If an average person or someone with only moderate training with a weapon (knife, brass knuckle, lead pipe) fights someone trained in unarmed combat, does the person with the weapon have an advantage or are they still at a disadvantage?
Can they easily be disarmed? On the other hand each strike they land will be far more effective.
YMMV but in my life I’ve found people totally untrained with a weapon a little tougher than someone with moderate training; at least initially. The total greenhorn may do any damn thing you could believe and some you won’t ever believe; the person with some training will follow some basic moves and I’ll be able to stick that monkey-wrench someplace uncomfortable. Think it like a chess master facing someone who just played with a couple friends in high school as opposed to someone somewhat skilled – those first few moves can be a little hairy.
I don’t know much about combat, but as an internationally rated chess player I assure you that nothing an inexperienced player does (no matter how unorthodox) causes any problems!
I remember when an enthusiastic beginner came to my chess club and challenged me to a game. He explained that he’d beaten all his friends with his own invention - and with the Black pieces too.
So he got checkmated in 10 moves - and with a pawn delivering the mate. 
People use weapons because you don’t need much training to be deadly. One bad crack with a baseball bat may be crippling or fatal. I’ve also read or seen lots of videos on liveleak where people seem to be killed with surprisingly little effort with a knife.
I’d say physical variations among opponents is a big variable, and so is the kind of weapon. A lug wrench should be easier to disarm than a knife for example.
Assuming physically equal opponents, some weapons will be much more of a problem than others.
Sort of a poorly worded question. In close distance, a surprise attack even without the lead pipe will subdue the armed person.
I have firearms but have no intention to carry them. But, I’m 6’3" and 220lbs. I can throw someone that is 150lbs in a surprise attach fairly easily to the ground. Well I suppose I could, it’s not like I do it every day.
A novice with a blunt weapon may as well be unarmed. One or two swings and they will be out of position for recovery and the skilled combatant will close to disarm them if they’re feeling generous or break their arm them if they aren’t.
With an edged weapon they’ll have a slight possibility of drawing blood and a slighter chance of disabling, but in all likelihood the ending will be the same.
The person with the weapon always has the advantage. That’s why weapons were invented.
There is a form of self defense training that is very informative You give one person a Magic Marker pen, and then have the other people practice knife disarms. Then count the marks afterwards. Especially the ones on the torso.
I had exactly one student, a woman, who came out of that training unmarked. Because she actually listened to what I taught. I gave the Marker pen to one person, she was the other person, and when I said “Go” she ran away.
That’s the best defense against a weapon.
Regards,
Shodan
Mileage varies. Back at Pitt an internationally ranked player was showing his skills against 10 people/volunteers at once. The 7th one to go down had the least experience. By his admission it was the first 5 moves that threw him to the point that he had to “catch up”. One of those things I saw and never forgot.
Quite. And the best way to avoid weaponized confrontations is to not be there. The Army slogan was, “If the enemy can see you, they can kill you.” I’d earlier learned, while living in a rather nasty ghetto, to be elsewhere when conflict occurs. Only fools look for fights.
I still remember when, in basic training, I asked the platoon sergeant if we were going to train in use of bayonets. “Recruit,” he said, “if they ever get close enough for you to have to use a bayonet, we haven’t trained you well enough in how to use your rifle.”
The whole point (ha!) of a weapon is to confer an advantage that defeats pure physical skill. The introduction of a weapon into a fight might overwhelm any advantage in training, and can do so in unexpected ways.
The correct answers to this question are: What weapon? How well trained in unarmed combat?
In the case of a man with brass knuckles against an unarmed Daniel Courmier, knuckle guy is leaving on a stretcher. A man with a spear, on the other hand would be heavily favored. Brass knuckles vs a guy who does kung fu recreationally, including quite a bit of sparing, but has never been in a real fight would be more even. “Weapons” range all the way from sticks and rocks to implements designed and perfected for very specific situations.
What if his opening gambit is to punch you in the face?
The “rules” are different when he has a weapon, because he has options that you don’t.
