial artists, practitioners or aficionados, call us what you will, is that just one stabbing is too many and one stabbing that can in any way be attributed to us is way too many! I say this because it is seemingly becoming very fashionable and almost popular in training circles that the emphasis has swung from talk of knife defence to 'knife fighting'. This last term is a bit of a misnomer because what people are actually referring to is one of two things – knife attack or knife duelling. Let us deal with these two options.

Knife attacks are in the realms of what we are discussing very important, it should be thoroughly understood but not taught in isolation. The attack is one that we should be concentrating on from a defensive viewpoint. Why? Because it makes a lot sense when the old saying is quoted in this regard – you cannot destroy that which you cannot create. Taken simply you will not have the faintest chance if you have no idea what a knife attack may consist of. You would not teach only blocking to a student in the impact arts, would you? Imagine only teaching trainees blocks. If they were attacked how long could they purely block for? Try it. A very honourable thought, but completely unworkable. Well it would be for us mere mortals. To look at the subject in isolation and working only on the attack lays us open to much misunderstanding from those outside the martial arts.

The second presumes some kind of duel or fair fight where two men would face off and draw their knives and go to it. Not very likely and not very welcome in our society. And rightly so.

So what can and should be taught? First of all we should try to make our students aware of the potential problem. Make them aware what is possible and what is not, and what is clearly nonsense except if they are someone very, very good or very, very lucky. Only lottery winners are a certainty in the latter category.

The subject of knife defence is vast, complex and most certainly controversial. I do not wish to get into a debate about which system is the best, which is the fastest, which is the most powerful, the oldest and so on. They are just matters of opinion and as I was always told you can argue on opinion but not on facts. So are there any facts regarding knife defence? I think there are. I think there has to be.

So what are the facts about knife defence? From my viewpoint I would perceive them as not just facts regarding particular moves or techniques, but how to discern the problem in the first place. What first interested me in the first instance, with reference to the knife in martial arts training, was its very absence. It just did not exist. It was all punches, kicks and blocks. Perhaps we all lived in a safer environment, but I think not. It was much to do with the general perception at the time. (In a similar way paralleled today by the media milking a problem for all it is worth) I do not deny that there is a potential problem in knives being carried but it would seem that it is a phenomenon that feeds upon itself. The chances of getting attacked with a knife about 30 years ago seemingly was not a great threat. If it were, then few martial arts schools taught moves with this in mind.

Knowing that people did carry weapons and were prepared to use them and have done since time immemorial, made me want to work on some kind of defence against them. I looked around and saw very little out there. Yes there were a few systems that had knife defence moves in their syllabus and yes it did look nice to watch it being practised. But nice is not always effective and practical. Things have not changed all that much. Consider this, in any of the systems that you have seen or practised yourself, is the knife 'attack':

1. Arranged so that one of your set moves will work against it (and also look good against it)?
2. Done as a single arm move (in isolation)? Or
3. Does the attacker 'freeze' once he has carried out this single move?
4. Does the attack start off from a good distance (a non-realistic distance)?

If the answer to one or all of these is 'yes', I would advise you to seriously re-examine what you are being taught. Why? Because no real attack includes any of the above-mentioned factors. Let us examine these factors in detail.

1. As with unarmed moves it is an easy trap to fall into where all defence are executed against the type of attack as done within your own system. What are the chances of that happening out in the real world?
2. Many attacks with the knife are made only with that arm – not so in the real world. The other arm will most certainly be involved in the action, as a feint, strike, push or pull.
3. The 'pillar of salt' syndrome (as Bob Kasper in the U.S. terms it) is again very common in many defence system's syllabus. Why? Because it looks neater and enables the usually complicated follow up arm/ wrist lock/throw to be executed. In an all out knife attack the wielder will not stay still, on the contrary he will move like the devil.

Many moves are practised against an attacker at a comfortable distance thereby giving the defender time to prepare his move. This does not happen very often out on the street. Many attacks will be from close quarters and with no notice given and no time to get into a good start position.

I realise in saying this that I risk being classed as a know-all. I sincerely trust not, but you have to see the potential pitfalls of what has been and what is still being taught today. There is no simple answer to the problem. If there were, someone would have made a fortune by now by producing books, making videos and conducting seminars. That has not happened nor is it likely to.

If your instructor tells you that a knife attack is a situation to be avoided and even feared then listen to him. If he tells you that is quite easy after you have learned some of his moves then start to wonder! He is one of three things – very good, very stupid or very insulated from the outside world. One might say in the latter two instances he is to be avoided and in the first instance only to be listened to if he can make you as good as he is. He won't be there if you ever get attacked, I can tell you that. More than likely you will be completely on your own. In most instances that could well be an advantage – there will be no one else to see how fast you run away, or, if you decide to stay whether your feet were in the correct position, your hands at the right angle and so on.

