posted 10-11-2002 07:19 AM               

quote:

---

Is this really an attack to the belly, though it could be, or is he striking up at the downward blow from the guy on the
left? Catching and hooking the wrist in a similar way to the pair on the left but from the other way?

---

You're right, the stab to the side is not what one would usually do from this position, although it works well, if one checks the dagger hand with the left hand while passing forward. Surprises people, I can tell you!

The "orthodox" technique from this guard would be to parry the weapon arm close to the wrist with a sweeping clockwise motion of one's right hand and then "lock" the opponents dagger hand with a turn of one's wrist. From there, one could easily unbalance the opponent by pulling back the arm while passing forward and gripping the weapon arm, followed by smashing the rondel of one's dagger into the opponents throat or under his chin.

This technique could also be used for an elbow-lock/break or for a "scissors" hold.
Or work a leg throw. Or for other nice things that come to mind.

posted 10-11-2002 07:34 AM               

Just as a parallel, the lower guard of German dagger is used much like Fiore's guard for sword in one hand. It is used to set aside, trap, etc. going from low to high. It can also deliver a direct attack with or without stepping off line.

It fits in with the Liechtenaur theme of binding and winding, whereas Fiore's methods stay within his construct of creating a space and them attacking into it.

Both work equally well, but are different thematically. Thanks for the illustration Jorg - I was just looking at Talhoffer last night :-)

And Tomaz, I like Fairbain's little book a lot. I own a copy. The similarities in true combat systems are sometimes amazing.

posted 10-11-2002 08:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tomaz:
Rob, I apologize up-front for mixing WWII combatives and medieval HTH, but I do think these styles are related.

---

I agree the systems are related - they are both military systems of knife combat and absolutely well suited to the quick fight to the death, and in fact, I have noted the similarities to both styles (on this thread I think) and on other threads all over the place. What I was objecting to more was the use of modern to encompass all styles of knife fighting - whether military or civilian, where the pressures, the concerns and the environment is completely different.

quote:

---

However, I'm not sure your critique is valid. Please don't take me wrong, but you don't seem to be familiar with WWII combatives.

---

I am familiar with them from the basis of looking and comparison though not from practise - to my knowledge - though on paper I completely agree there are plenty of comparisons that can be made - if I led people to believe anything different then please forgive me, I was probably referring to modern civilian types of knife combat.

In fact, going back to what I wrote - I completely agree with what you are saying here - I did say that we should not compare medieval to modern, whether civilian or battlefield - perhaps I should have said we should not compare civilian and battlefield, as I seem to go into a tirade about civilian knife fighting. So sorry, where I say modern please insert modern civilian/street knife fighting.....

quote:

---

I'm not talking about "modern" knife fighting (whether such a thing exists at all, which I really doubt). I'm not even referring to the navaja or other Latino systems. What I have in mind is the Fairbairn-Applegate-Sykes method of WWII which is a purely fighting-oriented and very brutal system. Its goal is one and one only - to kill the opponent as quickly as possible. No fuss about taking out the opponent's knife hand first. Attacks are focused on the face and neck area, abdomen, kidneys plus occasional shots at the hand arteries. Moreover, the FAS system is a highly practical one because it takes all those little things into account that really matter, such as heavy clothing and even webbing and gear (important in the military context).

---

I completely agree with everything there - please - honestly I think nothing differently.

quote:

---

The end result is impressive yet extremely simple and can be taught in a matter of hours. It has proven itself time and again during the past 60 years but also has serious street application.

---

And here I will disagree. I have been spending sometime with people that use knife in a less than legal sense asking them how they use the knife - and essentially, if you are prepared to take the cut and slice from the knife as you enter you will not necessarily get close. Street knife usage is extremely tricky. The idea is to threaten the attack to draw the other guy out and as he comes out to attack the hand/arm then you make your own slash against the arm/hand, the other guy who knows this is also feinting his own being drawn out and so it continues... the slowest gets nice cuts on their hand and hopefully these will do the damage to remove the knife or the other guys need to knife you.
If the attack is commited however, then the idea is to slice at the hand and arm and slip back or to the side as you do so making sure of your own saftey and keeping out of the way of the main "thrust" (excuse the pun) of the attack - its all very complicated stuff. Now if I was wearing army gear or even medieval doublet or padded jack then I would not be worried about the small cuts and thrusts, after all the clothing would be effective against this form of attack, however, without that form of protection in modern clothing, unless in the sort of nature of a leather jacket or similarly heavy, I am going to get slashed and not necessarily land the attack - so as I said - these styles are suited best to the environment that they are meant to be used in - as Pete Kautz says in his seminars Filipino martial arts are well suited to a beach with your bermuda shorts on and not necessarily to the streets of London or indeed a battlefield whether modern or medieval.

quote:

---

I hope this illustrates well enough where I'm coming from, but if you have some spare time I would suggest reading Fairbairn's wartime manual: http://www.vrazvedka.ru/main/learning/ruk-b/fairbairn-01.shtml

---

I have picked this up sometime in the past - but thankyou for the URL.

quote:

---

I actually agree that WWII combatives have plenty of things in common with medieval HTH, but there are differences nevertheless, the strong preference for a saber grip among others (not that reverse was the one and only in the medieval times).

