Please poke holes in my ideas

[Stewart Sackett]

ARMA Portland has been spending a fair amount of time on Ringen work & as I’m the group’s most experienced wrestler (which is to say I have some, non-ARMA, grappling experience) I’ve been doing a lot of work on interpreting the material with my group. As this has gone on I’ve developed certain opinions & assumptions about the Renaissance martial arts as they relate to grappling & the dagger. Since these assumptions do color my interpretation of the material I want to share them with the broader community so that more experienced & better-read members can help correct any misconceptions I may have or reinforce where I might be on the right track. With that in mind, please bear with me I might have to post this in installments:

The mechanical function of the human body remains a constant throughout history; therefore variations in martial arts can be attributed to differences in social & environmental context.

Social variations include things like the type of purpose for which the art is trained (display, sport, duel, brawl, civilian self-defense, law enforcement, military engagement…those are all the major contextual variations I can think off), if it’s single combat or 1 person against multiple assailants or a group fighting another, as well as any irrational combative rituals or taboos present in a culture.

Environmental variations include weather, terrain (or architecture if combat is urban or indoors) & technologies involved. Technology is the big one: what clothes are worn, what weapons are available, what protective equipment is used…It all changes the fight & therefore the art.

With that in mind I began looking at Ringen (mostly the codex & whatever random images I could find online) with the intent of understanding the function of the techniques but also trying to understand how & why they differ from other functional fighting systems. To a great degree grappling is the same the world over & there are overwhelming similarities between many grappling systems. Examining the differences allows insight into the specific social & environmental pressures that shaped that art & helps create a sense of Ringen as having a distinct flavor from other grappling styles.

The most obvious social/technological influence on Ringen seems to be the dagger. In the medieval period almost all men carried some form of knife on a daily basis. That means that almost any non-sporting fight had the potential to become a knife fight & everyone knew it. Given that fact, I was led to certain conclusions that I’ll write about tomorrow.

Good night.

[Stewart Sackett]

I’ve heard, from people who took the time to find out, that modern crime statistics indicate most knife attacks happen within “sucker-punch range” & that victims rarely see the knife before they feel it. All the dagger plates in the Codex consist of defending attacks from the freestanding range where you can see the knife coming. So what’s different? Why would historical stabbings have started at a different range than modern attacks?

For one thing knives are less common today then they were in the medieval period. Also, modern knifes are often small concealed folding weapons; very different from the large fixed blades which were historically common. In the modern day, few people make the assumption that the stranger they’re arguing with is carrying a knife but historically it was probably quite obvious & taken for granted in any case.

Now, looking at the images I’ve seen of unarmed Ringen I noticed several things that seemed odd & the evolution of which was hard to rationalize within a purely unarmed context. There are images of fights starting with both fighters clasping their opponent’s forearms (a position that, at first glance, seemed awkward/unnatural/less than ideal for fighting), there are a lot of depictions of various 2-on-1 grips & throws from arm control rather than body control, (as has been discussed in another thread) there are counters to the body lock but the body lock itself is not advocated.

These factors, considered together, give me a strong impression of the underlying strategic principles of Ringen. My concern is that, although I feel my interpretation is suggested by the nature of the techniques, it’s not expressly discussed in any of the text that I’ve read. Admittedly my linguistic shortcomings mean I’m limited to those texts that have been translated into English.

Specifically, the impression that I get is this: Knowing that an opponent was armed led to historical fighters training with an emphasis on controlling the dominant arm rather than directly controlling the body. Arm control meant that you could stop stabbing attacks if a dagger had been drawn & stop the dagger from being drawn in the first place. It also meant that trying to draw a dagger from inside the clinch was a risk as the necessary arm movement tended to create openings for joint attacks. As a result daggers tended to be drawn either before the clinch or after an opponent had been thrown to the ground.

What we’ve been doing in ARMA Portland is using Greco-Roman arm control tactics as a delivery system to set up the various throws & joint attacks from the fightbooks while at the same time preventing daggers from coming into play. It seems to be fairly effective with the biggest stabbing risk now coming from your opponent stealing your dagger rather than drawing his own. Invariably, any prolonged clinch freeplay that ignores arm-control ends with someone getting poked with a rondel.

I would very much like to hear feedback about the idea of Ringen as being an arm-control centered grappling system.

[G.MatthewWebb]

What we’ve been doing in ARMA Portland is using Greco-Roman arm control tactics as a delivery system to set up the various throws & joint attacks from the fightbooks while at the same time preventing daggers from coming into play. It seems to be fairly effective with the biggest stabbing risk now coming from your opponent stealing your dagger rather than drawing his own. Invariably, any prolonged clinch freeplay that ignores arm-control ends with someone getting poked with a rondel.

I would very much like to hear feedback about the idea of Ringen as being an arm-control centered grappling system.