If you have not seen for yourself first hand, then believe me and anyone who tells you on this subject that a knife attack is usually very, very fast. Not quite like the controlled speed of many a demonstration in the dojo. If you have not been at the business end of a knife then believe me that it is quite unlike a dojo setting, no matter how warmed-up you are. Time slows down and you are working in a vacuum. A quiet unreal setting. The one thing you will hear is your heart pounding fit to burst and your laboured breathing, no matter how fit you are.

So what have I learned from this study of knife defence? To examine very carefully what you are told, what you see and what you are shown. Question it all, not necessarily out loud, but certainly in your own mind and in your own time.

The most frightening factor about a knife attack is that there is no requisite on the behalf of an assailant in a skill level. He will need no training to pick up a knife and use it on you. A knife is just as dangerous if he stabs/cuts you or if you run on to the knife and stab/cut yourself. Bear that in mind when considering a counter attack! You must choose the moment and carefully. That moment only comes when you are unable to run!

In the 1990's we have several martial arts that concentrate a good deal on knife work in their syllabus. Escrima (Kali) and Pentjak Silat spring to mind, I apologise if I have missed any other schools out. The former certainly is one of the very few who start off teaching the knife and then go on to empty hand techniques. Most arts go in the reverse order if they include knife work in their teaching. I underline this, for as I mentioned before, it is not taught in all systems. One could say that the ideal would be that in what you were taught your method of halting or redirecting a strike coming in would be the same if the hand was empty or contained a weapon. This does not seem to be the case in many instances.

The reader may like to be drawn to this fact before reading on. I shall be quoting or mentioning many people in the coming paragraphs regarding knife work and I do it not for the sake of name dropping, although I must admit that it is pleasing to do so as many are old training partners and friends from along the 'way', but because they talk sense and reality on the subject. Keep those factors in mind and you will be doing your best to keep an open eye and an open mind.

With a background of early experiences and also experiments within a training environment I began to carry out research into this very extensive and emotive subject. What I found was quite educative. It was this; most of the practical knowledge and development of knife defence had come not only from the martial arts schools in the orient but from the police forces from all around the world, not just in the East. From these sources it had evolved into a wartime science for military purposes. It is just the same today. Find that hard to believe? Think about this. Save that of wartime what organisation or body has ongoing and extensive hands on experience in the face of danger and personal violence? Yes, mainly the police.

The development of Close Quarter Battle (CQB) in the last war was directly attributable to the work done and practical experience gained in the face of extreme violence by a police force stationed half away across the world in China. Where and how you may well ask. The answer is to be found in the International Settlement of old Shanghai. This most unique metropolis gained a reputation as being the world's most dangerous city. Their police force, the Shanghai Municipal Police (SMP) comprised of Chinese, Japanese, Russian and 'Foreign' officers (mainly British). In the 1920s and 30s it became one of the best trained forces of all time. This was almost entirely due to the work of one remarkable man – W. E. Fairbairn, who had joined the force in 1907 and served until he retired in 1940. During these years he trained the force in all their self-defence, both unarmed and armed. He devised, trained and led the famed Riot Squad, which has rightly been dubbed the very first SWAT unit. He also made a special effort in researching the offensive and defensive aspects of the knife. Why study both sides of the coin? Because he also believed in the old saying – you cannot destroy what you cannot create.

That is a good base to work from. To understand how you might be able to defend you must understand how it might be that someone would attack you. Again we go back to the dojo and your set piece defence. Will it really happen like this you must ask yourself. If your answer is no then you should perhaps practice that which is set and also that which is not!

Today, especially in the United States and Canada, much research is going on in regard to police defensive training and a great deal of importance has been attached to the subject of a knife wielding assailant. This should be of important note to us in the UK, as US police forces are routinely armed. If they find the threat of deadly force with a knife to be very real when in theory their officers have the ultimate deterrent (!), what chance have we got?

One should ask why the American police have doubts about the effectiveness of a gun against a knife. It was assumed for many years that there was no contest until a series of experiments were carried out in regard to a knife attack and a gun defence. In this experiment I can assure you that the attacker was really moving in and not stopping to thrust from a static position. The findings were that a gap of 21 feet was required between the two, as a starting position, before the police officer could draw and fire at the assailant before the gap was closed and the knife was in close enough to slash or stab the officer. This was a minimum distance! Dwell upon that.

In Great Britain the subject of knife defence for the police has seemingly taken a back seat until recently. Thankfully the situation is now being addressed. As has been said before there is no easy solution, but the problem must be looked at. It will not go away simply because it is ignored.

What influence does this have on the ordinary citizen? Simply this, if the carrying of guns and batons is no proof against a knife attack for police officers then what chance do we stand, unarmed as we are. Not much I must admit. But we do have some chance and in the event of an attack it might be the only recourse.