---

Tomaz - really - this is not the only grip in medieval treatises, Fiore shows the knife point above the hand as well as below the hand. Have a look - its there!

quote:

---

There is also a greatly reduced tendency for any defense against knife or even trapping.

I'm not attempting to judge medieval dagger techniques by modern military standards, but I nevertheless feel that a proper comparison between the two is possible and even necessary (always considering the context of course) to get a solid interpretation of medieval systems.

---

Honestly - I do agree

quote:

---

By the way, I very much agree about the reverse grip being best reserved for strikes above the chest line, which is actually a limitation in my opinion, but I fail to see your point (no pun intended ) about digging the tip of your dagger only a couple of centimeters deep into the target. This basically deprives you of the main advantage of reverse grip, power. In a fight to the death I believe this would be highly counterproductive. Given the relatively limited killing power of knives and daggers thrusts must be delivered full-force to have immediate effect. In military combatives, the idea is actually to bury the knife all the way to the hilt. This is why attacking the rib cage is a bad idea because the blade might get stuck. Interestingly, Talhoffer appears quite fond of stabbing the opponent in the chest (hinted on several plates but nicely drawn on plate 190).[/B]

---

Hmm - OK - well if you are stabbing around the top of the chest and neck and face you do not have to go that deep to create severe damage. Also with going in with the amount of powere that will achieve that amount of penentration this could lead to over commitment of the blow which will be easier to counter. That's just my opinion though.... if the other guy is otherwise engaged incapacitated or whatever then this sort of tour de bras is just the ticket - I hasten to add.

posted 10-11-2002 08:32 AM               

OK - glad I am not too mad - maybe just a little bad B).

Seems like we are coming from the same page on this.

Bob, totally agree, as with all knife combat, you don't really want to hang around in front of the guy - best to get the hell out of the way

posted 10-11-2002 10:43 AM               

Yes, Fiore would still hate this attack in my opinion, even more than before, as it is coming from the attacker's left - he would push the elbow!! So by default I would have to hate it - however....

---The use of this thrust in the Codex Wallerstein (plate 51) uses a set-up to reduce the chance that the opponent can stop it simply by blocking the elbow. The translation of the text of the plate courtesy of Gregorz Zabinski reads as follows:
"So someone stands in front of you with his dagger and you are worried about him: run firmly at him and act as if you wanted to thrust from above at his face; turn in front of him to show your right side; and thrust from below at his testicles, as shown here."

The illustration shows the fighter leaning away to avoid a possible counter and thrusting upward with a reverse grip at the same time. Hope that helps. :-)

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

posted 10-11-2002 12:48 PM               

Who are these people and just what are they doing with knives? Mugging people and brawling with bikers? This is a far cry from real knife fighting where knives are drawn and used with an intent to kill the opponent outright.

I think this brings us to the very crux of our disagreement. 'Fencing' styles often seen on the street aren't a viable method in my opinion, at least not for self-defense in a fight to the death.

You say battlefield methods belong to the battlefield, not the street. In general, this might be correct. But nothing could be farther from truth in case of the FAS system. I'm not sure you realize that Fairbairn actually founded his system on what he learned in the streets of Shanghai as a law enforcement officer. Shanghai was a very dangerous place in the early 20th c. and at least as bad as the worst slums nowadays. Law enforcement was a serious affair and frequently involved working undercover or even on your own. It was there that Fairbairn perfected his method and taught it to his fellow officers in hope of increasing their odds of survival. Only later was his method, already famous for its efficiency, adopted by the military during the early stages of WWII. Fairbairn's system was created on the street and for the street. But it also works on the battlefield and in every other violent encounter because it encompasses the very fundamentals of hand-to-hand combat.

The 'fencing' method of knife play as advocated by some is much less effective in reality than Fairbairn's all-in fighting. It's based on a number of assumptions which may turn out to be completely incorrect in a given situation. First, it presumes there is a known number of participants. Second, it assumes the fight to start at wide range. Third, the participants are expected to openly display their knives before using them.

Reality is usually completely different. Many people involved in actual knife fights reportedly did not realize the opponent was carrying a blade. Some did not even acknowledge being hit until the fight was well over. It's not at all uncommon for brawls to start at medium or even short range where the fencing method is entirely useless and regaining distance might take too long.

