Crack the bottle wrong, and, rather than a useful weapon, you'll end up with a palmful of glass shards.

I will teach you how to properly do this, someday, Holli.

But you're very right about the shards. If an attacker breaks into your home, I bet you're likely to be barefoot and he's wearing shoes.

So anything creating a slippery or sharp surface, well, you've just fucked your own footwork worse than his.

Against an unarmed attacker, I'd want a knife, or mine own two fists, and my legs.

I did get attacked with a knife once. Threatened more like it, pressed against my belly in my own car. So I jumped out of the car. Had it been a gun, or a hammer, I'd have done the same thing.

Escape is the best option, if you can, methinks. I figured my chances were better on the pavement. Or at least, if run down by my own car, better than stabbed and raped by that fuckwad carjacking coward. At least I was choosing.

But you were talking about the better weapon, Sean, in the hands of an inexperienced attacker. Given that there's a huge degree of physics involved in using a hammer in order to hit your target, including physical strength, a still opponent that doesn't fuck your trajectory during the downswing, and that the attacker can grab the hammer from you without causing injury to himself, I think the point is proven that the hammer totally sucks in comparison to the knife.

You can slash haphazardly with the knife, stab with precision, slice. The attacker can't grab the weapon from you without causing injury to himself. An attacker can determine how the hammer will fall and adjust, duck, decreasing injury, tackling you, and then you've lost any advantage the hammer had because you can't then stab him in the back or orm with the hammer. It's heavy, you probably dropped it, anyway. Same with your brick.

The argument is really, "what's better? Sharp, or heavy?"

Sharp wins.

It's times like this that I think, "The Krav people would be so PROUD of me."

But you were talking about the better weapon, Sean,

Actually, in that regard I was never trying to argue that the hammer was the better weapon, just that it wasn't as usless as ita was making it out to be. I felt she unfairly maligned a perfectly useable weapon.

No, you were arguing that they were equal, but you're right, you weren't arguing that they were better.

Actually, the craziest part of your argument is that there is somehow less inherent wildness in the swing of a knife than there is in the swing of a hammer.

And there is less inherent wildness, as stated above, because the knife is a natural feeling extension of your hand. It's as precise as you are. The hammer, all depends on how you hold it, and your physical strength and endurance. Can you keep swinging? Can he grab it from you?

There's far more variables in the hammer, given it's weight and that you're using an artficial lever with a weight on it that fucks with your ability to judge both distance and trajectory....well, the knife is going to be more accurate due to its balance, and that you're the lever. You know how much your arm weighs, you don't have to account for added weight and a moving target and all that other stuff. The knife goes where your fist goes. You're a better judge of your size and you don't have to do the math to cause injury, which means your judgment is better. A hammer is going to be unnatural in your hands, causing more wildness in the swing. The heaviness of it changes your balance, especially on the upswing, since your arm is stretched back, and your back is probably arched back as well to reach back further to create greater momentum. You're now in a fucked up, open position wherein all I have to do is get low and tackle, and you're down.

There's also the factor that most of us use knives every day, not so much with the hammer.

So her argument isnt so crazy, as it is sense-making.

I've gotta come in on the knife side. I'm fairly big for a woman, but not so big and strong that I'd feel at all confident about being able to defend myself with a hammer. There are many places you can put a knife into someone that don't require a lot of strength and end the fight, and the quicker you end the fight the better.

Now, if I'm having to levy a militia of untrained farmers, store clerks, and IT professionals to take down the government in the event of a Republican victory in November, I'd want them carrying hammers or clubs. That's the way to arm your plebes.

Summary - personal one-on-one defense: knife. Having to equip a bunch of untrained men quickly for max effectiveness: hammer. Having this discussion at all: priceless.

Do I need to make a nod to the topic by mentioning the hysterical sledgehammer fight in Streets of Fire?

Dwarves would take issue with you dissing the hammer as a weapon of choice. IJS.

Dwarves are only forced to use hammers because they've been stereotyped as miners. Dwarves should rise up and fight anti-Dwarvish establishment that's keeping them, erm, down.

You spoke to a bunch of people who really know what they are doing - something that makes a thousand times more difference than which of two or more possible objects are being used as a weapon in their hand.

But Sean, you forgot that I spoke to a bunch of people who make a living studying attacks that actually happen.

We aren't trained to fight against Bruce Lee so much as John Doe. Because John Doe's likelier to attack us. We have techniques that start with "this is a dumb attack, but be grateful if someone launches it at you -- here's how you work with it. Here are the principles."

I've obviously given krav a bad rep if you think it's anything other than self-defense against (primarily) realistic situations (I still figure I'm a long way away from being attacked with a submachine gun).

Take our gun defense, for instance. Crack, you may say. You can't defend against a gun! But experience has shown that many many attackers armed with guns do the DUMB thing, the people who don't "really know what they're doing" will leave the gun just about within arm's reach when they attack. So that's what we're trained to work against.

Dude, you get an experienced knife fighter, and it's not even a discussion. You will get fucked up and not even know it until you see the blood. But if you give a five year old a sharp knife and tell him to go for you, you'll probably get cut too. That's the sort of weapon it is. Give him a hammer and YOU (not that highly trained krav person, but you, Sean), you'll probably get it away without any injuries. The principles that back that up don't disappear just because you age your wielder 25 years.

Fact is, I can use a knife to defend myself without even moving it. I can use it in the same angles and manners as a hammer is useful. I can use it in yet other manners and angles. But somehow you remain unconvinced. I just don't get it.

You won't listen to me, fine. But bring martial artists into it -- bring observers of fights. Bring people who prosecute armed attacks. Ask their opinions. I'm very interested in what I seem to be missing here.

I'm not as scary as ita - I've been doing jiujitsu for 15 years, but I'm not in any sort of physical shape at the moment. However, I agree with everything she just said. I'd so much rather have someone, of any level of expertise, attack me with a hammer than someone, of any level of expertise, attack me with a knife.

To revise my earlier post, on reflection I'd give my impromptu army spears rather than clubs/hammers. Just to set the record straight.

On the gun thing, I was trained to use a sidearm for a previous job, and combining that with what I've learned on the jiujitsu mat = never get close to someone and threaten them with a gun. Just shoot them. Even I can take a gun away from someone without getting shot, and I am not the strongest or fastest, or even close. I've never yet prevented any of the other high-ranked belts from taking my gun away (or making me not want to use it, by jamming it into my neck, for example) in class in the standard "Gimme All Your Money" drill.