What defines a fighter?

[Lorien]

There are some great answers to this grey area that we call defining knives. I think Kam's question was valid, his wording wasn't trying to be specific, and yet I read some potentially snarky comebacks to the query. Why is that? Not everyone is a seasoned and knowlegable member here.Let's discuss further. Thanks, Kam.

Coop

my input into this thread was a little snarky, I'll admit. I have a gnarly cold and am feeling generally unpleasant.

The other reason for my lack of patience is that the thread that prompted this question, I think is the best answer to the question already. A picture is worth a thousand words.

And then finally, the question is so general, that I couldn't see why it's in this forum, except that it references a thread which is in this forum.

At any rate, if it stimulates discussion then it's all good

Anyway, my apologies if I was rude.:foot:

 

[RogerP]

So, For a VERY efficient fighter, I am going to suggest that a good guard is paramount. Not to say guardless models haven't worked for millenia, but it's a starting definition.

If guardless models have worked for millenia (and they have) how can a guard be a paramount design feature in a fighting knife (not sure I understand the use of the term 'efficient' here)? I very much doubt that the tiny double gurds one sees on a great many fighters - extending mere milimeters beyond the width of the blade - do much to protect the hand. If your hand is wider than the guard, defensive protection really isn't there. And with the exception of D-guards, C-guards or really elongated S-guards, that's almost always the case.

Case in point - beautiful fighter below (IMHO). Defensive protection offered by guard as against an opponent's blade: more notional than real.

As for protecting the hand from sliding forward, there are other design solutions besides a guard to accomplish that end. For example, the S-shaped choil that one sees in a great many Gaucho kniives is effectively contoured to for a natural rest for the index finger, preventing the hand from sliding forward:

The double-guard is very much part of the traditional western approach to fighter design. It has its merits. But to suggest that a fighting knife must have a guard is simply incorrect, IMHO. I mean - we're just talking fixed blades here - a whole bunch of folders are designed as fighting knives and precious few of those have guards.

If a knife is designed for use as a weapon in combat, it's a fighter. We can debate the relative merits of various design elements - and that is indeed a worthwhile discussion. But to suggest that one design element is definitive (and consequently, that those knives which don't have it fall outside the definition) just doesn't fly with me.

Roger

 

[Keith Montgomery]

This reminds me of when people ask, what makes a bowie a bowie? I can't define what makes a knife a fighter, but I know one when I see it.

 

[Hmathews]

This knife didn't really start out as a fighter. It wasn't designed to be one and Charlie and I debated whether or not to call it one. The back edge was originally false and only sharpened later. It doesn't have much of a guard and looks like a 5" drop point utility knife in profile. But there is that double edge and the guy that bought it thought it was definitely a fighter.

This version of our Silent Partner was deliberately designed to be a fighter, but would not meet some strict interpretations of the term. The customer that requested the design had specific things in mind and looked at the knife as a tool to be carried every day. The image of a "fighting knife" to me brings up two opponents squaring off like Bowie on the sand bar in a movie. This knife brings to mind a different kind of fight where one of the combatants might not know he is in a knife fight until it is too late. They are both fighting knives and yet different in function and purpose.

I really think that if the term "fighting knife" is defined, it will look like one of those words in a dictionary that has ten different definitions after the correct pronunciation. The first of which looks little like the last.

 

[betzner]

One of the problems in this never-ending quest for definition is just how far do you take it. That's why, although these kinds of threads tend to be interesting, they never arrive at specifics - but so what - because they prompt thought.

With respect to going that one step further that these threads seem to take us, where does a bolster end and a guard begin, ie, when does a bolster start serving as a guard? (Rhetorical question - please, no attempts to answer it)

For me, keep the threads coming like this, because we get to see some real nice pics!

 

[H2H907]

They have to be baaad lookin'!

 

[Kevin Jones]

Who said a fighter had to have a guard?

How can you determine ergomomics from a photograph?

Who says a fighting knife can't be clunky-looking? Ever seen a Smatchet? A pretty devastating edged weapon and as clunky as can be.

A fighter is a knife designed for use as a weapon. There are and always have been many varied design approaches to that basic requirement. Go tell a Gurkha that his khukri isn't much of a fighting knife because it doesn't have a guard, and let me know what he says.

Kevin's right (there, I said it ) - if you're looking for a single, universally accepted definition, you're going to be disappointed.
Roger

Roger, I think that's the third time we have agreed on a subject in a couple weeks.:grumpy: This isn't as fun anymore.