It has been said before that 'fencing' knife fights are only possible if both participants are determined to stay at long range. If one wants to break the distance he will usually accomplish it quite easily. I certainly wouldn't want to play a fencing game and get myself slowly cut to pieces in the process. If necessary, I'd be willing to take the risk of getting cut on my left arm if that allows me to deliver a lethal blow. Even better to have a jacket wrapped around the arm if there is enough time for that (usually there isn't). Of course, these scenarios all assume that lethal force is required whereas the fencing method doesn't. But if a situation isn't calling for a lethal response, why drawing a knife in the first place?

posted 10-14-2002 04:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tomaz:
Who are these people and just what are they doing with knives? Mugging people and brawling with bikers? This is a far cry from real knife fighting where knives are drawn and used with an intent to kill the opponent outright.

---

And that is the point that I am trying to make! Both sorts of knife fighting are real, but one sort has the premise of I am happy to kill you, the other is happy to injure repeatedly - both are effective in their own environment.

quote:

---

I think this brings us to the very crux of our disagreement. 'Fencing' styles often seen on the street aren't a viable method in my opinion, at least not for self-defense in a fight to the death.

---

But as I keep on saying it depends on the situation. If the time can be taken then the styles that I have witnessed are extremely effective, if time cannot be taken then they will not be effective.

quote:

---

You say battlefield methods belong to the battlefield, not the street. In general, this might be correct. But nothing could be farther from truth in case of the FAS system.

---

You contradicting yourself Tomaz - are you that wound up

quote:

---

I'm not sure you realize that Fairbairn actually founded his system on what he learned in the streets of Shanghai as a law enforcement officer. Shanghai was a very dangerous place in the early 20th c. and at least as bad as the worst slums nowadays. Law enforcement was a serious affair and frequently involved working undercover or even on your own.

---

And now we are getting back to the idea of environment - in the a particular environment one system will work, while the other will struggle.

quote:

---

It was there that Fairbairn perfected his method and taught it to his fellow officers in hope of increasing their odds of survival. Only later was his method, already famous for its efficiency, adopted by the military during the early stages of WWII. Fairbairn's system was created on the street and for the street.

---

Let me correct that it was created on the streets of Shanghai for the streets of Shanghai to be used by police officers of that city.

quote:

---

But it also works on the battlefield and in every other violent encounter because it encompasses the very fundamentals of hand-to-hand combat.

---

Providing that violent encounter is following the rules that allow that system to work.
To jump at something related but different - Silver's single sword is excellent because of the continual pressing in and flying out, but in harness will slow down to the point where the ideas of pressing in and flying out become dramatically altered to the point of not being there.

quote:

---

The 'fencing' method of knife play as advocated by some is much less effective in reality than Fairbairn's all-in fighting.

---

2 months ago I would have agreed with this, but now due to my experiences and learning i would dispute this drastically.
For an experiment go along to a group practicing something like fillipino and ask for a couple of knife demonstrations and show what you have in return then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both.
Please notice I am not saying that one is better than the other just that you have different tools for different jobs - some tools are suited for some jobs while others aren't.

quote:

---

It's based on a number of assumptions which may turn out to be completely incorrect in a given situation. First, it presumes there is a known number of participants. Second, it assumes the fight to start at wide range. Third, the participants are expected to openly display their knives before using them.

---

1) Not necessarily

2) All fights start at a wide range (sometimes as big as 30 yards, maybe more, some will start at a range of a couple of yards, but by the time things are starting to get into mid and close ranges then the engagement as already started even if you have not recognised the approach), even if you are stabbed when someone is up close to you, as they walk past maybe, you will already have been targetted and the fight will have already started (this style of fighting I like to term "ambush")

3) Again, not necessarily, I know of at least three different ways to bring a knife into play from being concealed and closed on the first defensive movement, others will know more.

quote:

---

Reality is usually completely different. Many people involved in actual knife fights reportedly did not realize the opponent was carrying a blade. Some did not even acknowledge being hit until the fight was well over. It's not at all uncommon for brawls to start at medium or even short range where the fencing method is entirely useless and regaining distance might take too long.

---

OK - I take your point but I do not agree, here we are talking about so many other issues that bear no relationship upon the basic environment. Here you have bought up the concept of adrenaline and fighting ranges. Adrenaline can do some pretty wierd things, just as deep wounds are less likely to be felt than shallow wounds, productions of endorphines, the ideas that surround ambush, and the lack of management of the environment, as well as lack of awareness, and the ability to recognise the fact that you have been targetted from a distance away. Can we try to keep this topic on at least a fairly level playing field?
Also see my previous comments above.

quote:

---

It has been said before that 'fencing' knife fights are only possible if both participants are determined to stay at long range. If one wants to break the distance he will usually accomplish it quite easily.

---

Most probably will, but how much damage do you want to take in getting it? As soon as you extend your arm then it is slashed?, OK - we may get the killing strike in on your adversary.....yes officer I killed him and he cut my arm. You are the person that has to proove you used reasonable force - not the dead bloke At least in the UK.

quote:

---

I certainly wouldn't want to play a fencing game and get myself slowly cut to pieces in the process. If necessary, I'd be willing to take the risk of getting cut on my left arm if that allows me to deliver a lethal blow.

