Combatives

[Guest]

Hey Matt, nice web page. I really like the history page.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Jay,

You said:

Stuart, It sounds a lot like you’re training to defend against the attacks of a skilled opponent, or someone with a sparring mindset. As we’ve discussed above, this sort of attack involves a cautious, often feinting opponent, whose attacks will not necessary mirror the types of blade assaults typically encountered on the street. I do not mean to say you should not train against such attacks, just that they are highly unlikely. I often get “killed” in such exercises, but I’ve done fairly well with a Fiore approach rather than a blocking/parrying approach, although I agree with you that it is really tough to catch someone’s hand when they are flicking it out in snap cuts. It is easier to catch the committed blow.

I train "hands against the knife" both in a "sparring" situation and a surprise attack situation in my training. Admittedly I do spend most of my time in "sparring" because having fun and staying fit are two of my highest priorities in training in general. I find Fiore type grabs to be an excellent way of dealing with a committed stab. If someone comes at me sniping and slashing though I am going to pass the blade with a parry and attack as trying to grab it is not a good idea. I believe our experiences and opinions match here.

Thanks for the story about the prison guys. This shows the value of either immediately attempting to wrap up the attacking arm and/or counterattacking to the face.

The Applegate, however, has its own vulnerabilities. That leading arm is one of them. If you are attacked by someone using the Applegate, the best course seems to be to ignore the knife hand and attack the leading arm. Against guys using the Applegate, one good response is to put the guy into waki gatamae (the armpit armbar). I've had guys screaming and tapping out doing that. Interestingly, something like that is illustrated in one of the fecthbuchen, Hans Czyner.

This is the exact aim of this system. The idea is that the hand is held in line with the shoulder so that the BG has to remove his blade from the centreline to attack it. This opens his up so that you can pass in and stab somewhere vital. The other aspect of having the left hand forward is that handparries actually work. I find that when standing right foot forward, left hand parries are often defeated due to a lack of structural strength. When the left hand is forward (not so conincidentally ala' Fiore) they do work rather well which means you are not relying wholely on distance as a defence.

All this said, Stuart, I do not mean to disparage your view point or training. Please do not think that is my intention. Having been injured doing what I was taught in MA against a knife attack, I view everyone's experience, except that gained from actual street experience, with a strong element of caution and doubt until it is verified by actual combat.

No probs. This is why I value the works of men like Applegate so highly and sit up and take notice when Fairbairn calls Biddle "A dilletante and a showman". Since Styers learned from Biddle.......
Cheers,
Stu.

[david welch]

"The BJJ 90% of all fights end up on the ground stuff is just rubbish."

every time that or "studies show most fights go to the ground" gets thrown around, nobody ever bothers to mention that those statistics come from a study of LAPD arrests of violent criminals, where 100% of them were SUPPOSED to be handcuffed behind their backs laying face down on the ground. The real question is how did they screwed up the other 10%.

As for the old guys a century ago not knowing about wrestleing, Fairbairns was a black belt, in Judo, in Shanghai, working as a policeman on the WATERFRONT, in the 1930s-1940s. He was also exposed to boxing, Japanese bayonet tactics, jujutsu, Chinese boxing, Sikh wrestling, French wrestling, and Cornish collar-and-elbow wrestling. I have a hard time believing you would find someone today that would have been better trained, all around, in grappeling. When he went back to England to put together the H2H training program for the British Commandos, HE said NEVER go to the ground. And if you do, get the hell UP!

While I agree all fighting is dynamic, and you need to use whatever works, the popularity of BJJ is from TV and the UFC. The UFC found out that the solution for one opponent+no biteing+no eye gouging+no suprises+a soft floor=BJJ. If you find yourself in combat, under those guaranteed conditions, I suggest you wear it out.

And lastly, being as how under stressed situations you fall back on what you know, instead of teaching soldiers to fight useing tested combat WWII combatatives as in the "Kill or be Killed" or "Get Tough" manuals , why are they teaching them to do what they DON"T want them to do, if the " we are teaching them to grapple first because it's the easiest thing" part was correct?