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t the answer to most of these, “it depends?” My kids take kendo and I started with it but hurt my shoulder and had to quit. Watching the beginners, there is a wide range of abilities between those who have decent reactions and skills and those who couldn’t hit a wall if they tried. I’ve only seen a couple of actual fights in my whole life, but it seems that sheer aggression counts more than nominal skill training.
There is this element as well: in a fight between unarmed people, the one who’s willing to get nasty or dirty first has an advantage, and most untrained people are instinctively unwilling to go “all out” from the get go.
I believe this is a cornerstone of Krav Maga (meaning, I’ve never trained in it myself but I’ve read a synopsis of its approach): avoiding confrontation is priority #1, but if in an unavoidable physical fight, go for the win immediately instead of escalating in stages. Go for the eyes, throat, groin, whatever, and aim for incapacitating them instead of surrender.
All while adhering to the universal Rule #1 of unarmed combat: “get armed.”
A bit of a bad analogy when it comes to discussing unarmed combat, because a punch to the face IS one of the most basic rules of the game…
The context of the “chessmaster vs. novice” comparison was in reply to “people totally untrained with a weapon [are] a little tougher than someone with moderate training; at least initially. The total greenhorn may do any damn thing you could believe and some you won’t ever believe… like a chess master facing someone who just played with a couple friends in high school as opposed to someone somewhat skilled – those first few moves can be a little hairy”.
The actuall chessmaster pointed out that no, “those first few moves” from someone completely untrained are in fact, not ever really hairy at all. Because chess IS a game with equal pieces (barring a handicap) and rules adhered to by both sides, which this combat situation is not.
It was more a response meaning “no, the advantage of training in unarmed combat vs. an untrained but armed person is not at all like the training of being a chess master vs. a novice”.
This is really important. When I was a kid, my brother lost his temper, and ended up swinging a hatchet in the living room. Our babysitter was terrified. I was older than he, and larger and stronger. But mostly I counted on him not getting nasty immediately. I charged him, got too close for him to swing at me, and then disarmed him. The babysitter sent him to his room and never sat for us again.
My strength mattered in actually wresting the hatchet from him, but the key thing was that I acted decisively and before he got up the gumption to respond.
See, here’s the thing. The unarmed combatant has to have a hell of a lot better training than the armed combatant. And mistakes are going to be a lot more unforgiving for the unarmed combatant.
Obviously it depends on a lot of factors like the relative size, athleticism, aggressiveness and skill of the combatants. The weapon also matters a lot too. Brass knuckles largely depend on being able to actually land a solid blow. OTOH, I’m pretty sure the only think I need to know about wielding a katana against an unarmed opponent is which side is the sharp one and then just swing it like a baseball bat. Heck, you don’t need to be Derek Jeter to fuck someone up with a baseball bat.
As think as others have noted, the OP needs to define the rules of engagement more clearly.
I’ve taken martial arts (Karate, Aikido, Hapkido, Judo) for many years. If my totally untrained wife came at me with a knife, she would have zero advantage other than if she attacked from behind and I didn’t know she was there (She has stabbed me in the bak a couple times, come to think of it:)).
Meanwhile, I have other zero-trained highly athletic friends who may be able to cut me, but I doubt they’d have any real advantage and ultimately I’d win. But is winning what the OP is asking?
I’m not sure where some of the posters are getting their martial arts info from, but contrary to what many are posting here, all the training I’ve had is not doing some preprogrammed moves with no ability to respond to an opponent who improvises. That’s all the training you get - expect the unexpected.
However, as Shodan says, my Senseis have always taught that the best defense is to avoid the fight = run away. You only fight if you can’t possibly avoid it, but once you realize you must fight, there are no rules. Improvise & look for the first opportunity you can find to sucker punch the person and do whatever it takes to win.
It also depends on what you consider “moderate training” with the weapon. Given that it takes years to master fighting, then would several months of training be considered moderate?
I had several months but not years of kendo, but learned how to use it adequately. I think most people in my situation would do fairly well with a katana against an unarmed, but trained fighter, they were willing to aggressively use the sword.
Part of the training is simply getting familiar with swinging repeatedly and quickly as well as getting hit in return.