---

quote:

---

Even better to have a jacket wrapped around the arm if there is enough time for that (usually there isn't).

---

Depends entirely upon the situation.

quote:

---

Of course, these scenarios all assume that lethal force is required whereas the fencing method doesn't.

---

Which is my point!

quote:

---

But if a situation isn't calling for a lethal response, why drawing a knife in the first place?

---

Ahh - c'mon - let's change the debate... I don't think so. All I have been sticking up for is the fact that I feel that a "battlefield" knife system is not a knife system that is well suited for a modern civilian setting, and that goes doubly for the medieval dagger system that uses a rondel, with little or no edge.

Note that I have not said WILL NOT or RUBBISH - all I have said is NOT WELL SUITED. This means that some people will make it work, but that there are better systems for this environment.

quote:

---

For serious use of the knife I think the FAS system is among the most efficient ever devised (Fiore would probably fall in the same category given the great resemblance which Bob pointed out earlier).

---

I have never argued that Fiore or FAS is not efficient. C'mon I study Fiore, and if I thought that it was rubbish I would not have dedicated so much time to it, but I will also recognise that fact that there are better knife systems that can be used in different environments.

quote:

---

It stresses the importance of forward drive and striking first if at all possible, hopefully taking the opponent by surprise.

---

And if that does not work? In "New Breed" MA this is the whole premise to take the intial strike and keep that momentum going, but as one of its instructors was pointing out over the weekend, the fighting part of the system engages when that first strike fails. I would imagine it is similar to FAS in some respects.

quote:

---

Wide slashes aren't likely to do any real damage.

---

Who mentioned wide slashes? A slash does not have to be a wide spaced movement?
A slash does not do much damage? Hmm - a couple of weekends ago I saw some interesting slashes that essentially peel the skin and muscle from your forearms? This has an effect on several different levels - but I would say that light damage was not one of them?

quote:

---

but a forcible thrust to the abdomen or neck - and not just one thrust, but several powerful ones delivered in rapid succession - will take the opponent out almost instantly.
This is what WWII combatives are about. [/B]

---

And medieval as well, in both types of system both the individuals, are after a quick incapacitation of the opponent, but I don't think that this sort of approach upon the street would go down particularly well for the authorities, or even from a moral aspect? I don't know perhaps I am just too nice?

Rob

posted 10-14-2002 08:13 AM               

The separation between battlefield and "civilian" systems is - sadly, the streets of many a modern city are a battlefield indeed - misguided in my opinion. It all comes down to what you are trying to achieve. No, the FAS method is not ideal for scaring the neighborhood kids nor is it really economical for stealing people's wallets and cell phones. But my personal aim is self-defense, not a criminal career. If I wanted to learn shooting an Uzi I would study the techniques perfected by Israeli special forces, not those of some street punk. There is a world of difference between emptying a clip and shooting with effect - and this goes, in its own way, for every kind of combat.

Fairbairn actually adapted his method several times to suit the needs of individual users. His first system was intended for law enforcement use, making some use of police holds and such. Later this was simplified for military use during WWII and further adapted for civilian self-defense after the war. Interestingly, the core of these systems was identical, the only difference being that most police holds, prisoner control techniques and sentry removal were omitted from the final civilian version. But the basic idea is always the same. Regardless of the environment, serious self-defense always has the same goal, self-preservation. Or as Fairbairn put it,

"It is not the armed forces of the United Nations alone who can profit by learning how to win in hand-to-hand fighting. Every civilian, man or woman, who ever walks a deserted road at midnight, or goes in fear of his life in the dark places of a city, should acquaint himself with these methods. Once mastered, they will instil the courage and self-reliance that come with the sure knowledge that you are the master of any dangerous situation with which you may have to cope."

Some observations regarding the range - typical muggings, among the most common type of assaults that involve knives, take place at almost point-blank range. You are right in saying that the assailant is already prepared for attack when the victim is still at a considerable distance, but the actual fight - in the sense of two or more people actually committing to a struggle - only takes place at a few meters at best because it usually takes that long for the victim to identify the threat and respond.

This means that even if the victim carries a knife and knows how to use it, he most likely won't be able to bring it to action when the assailant is still at wide distance. This is in my experience much the same with most self-defense scenarios, including bar brawls. Fights usually start at medium range with shoving and pushing. Sometimes it's possible to predict this and maintain some distance from the potential threat. But in many cases there is no such alternative, particularly in a cramped environment. This is where medium- and close-range skills get important. A person familiar only with 'knife fencing' isn't likely to fare well under such circumstances as staying just outside the weapon range won't be an option.

As any other sensible individual, I take legal constraints seriously. But if my life is on the line and I happen to have a knife at hand I will use it to eliminate the threat if that is the only (or best) option. It doesn't matter whether the opponent is armed or not, whether he carries a gun, knife or baseball bat, really. If somebody wants you dead there is not time to waste, not even much time to think. It's do or die - the only way to survive is to destroy the opponent quickly (which requires going for the vital areas, not the knife hand).