Look over those techniques, and ask yourself, if biteing, eye gouging, and clawing were being used, would you want to get that close to the guy you were trying to kill? Wouldn't it be better to be teaching how to get out of a clinch instead of into one?

[Erich Wagner]

"When he went back to England to put together the H2H training program for the British Commandos, HE said NEVER go to the ground. And if you do, get the hell UP! "

I think "Get the hell up" is good advice to anyone who finds themself on the ground in any combat situation, regardless which century you're in. During the gathering, Matt Larson pointed out that the person who usually wins an unarmed confrontation is the one whos buddy shows up first with a gun.

"why are they teaching them to do what they DON"T want them to do, if the " we are teaching them to grapple first because it's the easiest thing" part was correct? "

I think the idea in the combatives program was not so much to teach various techniques but rather to teach an attitude that will allow you to try and control the confrontation. It's all about positioning and grappling certainly helps reinforce those ideas.

[Stuart McDermid]

David Welch is correct.

Just look at the list of systems Fairbairn had trained in. How much grappling is there in his system?

I train in WWII combatives but take most of my material from Australian manuals of the period. There is a little more grappling than you would find in the FAS work alot more old school boxing but even so, the training of the strikes is considered paramount.
Cheers,
Stu.

[TimSheetz]

Hi guys,

I think you may be missing the point.

Proven. Spend two weeks teaching someone to box, then have them box someone with zero training.. the guy with zero training will win that fight. Why, because it is harder to master striking techniqers with limited training time.

So, if you have a very short period of time, you have to get soldier to learn something. If it takes time from a hugely burdened training schedule, guess what. It doesn't get done. Which is more important, advanced marksmanship or h2h?

So with limited time, you have to train them so they actually come away with something to keep.. like fighting for position if you are stuck on the ground.

So that is part of the reasoning.. the longer more advanced courses of course involve a lot of other things.


Tim Sheetz

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Tim,

Boxing is quite simple compared to alot of fighting systems, hence its reputation and success.

Teaching someone the three major FAS striking methods to be used only offensively and with forward drive is very much simpler again. This stuff really can be taught and refined in a couple of hours. WWII vets during the 80s who were interviewed were able to perform this stuff on demand.

We are talking axehand, chinjab and edge of boot kick. There are no defensive methods at all in the basic system. Fairbairn said that mastering just these blows would make you a very difficult opponent indeed. Learning FAS is not like learning boxing at all. Boxing takes *alot* more skill and co-ordination.
Cheers,
Stu

[TimSheetz]

HI Stuart,

Of course strikes and kicks are best, you want the enemy away and down on the ground so you can give him the "baby harp seal treatment".

But you have to be able to keep them at striking range and a determined enemy can take the punishment or mitigate it and force you into grappling.

On the WWII guys. I am sure the techniques they used were simple and effective. We can not compare them to the militart now. The amount of things a "grunt" needs to know how to do are RADICALLY different. The number of weapons systems and the complex equipment used today bring with it addition required training. Time is one of the most limited assets you have. So in context with the limited time, the methodology of the combatives training is sound.

Note that in no way am I invalidating the method and techniques you are praising.

Tim

[david welch]

"Spend two weeks teaching someone to box, then have them box someone with zero training.. the guy with zero training will win that fight. Why, because it is harder to master striking techniqers with limited training time."

Tim, that is my point exactly. The soldiers would be better off with no training at ALL than to have limited training to close and grapple with the enemy, which is the most difficult way to fight and the most dangerous thing they could do. They would be better off being trained to use low, edge of foot kicks to the knee and shin to force their opponent to keep their distance, and edge of hand blows and low kicks to get the enemy to the ground so they could stomp them to death.