One of the greatest of all the modern studies into knife attacks and possible means of defence has been done by an American pioneer in police defensive tactics (PDT) training, Bruce Siddle of PPCT Management Systems Inc. of Illinois. Mr. Siddle has been researching and experimenting in PDT since the 1970s. His great work resulted in what today is called Pressure Point Control Tactics. The principles of which date back to the first recorded traces of martial arts evolution. Right back to Dharma in the Shaolin Temple period. Regardless of the actual historical facts the principle stays true and it was due to Bruce Siddle that this ancient research has a modern forbear. His intuitive research was carried out long before the fairly recent interest in vital point striking as shown by such luminaries as George Dillman. Of course we in the martial arts know that this esoteric art was always there but not until Siddle researched and documented it for modern police use has it become a tangible asset again.

In 1988 he put together a training package, helped by his senior instructors and Dan Inosanto, that focused on utilising these nerve points in regard to his knife defence programme. It was titled 'Spontaneous Knife Defence'. It was based around the principles of Filipino attack and defence lines and since its inception has undergone four revisions. I have been taught one of the earlier versions and attest that it is everything it sets out to be – simple, direct and retainable under stress! It is the last factor that perhaps is the most important in the equation. What Bruce Siddle did was to prove again, that under stress the body loses a great deal of its dexterity and movement. What are termed fine motor skills are lost. That is why many of the defences that are commonly shown just would not work in the stress of combat. Why do I stress again? Because as he will agree, he was not the first to notice (and comprehend) this phenomenon but he was the first to research it and explain it scientifically. The early pioneer in this century was the aforementioned W. E. Fairbairn out in Shanghai. He did not go into the scientific explanations for it, for many reasons, but he built his method of self-protection around it. It was called Defendu and it was this art that was taught to the SMP, but I digress.

Mr. Siddle makes a valid point in his teaching that his method is to be regarded as a last ditch attempt at defence and only to be followed if previous measures were not effective. By that he means if all else fails then you have to resort to empty hand tactics to take the opponent out of the frame. No reliance on the wrist or arm lock on its own to end the encounter. Of course we know that there are wrist locks and arm locks that could be put on by certain masters that would end the encounter, but we are not talking about the gifted few. We are talking about the majority of us. There are very few masters!

Another important aspect underlined by Siddle and others who look at self-protection from a realistic point of view is that which Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson call the mental log-jam. This is important in any encounter and even more so in connection with a knife attack. What is this log-jam? Simply put, it means that your subconscious has been overloaded with information and choice of techniques. For defensive purposes it is best to rely on a few practical methods that can be used at any time and under the maximum of stress rather than a multitude of attractive moves that can only be carried out in optimum conditions. The above mentioned and those that follow have proved without doubt that under pressure the skill level of an individual quickly drops away when the pressure is on. Siddle has proved that the optimum heart rate is around 145 beats per minute. Above that and the fine motor skills rapidly diminish. You can rest assured that your heartbeat will easily exceed that figure if someone attacks you with a knife.

It seems to me that a sound basis for effective defence is that your range of techniques or options should have some common ground. To underline this I fell into a trap some years back of thinking that to know 10 defences against a punch, 10 against a kick, 15 against a front strangle and so on made one a more effective player. It does not, it makes you a more knowledgeable one but that it is not the same as being effective. To underline this an experiment was carried out in the States with a group of trainees, they were shown one defence against an attack and timed doing it. They were then shown several more possible defence against the same attack. When the group were attacked in the same manner there was marked drop-off in their reaction time. Proof of the log-jam effect. It makes one think.

Reaction time is a very important ingredient in the formula. If you think you are fast in your response then you may be interested in an experiment carried out by my pal in the States, Bob Kasper. He took a group of his students and timed their movements in an exercise that had them drawing from a concealed position either a fixed blade knife (Kasper Kombat) or a folder (Benchmade AFCK). The students had to draw and slash through a special target. The times for their moves were between .75 to .83 seconds for the former and between .95 to 1.05 seconds for the latter! The latter times are a trifle slower because the trainees had to open the folder whilst drawing it. When I look at those times and contemplate some of the so very complicated moves I have seen demonstrated and taught over the years, it makes me shudder! Why? Because I know that the quickest reaction time is around .5 of a second and can stretch to over a second. Not much of a differential is there? How much movement (body shifting) could you attempt? What chance to reposition yourself with the much vaunted side-step or jump away? Although these moves might be possible, if that is your first line of defence (or should I say your last?) or your only one, shouldn't you be looking at something a little simpler and direct? Something on the lines of the worst case scenario. What would that be – if your defence is to side-step or jump away – it is that you cannot do it, either because of the time factor or a physical barrier to prevent you from doing so? Never assume that because you have practised that way that you will always be able to move away from an attack. Your base line should be some kind of protective measure that can be done from you being rooted to the spot. Now that is a real possibility.