There is a saying that a knife fight ends up with one guy in the hospital and the other in the morgue. I would still much rather end up in the hospital than the morgue, though. But this is probably the reason why the FAS method did not really discuss knife vs. knife. It explicitly states that there is no sure defense against a knife short of having a longer-ranged weapon ready. If confronted by a knifer the trainee is advised to use any improvised weapon within reach to gain a safe opening, an ordinary chair being especially effective for the purpose.

If a knife vs. knife encounter happens and there is no improvised weapon available then I would try to gain an opening, usually with a low kick, then deliver a forcible attack immediately. There is no guarantee for such strategy to work with 100% reliability, but I still consider it more practical and safer than the fencing style. Of course, as those old words of wisdom go, your mileage may vary.

P.S.: I wonder what Stu would have to say about all this given his mixed martial arts background. I hope his absence doesn't take too long.

posted 10-14-2002 11:24 AM               

Now here we go for my ten pence.
I would agree with rob on the fact that I do not belive one system is inherently better than the other.
It will depend of the individual and how easily that can adapt their style to the unknown.

I am not sure if it is the Farbain system but when I was in the French Air Force (a bit less that 20 years ago). I was taught a close combat system (derived from the SAS training from WWII).
I encompassed H2H and knife.
It proned the fencing (ie like a modern sword) grip on the dagger (That grip does not work on a Tanto because the handle is too shot and you are going to hurt the inner thumb muscle, i am speaking from experience here) and the use of a mixt usage modern combat dagger that can be thrown, stab and cut. the hammer and reverse grip were definitely frowned upon.

I have tried a few medieval techniques and we train bare handed against knife (or stick or broken) in Aikido and the hammer and the reverse grip are the one used.

Personally I prefer the medieval approach, i say prefer, because it suit my style better.
May be it is a deformation from Aikido but i find sword techniques and displacements easy to integrate to dagger technique, especially the 3 nachraisen.

posted 10-14-2002 07:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tomaz:
P.S.: I wonder what Stu would have to say about all this given his mixed martial arts background. I hope his absence doesn't take too long.

---

Hello Everyone,
Thanks for the vote of confidence Tomaz.

I am back from the Historical Fencing conference and ready for debate. This one has really taken off which is great Netsword has been good lately.

Firstly I would like to comment on Talhoffer's low ward. IMHO this is the best ward with which to counter a high ward attack. Rob, I am no Fiore expert but having seen how his single sword works I would have thought you would have been a big fan of this posture.

By mismatching stances and beginning with the right foot forward you can pass in and left in response to the attack, blindside an opponent and end up in a very good position indeed. (see Talhoffer 1467 Tafel 178&187 for example.Left picture in both.)

If you oppose the high ward with the same, there is a good chance of either ending up in a "tie up" where no one has the advantage (bad) or both simply "falling under the sword" and killing each other(also bad).

There are things you can do from high vs high but Mr T seems to depict far more left foot passes from the low ward than he does a classic "Zornhau Style" bind.

Secondly, Rob as a Filipino Stylist (Kali Illustrisimo), the real systems of FMA are NOT fencing systems with lots of stick work and suicidal palm parry techniques. This kind of Rubbish is found in McDojo's and BurgerKwoons everywhere.

My FMA system involves comitted techniques designed for instant incapacitation much like medieval systems. To quote my teacher, "Our knife system is a head hunting system".

Everyone, Medieval martial arts are not boxing styles. ie systems where people bounce in and out of distance trying to defeat each other via a better sense of timing and distance or speed.

In general, medieval systems only involve fully committed attacks delivered mostly on the pass with defences also being conducted on the pass.

I see too many people in real life and online on video and in books make beautiful attacks that are countered by very poor footwork or often none at all.

By making an attack on the pass, the attacker guarantees that his attack will have to be dealt with by the defender as he has created a threat before committing the body. The downside of this of course is that the attack in inherently and deliberately telegraphic. The upside to this is that the attack can then be changed halfway through to beat the defence.

By making an attack on the pass, the attacker puts himself into a perfect position to hit the defender with the most force possible.

Now, because the attacker is slowed to the time of the foot, the defender also has time to make a foot movement too, whether it be fowards, backwards, sideways, on the pass or via a step. By not making a movement you allow the attacker to hit you in the way he intends. By moving you can void, choke up, stop or deflect his blow.

This is going to seem ridiculously fundamantal to most reading this thread however I think there are a few people here who expect medieval MA to go down like a boxing match where reaction time is all that saves you from being hit.
Medieval martial arts are based on strategy, not speed.
Cheers
Stu.

posted 10-15-2002 02:57 AM               

Damn it Janet, I replied to this, I will try again.