 

[NickWheeler]

I think if you look at Jason Knight's fighters, you will clearly see a 3dimensional definition of what a fighter is.

 

[KamSingh]

Well, it's pretty much only a chopper - but a devastating combat chopper in skilled hands. It is a design that has proven itself over, like, a really really really long time. Taking an exclusively Western view of the fighting knife is fine - if rather parochial.

Some other guardless fighters - the Mediterranean dirk, the Yataghan, the Bolo. I wouldn't say that any of those should have guards.

Roger

Again, two more choppers and the Dirk does offer some protection.

The choppers you mentioned all have handles that prevent your hand from slipping off it, this IMO is just as important as a guard on large fighter.

 

[KamSingh]

There are some great answers to this grey area that we call defining knives. I think Kam's question was valid, his wording wasn't trying to be specific, and yet I read some potentially snarky comebacks to the query. Why is that? Not everyone is a seasoned and knowlegable member here.

Hell, I was hoping for a bit of specific info, too.

Guards? A guard is specific to providing caution to the holder so that a thrusting motion might be further enabled in force, and even protected from sliding forward. In the defensive scenario it may also protect the hand.

So, For a VERY efficient fighter, I am going to suggest that a good guard is paramount. Not to say guardless models haven't worked for millenia, but it's a starting definition.

Let's discuss further. Thanks, Kam.

Coop

Thanks Coop.

 

[KamSingh]

If a knife is designed for use as a weapon in combat, it's a fighter.
Roger

By that definition I would not call this knife a fighter, along with a few others from this thread.

 

[KamSingh]

I think we are obviously not going to come to any sort of conclusion but people do seem to have a clear view of what a "Pure Fighter" is and what isn't.

So in your opinion what makes a pure or efficient fighter?

Maybe like Roger suggested we could then debate the relative merits of various design elements.

 

[Jon Brand]

I have to admit I was a bit confused by the "pure" part of it. Are we talking about original fighting knives in history and going by that standard?

I don't know enough about knife combat to really put in anything to this. All I know is that I would want a guard to protect myself.

I want to applaud Coop for his statements. I think all discussion is fair game. Maybe it was discussed before but why not share some more info again? We are all learning. Even the pros. I also feel like I know a fighter when I see one, but I can't really explain why.

 

[RogerP]

Again, two more choppers and the Dirk does offer some protection.

The choppers you mentioned all have handles that prevent your hand from slipping off it, this IMO is just as important as a guard on large fighter.

Kam - baby - that's my point exactly - "chopper"-type fighters and those with other design elements that prevent the hand from slipping forward don't need a guard - but they are still effective fighting knives. So... follow me here... IF there exist effective fighting knife designs that DON'T have a guard, then doesn't that pretty much render invalid the suggestion that a fighting knife MUST have a guard?

By that definition I would not call this knife a fighter, along with a few others from this thread.

I think you're confusing degree of embellishment with design. That Broadwell is clearly a fighting knife design - though the degree of embellishment suggests that it will likely not be used in a knife fight (and neither will 99.9% of the really butch tacticals out there...but I digress). Make the handle micarta and the blade bead-blasted stainless and the sheath kydex and you quite clearly have a fighter, no?

A good many of the Price-style fighters / daggers / boot knives were indeed highly embellished, but they sure weren't designed to peel an apple. If embellishment takes a knife out of the fighter category, then that section of the "Knives" annuals would be significantly emptied out.

Roger

 

[SharpByCoop]

Great. More photos added to the discussion. And more well-thought-out comments.

Roger: Yup, that brass guard above would barely be a defensive guard, but it's a whole lot more 'efficient' in a thrusting motion against resistance than had there been none. A knife used for cutting wouldn't need it as much.

Hell, a sharpened stick would be a fighting knife in a pinch. We ALL know that. (The boundaries are as limiting as the Rio Grande river separating the US and Mexico in the 1900's....)

Kam, I'd call that a fighter by my definition. If you can get over it's beauty it would actually be a darn good one, too. Looks fast and a lot of guard area to hold firm. But I understand the maker's immediate function was to create an artistic knife, not one specific for duty, such as Harry posted.

Funny, but I remember a seminar where the instructors were discussinng how to hold a knife in the event of a real fight against an opponent with a knife. They completely threw out my notion of a stabbing or slicing grip in favor of a cross-hand horizontal position and a chopping motion.

The premise was to slice the opponents hand at a distance father than his blade could come close to your body. His knife is pointing at you and yours is sideways chopping it out of his hand. Disarm him first. Attack his hand, not his person. (The Prac-tac boys would be all over my explanation, but it stuck.)