All the research I have done on this subject brings me back to one simple truth – and that is you have to counter attack. To rely upon a 'defensive' move only will not give you enough of a chance to get away. By this I mean that there has to be a definite attack on the knife man. His mindset has to be changed and quickly. It is not enough to divert his attacking limb, not enough to unbalance him, not enough to rely upon a joint lock to deter him. He has to be hit. That is the simplest and most direct way to alter his thought process. His mind must be taken off his first avowed intent – to do you harm. He must be bought to the point where defence of his own person is required. This does not mean just hurting an arm or a leg, you must take him over physically and mentally in as short a time span as possible. He must get a sensory overload that will take his mind completely away from his knife. It calls for multiple hits delivered as fast and hard as is possible. These must target the correct areas on his body.

It may be of interest to the reader to know that I have come to the conclusion that in these circumstances the conventional punch may not be the best strike to use. Why? Because most of us have trained in punching techniques that tend to make us pull away to gain the optimum distance for maximum power. In a knife encounter once you have started to close an opponent down to move away to deliver a strong punch is not always the best avenue. Although we are only talking about a relatively short distance it is very crucial in this regard. Another point with punching is that most of us wish to be square on to our target to deliver a punch. Of course most of these factors occur subconsciously, but nevertheless it will happen.

I know that many readers will strongly dispute my comments, but please carry out this experiment. You can do it on a bag. Stand square on and strike it. Move yourself slightly to the left of the bag and punch again. Move more to the left so that the bag is gradually being moved to your right flank and then gradually to your right rear. You will see that the power of the straight punch rapidly diminishes and you will start to alter from a straight punch to something resembling a hammer fist or a back fist strike. No big deal you will say, but have you not proved that a punch is limited to its angle of application?

I emphasise that many of the conclusions I have come to are not entirely my own but those that are have been echoed by many better informed people than I. Bob Kasper, the Director of the GHCA, an organisation dedicated to keeping the teachings of the wartime USMC alive agrees with many of the points I make. Why is that important in this context? Because he is highly regarded in the States with his work on the knife; he has been trained extensively by their Patriarch, Charles Nelson of New York City, who also holds strong views on much of what is taught today. Recently Bob has been in touch with Col. Rex Applegate of wartime OSS/CIC fame who gain agrees with what the GHCA preach. The Colonel was taught by Fairbairn in Canada and the US and his partner Major E. A. Sykes over here in the UK during 1942/3 before he went on to do his own teaching.

Fairbairn and Sykes held similar views on the subject of a knife attack. Their first line of advice on the matter was if you got the chance – RUN. Sage advice. Here is what Major Sykes said on the subject '… you would do better to have no shame about it but run like hell, hoping that the other man won't catch up with you until you have secured some sort of weapon with which to deal with him'.

Bob Kasper – 'I've found through extensive research, and trial and error, in which I have not changed my view for many, many years, is that the best way to defend against a multiple slash attack is to cover, trap and immediately follow with a brutal offensive attack to vital areas.' He also added that if one is fortunate enough to have halted a stabbing attack – 'Then counter-attack with everything you've got. Don't even attempt a lock or release [from his grab] until the assailant is, or almost is, unconscious.'

LEARNING CURVE:

Friends and enemies from the 'outside world' Jim Shortt (IBA) and Brian McCarthy (BBD)

Various instructors / friends in the Bujinkan

Bob Campbell and indirectly Jim Maloney from Uechi-ryu Jay Dobrin and assistant instructors (Escrima)

Ken Pence / Mel Brown of Nashville S.W.A.T. unit

Levi Montgomery of Priority One John Urwin and instructors of Pro-teet

Bob Kasper and fellow instructors of the GHCA – Charles Nelson NT, a good friend in Canada

SMP veterans

Instructors and veterans of WWII Special Forces Influence of Col. Rex Applegate; Col. Biddle; John Styers The inspiration and spirit of W. E. Fairbairn and E. A. Sykes

Last but not least to two good friends, Steve Carter and Paul Child and all those who train with us I thank you all for opening my eyes and keeping them that way!

You will have gathered that I have not endeavoured to pass on specific techniques through the pages of this chapter. For one, it could not be done in a single chapter, it would have taken over Geoff's book completely! Hopefully what I have been able to do is to clear away some of the mist surrounding the subject and given a clearer view of it. For those who already have a good grounding in an art that focuses on the knife then most of what I have said may be common knowledge or it may clash with your own teachings and belief If so, then please disregard this and carry on. If this is not the case, then I have achieved what I set out to do. None of us can shortcut experience, but you can certainly learn from others. So, stay alert and stay safe.

Since the first draft of this book Peter Robins has tragically died. My love and best wishes go out to all his family and friends.