And as far as boxing, going back to the people who not only taught it, but had actually " been there and done that" and trained the WWII troops in H2H, it takes a minimum of 6 months to teach you how to knock somebody out with a closed fist like a boxer with a blow to the chin. You are right about that. It is very difficult to master BOXING strikeing techniques, mostly because they are un-naturally and artificialy done due to the conditions set by boxing rules and equipment. Applegate says it takes 15 minutes to teach you how to knock someone out with a chin jab with an 8" stroke. With VERY little training WWII combatatives are instinctive movements that rely on simple, attacking, gross body movements.

I just simpley think the last thing you need to be doing is rolling around in rocks and mud trying to get him to turn loose of the arm he is holding onto with his left hand while he is biteing it, when he realizes, "hey! I keep my pocket knife in my right pocket!"

The whole purpose of military H2H is to keep you alive just until you can get something in you hand to turn it into armed-vs-unarmed combat. And I personally believe that the quote really aught to be "GROUND fighting ends when somebodys buddy shows up and finishes it, because the other guy was rolling around in the mud and didn't have a chance to run away.

I am not against ground and pound. I practice it as much as I can, so if I am taken there aganst my will I'll have some idea of what to do(get loose and get back up). But in a limited H2H course close, clinch, and take down are not the first things that need to be taught. Keeping them off of you till you can kill them is.

Remember, in 100% of fights, the goal is for 50% of the combatants to wind up on the ground. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Shane Smith]

David, You said"Remember, in 100% of fights, the goal is for 50% of the combatants to wind up on the ground."

You said all that needs saying and in less than 20 words!Very much to-the-point.I like it! <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Jay Vail]

Stuart said: Throwing people down whilst staying on your feet is difficult but learning to keep your feet against a relatively unskilled player is relatively easy.

Respectfully, not quite. It depends on how you throw them. If you use seoinage, koshigaruma, ogoshi, or hari goshi you more than likely will fall with the uke because he will hold onto you and his momentum will carry you to the ground. At least that has been my street experience with these throws. You have a far better chance maintaining your footing if you use throws like osotogari, osoto-otoshi, kosotogake/gari, ouchigari, and any footsweep.

[Jay Vail]

Deleted

[Jay Vail]

The fact of the matter is that if two people in a fight with a little training don't want a fight to go to the ground, then it won't. The BJJ 90% of all fights end up on the ground stuff is just rubbish. If this were so then Talhoffer would be teaching armbars from the guard and mount.

Whether a civvy on the street or a soldier in the field you always MUST assume that an adversary is armed and must treat him that way even if you think he likely isn't. Mike if you think about the way you would fight for real when facing a knifer and then think about your method when facing off against an unarmed attacker and see vast differences then you are in for some difficulty. If this same chap approaches you and attacks without warning, how are you going to pick whether or not he is armed?

Think about the way that the Codex Wallerstein shows to deal with hand strikes. Does it look much different than the stops for the dagger in terms of the footwork used? I don't think so. Medieval methods move away from the dagger and only move in after securing it for a very good reason.

Very true. Excellent observation.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hi Jake,

Interesting observation about the "snip-snip" knife method vs. the committed attack. In my chin-na (joint locks) class we decided to do a "weapons day". None of had or has much experience with weapons (except for a little bit with my trusty waster ). We used wooden training knives. As it turned out, it was impossible to make any of those carefully practiced disarms work at "live" speed when the opponent was "snipping" with the knife. It was slightly easier when they gave a committed attack, but not significantly so. That said, none of had much knife training (either in use, or defense against the same) so, perhaps you have better luck.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Why secure the knife hand first?

I have no actual knife fighting experience, but in our little in class "live" training exercise this tended to happen to when the knife wasn't first neutralized:

1. A attacks B with a knife.
2. B tries to lock up something other than the knife, do a distraction stike, or whatever else at which point...
3. A then hits B with the wooden knife while B is tied up on whatever else he was trying.

Maybe that is why the Italian masters suggest first neutralizing the knife above all else. Or maybe not. Just a thought.