_______
Every individual is entitled to his own approach to ......
________

Absolute agree, god forbid that we have to use this in a real situation.
Like you I will stick to Fiore, not FAS though.

_______
I wouldn't want to argue this issue much further as it isn't likely to do any good nor does it really belong to NetSword.
________

I think it does, it is relevant. But we are starting to go around in circles.

________
Nonetheless, a few points worth noting before I retire:
________

You ain't having the last word

_________
The separation between battlefield and "civilian" systems is .....misguided in my opinion.
_________

You are entirely entitled to believe that but I think that the legal ramifications are slightly different. If you kill someone in a war zone you get a medal, if you kill someon who is mugging you on the street you end up in jail.

_________
It all comes down to what you are trying to achieve. .......But my personal aim is self-defense, not a criminal career.
_________

I will take exception to your insinuation, but not much. Either system can be used to mug, just as either system can be used for self-defense. I know that some of the guys who practise and teach this stuff would be upset to hear your suggestion about this. Just because something is different it does not mean that it is less effective.

__________
If I wanted to learn shooting ......in its own way, for every kind of combat.
__________

Hmmm - I think that we should keep the discussion to non-missile types of weapon? We have so far.......

__________
Fairbairn actually adapted his method ..... you may have to cope."
___________

BUt the same could be said, and probably has been said of most other martial systems.

____________
Some observations regarding the

victim to identify the threat and respond.
____________

Agreed! But now we are starting to bring other things into this discussion to try and proove a point. I am deliberating trying to keep things on an even playing field for the purposes of comparison. If we go down the route of trying to bring in other factors then we can write half a dozen books between us, just on the subject of distance/range and the management thereof....

___________
This means that even if the victim ....... as staying just outside the weapon range won't be an option.
___________

Very true, but this has not been the argument.
And the guys that I have been comparing and contrasting with certainly do not "only" knife fight....so please, once again let's try not to open out the topic into a broader range again, and instead keep it to the pros and cons of the different systems of knife.

___________
As any other sensible individual, I take legal constraints seriously. But if my ......(which requires going for the vital areas, not the knife hand).
___________

And this will leave you with the very real threat of prosecution and imprisonment as it is you that has to proove the use of reasonable force, the intent of the other to kill you and so on....it is not enough that he had a gun, the intent to use it has to be there, but now we are moving into other areas again!!

Also, with most of the styles, including Fiore, that I have seen, the primary thing, before moving on, is to secure the knife hand in some way, either by gripping it like Fiore, or by through destroying the hand and wrist such as filipino, before moving up the arm. I find it strange that FAS does not do this?

_________
There is a saying that a knife fight ends up with one guy in the hospital and the ....... for the purpose.
__________

And of course you can effectively use a chair in a cramped and tight environment, or pull one out if attacked at 0 range?
Tomaz - honestly I am not trying to proove one system is better than another, just trying to point out possible weaknesses that particular systems suffer from.
We could sit here and compare FAS and Liberi and comment on there similarities, identify their differences and pat ourselves on the back for practising two very similar systems. Or we could go out and look for those things that can break our systems and cause them problems, work out why, and how these problems can be overcome, and perhaps try to identify why these differences are there!! Both approaches are good, but you learn one hell of a lot from looking outside as well as within

___________
If a knife vs. knife encounter ......... wisdom go, your mileage may vary.
__________

posted 10-15-2002 03:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willaume:
Rob
Even though it seems that you have big feet, (according on the stepping on toes thread), I do not think you are too nice, that sounded even quite reasonable (or may be i have stayed too long in England).

---

Sorry, what do you mean by not too nice?
My feet size for those that are interested are size 10-11 UK which for my size is quite dainty....

quote:

---

Now here we go for my ten pence.
I would agree with rob on the fact that I do not belive one system is inherently better than the other.

---

Pleas pigeon hole me - I am just arguing the other side of the fence - I do not agree that system is better than another - but if we sit here and just look at our own things that turn us on then we do nothing to expand our own knowledge. I like to compare my work with Fiore's system not only with other people doing things with WMA but also with people outside of the WMA.

quote:

---

Personally I prefer the medieval approach, i say prefer, because it suit my style better.
May be it is a deformation from Aikido but i find sword techniques and displacements easy to integrate to dagger technique, especially the 3 nachraisen.

---

Completely agree.
Like I keep saying I love my Fiore, I have respect for FAS, but don't practise that, but also I have respect for other systems, especially when they are different in outward appearance from what we are doing with medieval and the like.

Regards from
Evil Nasty ROb

posted 10-15-2002 03:25 AM               

quote:

---

I am back from the Historical Fencing conference and ready for debate. This one has really taken off which is great Netsword has been good lately.

---

I thought you were there yesterday was unable to reply to Tomaz. And yes Netsword has been excellent recently.

quote:

---

Firstly I would like to comment on Talhoffer's low ward. IMHO this is the best ward with which to counter a high ward attack. Rob, I am no Fiore expert but having seen how his single sword works I would have thought you would have been a big fan of this posture.