Stewart,

Thanks for posting your thoughts which I find quite interesting. Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough to offer much help. I am specifically interested in your statement that you are "using Greco-Roman arm control tactics." What are these? I've never trained Greco-Roman. Is there a web-based description and illustration of these tactics?

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
USA

[Stewart Sackett]

Greco-Roman doesn’t allow grabbing the legs or using big foot sweeps like in Judo therefore the emphasis is placed on controlling the arms, head & torso. It’s all about gaining dominant grips on your opponent & finding points of leverage where you are strong & they are weak. The fight is for control of the upper body. This is a limiting rule set to fight under but teaches good habits that translate well to less restrictive contests.

My own experience with Greco comes from the MMA gym where I train. The way the clinch is taught is by drilling Greco-Roman control techniques as a framework & then adding takedowns & striking on to it. I’m sorry to say I don’t know any online sources for techniques but I’ll try to describe things as well as I can.

Primary control points for grappling (as I was taught) are all grips on the body. They are: the head (neckties), the shoulder (underhooks), the body (body locks) & the hips (simply grabbing a hip); also controlling the stance & hips by stepping in & inserting your knee between the knees of your opponent (this is also expressly described in plate 92 of the codex). Secondary control points are on the arms. The arm can be gripped just above the wrist or above the elbow where the joints create bumps that make securing a grip easier.

Arm control tends to be slippery & not as useful (as body control) for throwing but to grip the body you have to fight past the arms. Elbows are kept tight to the ribs so both elbow grabs & underhooks are difficult (the coaches at my gym call this “dinosaur arms”). Hand fighting with dinosaur arms is how Greco clinch work starts but while the arms are busy, the head is fee to attack. By inserting your head into the pocket beneath your opponents chin, or under his ear, it is possible to drive him; forcing him to turn his head & neck & by extension his body. Head position is key to dominating an opponent.

A major influence on my understanding of knife defense & Greco-Roman wrestling is a man named Karl Tanswell. He’s an MMA coach in the UK who’s taught a few seminars in Portland over the years. Some time ago Karl was stabbed. He survived & after recovering from his wounds decided to create a curriculum to defend against knife attacks. What he eventually came up with was a system based on principles of Greco-roman wrestling, specifically the position called the outside 2-on-1. He does an excellent job addressing what to do if you’re being stabbed & I noticed that the outside 2-on-1 & 2-on-1 grips in general are quite common in the fightbooks. What Karl doesn’t address & what I think I see in the manuals is grappling strategies to preempt the drawing of a knife in the first place.

Here’s a link to a video clip from seminar he taught:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7410961341925544918&q=karl+tanswell&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
You can see Karl & a bunch of people who’ve just learned his system trying things out.

The most commonly practiced clinch drill at my gym is to start with our hand behind our backs & fight for head position just using footwork & posture, then add in hand fighting while continuing to fight for head position, then allow body grips as well but still maintain the head fight. For ARMA purposes we’ve been doing pretty much the same thing only spending the majority of the time fighting head & hands, with rondels on our belts incase anyone stops paying attention to their opponent’s arms.

We drill techniques from the codex & then try to fight our way to them in the clinch.

Edit: at the 30 second mark in that video you can see Karl using a 2-on-1 & driving with his head to control a knife arm. It’s a great example of the sort of thing I’ve been talking about & would work to stop a knife from being drawn just as it works to stop one from being used.

[Gene Tausk]

Greco-Roman doesn’t allow grabbing the legs or using big foot sweeps like in Judo therefore the emphasis is placed on controlling the arms, head & torso. It’s all about gaining dominant grips on your opponent & finding points of leverage where you are strong & they are weak. The fight is for control of the upper body. This is a limiting rule set to fight under but teaches good habits that translate well to less restrictive contests.

My own experience with Greco comes from the MMA gym where I train. The way the clinch is taught is by drilling Greco-Roman control techniques as a framework & then adding takedowns & striking on to it. I’m sorry to say I don’t know any online sources for techniques but I’ll try to describe things as well as I can.

Primary control points for grappling (as I was taught) are all grips on the body. They are: the head (neckties), the shoulder (underhooks), the body (body locks) & the hips (simply grabbing a hip); also controlling the stance & hips by stepping in & inserting your knee between the knees of your opponent (this is also expressly described in plate 92 of the codex). Secondary control points are on the arms. The arm can be gripped just above the wrist or above the elbow where the joints create bumps that make securing a grip easier.

Arm control tends to be slippery & not as useful (as body control) for throwing but to grip the body you have to fight past the arms. Elbows are kept tight to the ribs so both elbow grabs & underhooks are difficult (the coaches at my gym call this “dinosaur arms”). Hand fighting with dinosaur arms is how Greco clinch work starts but while the arms are busy, the head is fee to attack. By inserting your head into the pocket beneath your opponents chin, or under his ear, it is possible to drive him; forcing him to turn his head & neck & by extension his body. Head position is key to dominating an opponent.