Thanks.

Coop

 

[RogerP]

I don't know enough about knife combat to really put in anything to this. All I know is that I would want a guard to protect myself.

Jon - not disputing your preference for a guard as it is one I share. Just questioning whether a knife can be a fighter if it doesn't have one. History says yes, some here say no. But to return to the issue of defensive protection, let's take a look at this Dan Farr chute knife:

One of my favourite knives and a wicked little fighter with that raised and sharpened top clip. It has the double-gaurd that some say is essential, at least in part because it offers defensive protection. But how much? Here is the knife in hand:

It would seem to me that a whole lot of my hand is exposed beyond the guard itself, but this next pic really tells the story:

Does it offer some defensive protection? Yes. Is the vast majority of my hand still exposed to an opponent's blade? Yes. Would my hand be significantly less protected without the guard? No. Does a standard double guard offer sufficient defensive protection that it should fairly be regarded as a defining characteristic of a fighting knife? IMHO, no.

Roger

 

[Kevin Jones]

I would definitely want a guard on a fighter and preferably a double guard. Especially since I don't see the "upside" to not having one?

Though you demonstrate very well how much the hand is left exposed by even a very well executed double guard, it could still be the difference between getting a very nasty cut and actually loosing a couple fingers or receiving tendon damage leaving the strong "knife hand" useless.

If actually using a fighter for it's intended purpose I would want every advantage possible against my opponent. Yes, a guard could very well factor into whose the last man standing.

 

[Kevin Jones]

Great. More photos added to the discussion. And more well-thought-out comments.

Roger: Yup, that brass guard above would barely be a defensive guard, but it's a whole lot more 'efficient' in a thrusting motion against resistance than had there been none. A knife used for cutting wouldn't need it as much.

Hell, a sharpened stick would be a fighting knife in a pinch. We ALL know that. (The boundaries are as limiting as the Rio Grande river separating the US and Mexico in the 1900's....)

Kam, I'd call that a fighter by my definition. If you can get over it's beauty it would actually be a darn good one, too. Looks fast and a lot of guard area to hold firm. But I understand the maker's immediate function was to create an artistic knife, not one specific for duty, such as Harry posted.

Funny, but I remember a seminar where the instructors were discussinng how to hold a knife in the event of a real fight against an opponent with a knife. They completely threw out my notion of a stabbing or slicing grip in favor of a cross-hand horizontal position and a chopping motion.

The premise was to slice the opponents hand at a distance father than his blade could come close to your body. His knife is pointing at you and yours is sideways chopping it out of his hand. Disarm him first. Attack his hand, not his person. (The Prac-tac boys would be all over my explanation, but it stuck.)

Thanks.

Coop

You make a good point Coop, as the knife hand is a preferred target.
Perhaps being ambidextrous can be more important than equipment.

 

[KamSingh]

Kam - baby - that's my point exactly - "chopper"-type fighters and those with other design elements that prevent the hand from slipping forward don't need a guard - but they are still effective fighting knives. So... follow me here... IF there exist effective fighting knife designs that DON'T have a guard, then doesn't that pretty much render invalid the suggestion that a fighting knife MUST have a guard?

Roger

Roger I agree with you, choppers don't need guards but other fighters should IMO have something to prevent your hand slipping forward.

I guess I was just not being as specific as you when thinking of a guard. I would consider the Emerson CQC-8 to have a guard or sorts, I don't know what you would call it.

Kam, I'd call that a fighter by my definition. If you can get over it's beauty it would actually be a darn good one, too. Looks fast and a lot of guard area to hold firm. But I understand the maker's immediate function was to create an artistic knife, not one specific for duty, such as Harry posted.

Coop, I would also call it a fighter by my definition but not by Rogers, like you say it has been designed as an artistic knife not one for duty.

 

[KamSingh]

Jon - not disputing your preference for a guard as it is one I share. Just questioning whether a knife can be a fighter if it doesn't have one. History says yes, some here say no. But to return to the issue of defensive protection...

Does it offer some defensive protection? Yes. Is the vast majority of my hand still exposed to an opponent's blade? Yes. Would my hand be significantly less protected without the guard? No. Does a standard double guard offer sufficient defensive protection that it should fairly be regarded as a defining characteristic of a fighting knife? IMHO, no.

Roger

Roger, I think mine and Coop's idea of what the primary function of a guard should be is very different to yours.

IMO it should function to stop your hand from slipping onto the blade and help you to produce more force when thrusting.

The defensive purposes of the guard are fairly negligible, like you say most of the hand is still exposed.