---

If you look at the Getty there is no Posta in dagger that starts this side. Fiore explicitly warns you about attacking from this side, though in the dagger segno he does show this cut (one straight down, two diagonals either side, and one straight up through the middle.
Attacking from this side Fiore feels leaves one to open to a counter as the elbow can be easily manipulated though he shows a similar attack after a wrist manipulation has placed him behind the opponent and he his stabbing along the inside of the opponent's arm to the chest, so he does use it but only when he has control of the situation already.

quote:

---

By mismatching stances and beginning with the right foot forward you can pass in and left in response to the attack, blindside an opponent and end up in a very good position indeed. (see Talhoffer 1467 Tafel 178&187 for example.Left picture in both.)

---

I am not saying that you cannot. Fiore does similar movements, but he does not like the attack from the left (see above), because I practise Fiore I cannot use this as an opening.... he does not show this particular counter.

quote:

---

If you oppose the high ward with the same, there is a good chance of either ending up in a "tie up" where no one has the advantage (bad) or both simply "falling under the sword" and killing each other(also bad).

There are things you can do from high vs high but Mr T seems to depict far more left foot passes from the low ward than he does a classic "Zornhau Style" bind.

---

Yes - isn't Talhoffer good and I don't think that I have said it is not a good thing to do, it is somthing that Fiore does not do!

quote:

---

Secondly, Rob as a Filipino Stylist (Kali Illustrisimo), the real systems of FMA are NOT fencing systems with lots of stick work and suicidal palm parry techniques. This kind of Rubbish is found in McDojo's and BurgerKwoons everywhere.

---

I don't think I said that either - neither have I been talking to people involved with McDojos or BurgerKwoon....

quote:

---

My FMA system involves comitted techniques designed for instant incapacitation much like medieval systems. To quote my teacher, "Our knife system is a head hunting system".

---

So what is the first target if you are defending with knife? It is the hands? You ignore the knife?

quote:

---

In general, medieval systems only involve fully committed attacks delivered mostly on the pass with defences also being conducted on the pass.

---

This is what I have been trying to say!

[/quote]
I see too many people in real life and

This is going to seem ridiculously fundamantal to most reading this thread however I think there are a few people here who expect medieval MA to go down like a boxing match where reaction time is all that saves you from being hit.
Medieval martial arts are based on strategy, not speed.
[/quote]

OK Stuart, I am with you on all of that, I cannot argue it at all.

So what are you saying? That FMA is the same as medieval knife combat? That the wrist and hand is not the intial target on the defense with stick or knife? As the strike comes in you strike at the wrist with those pretty figure 8s, moving up the arm? Or have I been seeing something that has been made up, in your opinion?

Everyone - Look - I feel I have taken a lot of stick in this thread trying to argue the point for a different style of combat, which is not more effective but different, a different martial art from a different environment than the streets of Shanghai, the medieval alleys of Berlin, or the beach for the D-Day landings.
I really am surprised at how close minded people are here when presented with something different. I personally like looking at different things, I like seeing how what I am doing, researching and practising stands up against stuff, I am surprised that others do not or are resistant to the idea that a particular system may have problems when faced by another system.

I also feel a bit hurt that people do not think that I am not nice, but hey I will get over that!

posted 10-15-2002 04:54 AM               

This was in reference to your last post (some beat me to the post so it was not under it)
"And medieval as well, in both types of system both the individuals, are after a quick incapacitation of the opponent, but I don't think that this sort of approach upon the street would go down particularly well for the authorities, or even from a moral aspect? I don't know perhaps I am just too nice"

I always forgot that nice has multiple meaning in English not all of them are, well nice...

=>Pleas pigeon hole me - I am just arguing the other side of the fence - I do not agree that system is better than another - but if we sit here and just look at our own things that turn us on then we do nothing to expand our own knowledge. I like to compare my work with Fiore's system not only with other people doing things with WMA but also with people outside of the WMA.

Ah, well i just commented on the one system being better than the other (i though that was the way the tread was going).
I like and agree with the comparison approach (and that should even be done for all martial arts, we tried it a few time with Aikido and that was very enlightening.)
I think the main advantage is that it shows if there is any gap in your style (especially against basic attack) or if there is some positional/posture adjustment to be made and tried back against the original style.

Of course,there is some danger in that. A particular technique may not seem to work or it may look like that there is gapping holes in a given system.
And may be there is because they do not explain everything in medieval manuals. Personally, as long as you keep using the fundamental principals of the system you are using, you can bridge those gap as you see fit.
For me that will usually imply
trying harder
trying to modify the way the technique is delivered.
using an other technique
using other weapon moves from the same source with the same finish.
or if else failed taking inspiration from an other source, if possible earlier....

In our case
We have plenty of tools to defeat, a modern knife fighter. Like Narchraisen or Masterhaw moves with dagger blocks targeting the wrist or the opponents arms so that we can wrestle in peace or as Stu pointed out we can enter his space with a pass and so on and so on.

I can not think of any for the modern technics but I am pretty sure that that have the same at our service.
Training against each other can only benefits the two arts.

Stu:
I can not agree more with you on the attack on the pass or at least on the move as well as the importance of tactical/strategical aspect.

posted 10-15-2002 05:05 AM               

Apart from that, I agree with everything else you have said here

posted 10-15-2002 05:25 AM               

I don't think you are Evil. Guinness and Port however......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Lovett:
So what are you saying? That FMA is the same as medieval knife combat?

---

No it is different just not as different as one might think. At close range it looks and feels quite similar to the German dagger systems only more "compact" to deal with a faster blade that can also slash. I am on a bit of a soapbox at the moment about bad FMA so feel free to ignore me. Pretty figure 8s are not part of the system I am learning.

I am not a "technique collector" (the worst type of martial artist IMHO) but like you I love to see things that I have never seen before and analyse how my system would deal with them. Even more so I love finding the same or similar techniques in systems that are hundreds of years apart.

For example, can anyone tell me of the glaring similarity between Codex Wallerstein and John Styers Cold Steel?

What about 1.33 and Manual Del Baratero?

As for having respect for other systems, well it depends on the system and what people are teaching it for.

I have been the victim of charlatans too often to hold the view that all systems are created equal in a historical martial arts context. Sometimes it isn't even the techniques that are at fault, it is the training method.

I have absolutely no respect for people teaching martial arts solely in a traditional manner for self defence for example.

I am not saying that something like Fiore cannot be adapted to modern self defence ( I strongly believe it can) just that it would need tweaking and some serious additions nd subtractions.

Examples:
Scenario training, Difference in weapons and their effect on technique, Psychological aspects of confrontation and even legal aspects of weapons and force.

As to my Talhoffer examples, I think the first master of dagger proves my point.

posted 10-15-2002 06:11 AM               

While there is a caution to use the man riversa attack with care because your left hand cannot cover well, I can't really see a bias against using the man riversa attack in Fiore. Do you see it for other reasons?

Stu,

I understand your point about the footwork, but in the case of the first remedy master of dagger, I believe the distance between the two is a control manipulation to keep the opponent's arm relatively straight and to keep you out of danger from his left hand. This effectively keeps the opponent in time of the hand and foot even while you are grabbing his wrist.

posted 10-15-2002 07:06 AM               

Stuart's first. With the First Master Remedy of Dagger who uses the left hand to cover, this is not so much a step but rather a slight correction of the feet, but importantly the cover is made with time of the hand so, yes, the distance of the opponent is important, he must be forced to step with the attack, if he is already in the distance where an attack can be made with no footwork then perhaps you should already have done something........

About the other stuff - yeah - Ok I can see where you are coming from and yes I agree that there are an awful lot of idiots out there in the MA world . And I also agree with you about Fiore as a modern self defense thing and have been arguing with myself about whether to keep things true, ie a historic martial art or to start the alterations to turn it into a self defense system for modern world. At the end of the day Fiore's strength is the fact that it is an historic system and to water it down at this time would be doing no service to Fiore or his excellent system.

Hi Bob,

No I agree this is what he says but if we take the attack from this side whether with the point sopra or sotto then we lay ourselves open for a counter against the elbow.
We have lots of other things that we can do from the left side, for instance attack with the left hand, that might be better than this kind of attack with the right......
I was maybe being a bit puritanical earlier on, as it is just a warning........

posted 10-15-2002 08:56 AM               

That's reasonable.

We follow his admonition and use the man riversa attack only after making the space to attack through an elbow push or a step off the line to to the attacker's right. In this situation it is very useful, but as you (and Fiore) have pointed out, it can be quite dangerous.

posted 10-16-2002 09:35 AM               

I'll try a short summary.

The overhand-point-down grip is favored in many medieval manuals because:

- most late medieval daggers were thrusting weapons primarily

-the dagger was usually worn on the right side, so the overhand position is assumed naturally right from the draw

-many period dagger hilts lock the hand in place making grip shifts after the draw difficult if not impossible while being in distance

-the overhand grip allows for strong attacks delivered on the pass that blend well into the concepts/techniques used for other weapons, e.g. the long sword.

Nevertheless, the overhand grip was not the only method known or used, there are illustrations of the dagger being used in a "saber grip"-style, though the overhand grip is by far the most common.

Does that help a bit?

posted 10-17-2002 06:29 AM               

Absolutely correct, but the orginal question was why it was preferred - and the majority of the treatises show the dagger being worn on the right hip.

However, as you rightly point out the dagger can be worn in other methods, and this is reflected in later period manuals such as Morrazzo which, if I remember correctly only has the dagger held with the point above the hand and few manuals, such as fiore which show both methods of holding the dagger.

Hope this helps.