A major influence on my understanding of knife defense & Greco-Roman wrestling is a man named Karl Tanswell. He’s an MMA coach in the UK who’s taught a few seminars in Portland over the years. Some time ago Karl was stabbed. He survived & after recovering from his wounds decided to create a curriculum to defend against knife attacks. What he eventually came up with was a system based on principles of Greco-roman wrestling, specifically the position called the outside 2-on-1. He does an excellent job addressing what to do if you’re being stabbed & I noticed that the outside 2-on-1 & 2-on-1 grips in general are quite common in the fightbooks. What Karl doesn’t address & what I think I see in the manuals is grappling strategies to preempt the drawing of a knife in the first place.

Here’s a link to a video clip from seminar he taught:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7410961341925544918&q=karl+tanswell&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
You can see Karl & a bunch of people who’ve just learned his system trying things out.

The most commonly practiced clinch drill at my gym is to start with our hand behind our backs & fight for head position just using footwork & posture, then add in hand fighting while continuing to fight for head position, then allow body grips as well but still maintain the head fight. For ARMA purposes we’ve been doing pretty much the same thing only spending the majority of the time fighting head & hands, with rondels on our belts incase anyone stops paying attention to their opponent’s arms.

We drill techniques from the codex & then try to fight our way to them in the clinch.

Edit: at the 30 second mark in that video you can see Karl using a 2-on-1 & driving with his head to control a knife arm. It’s a great example of the sort of thing I’ve been talking about & would work to stop a knife from being drawn just as it works to stop one from being used.

Stewart - I am in complete agreement with your theories. Unfortunately, I am way to busy at work to even try and respond coherently at this point, but I will try to do so in the near future. Failing that, I will just PM you. Your use of GR wrestling, however, is right on point.

[JeffGentry]

Stewart

I do not totaly disagree with your theory, One thing though that i think will make a big diffrence and change thing's is the addition of striking, if you are not in a dominant position and striking is allowed then it will change your priorities, if you are getting hit in the face your natural reaction will be to protect your face if you get knocked out and are wearing a dagger the dagger is useless, a guy sitting on your chest is not going to allow you to access a dagger unless he is compaletly stupid.

Remember that normaly when we do unarmed(ringen, wrestling) /dagger that generaly we do not strike or do not strike with much force, striking will change thing's.

Just some food for thought.

Jeff

[Stewart Sackett]

Striking does certainly change things. Like I said, much of my clinch experience comes from MMA classes; so I’m familiar with the feeling of trying to take someone down while they’re hitting me & one way to minimize the risk of strikes is to attain a dominant clinch. If I control my opponent’s balance then it’s hard for him to aim his blows or put power behind them, if he controls my balance then I’m in trouble. Also, driving my head against his makes my face an inconvenient target. But you have a point & it might be good to do more clinch with strikes in ARMA training to develop that familiarity for the group.

As for someone sitting on my chest: I intentionally try to keep ground sparring to a minimum as it would stop being Ringen & become BJJ pretty quickly. That’s not to say things never go to the ground but more & more I’m trying to limit the time I spend there (I get about 6 hours of ground work a week doing BJJ so I don’t really miss it too much during ARMA time).

When things do go to the ground, typically, both combatants have daggers, in which case your opponent is more interested in stabbing you then punching you. What really dictates how the fight goes from there is who’s in a position to control their opponent’s limbs & who’s not. From inside the guard the advantage goes to the bottom man, from any other position the advantage is with the man on top.

[Jay Vail]

I’ve heard, from people who took the time to find out, that modern crime statistics indicate most knife attacks happen within “sucker-punch range” & that victims rarely see the knife before they feel it. All the dagger plates in the Codex consist of defending attacks from the freestanding range where you can see the knife coming. So what’s different? Why would historical stabbings have started at a different range than modern attacks?

For one thing knives are less common today then they were in the medieval period. Also, modern knifes are often small concealed folding weapons; very different from the large fixed blades which were historically common. In the modern day, few people make the assumption that the stranger they’re arguing with is carrying a knife but historically it was probably quite obvious & taken for granted in any case.

Now, looking at the images I’ve seen of unarmed Ringen I noticed several things that seemed odd & the evolution of which was hard to rationalize within a purely unarmed context. There are images of fights starting with both fighters clasping their opponent’s forearms (a position that, at first glance, seemed awkward/unnatural/less than ideal for fighting), there are a lot of depictions of various 2-on-1 grips & throws from arm control rather than body control, (as has been discussed in another thread) there are counters to the body lock but the body lock itself is not advocated.

These factors, considered together, give me a strong impression of the underlying strategic principles of Ringen. My concern is that, although I feel my interpretation is suggested by the nature of the techniques, it’s not expressly discussed in any of the text that I’ve read. Admittedly my linguistic shortcomings mean I’m limited to those texts that have been translated into English.

Specifically, the impression that I get is this: Knowing that an opponent was armed led to historical fighters training with an emphasis on controlling the dominant arm rather than directly controlling the body. Arm control meant that you could stop stabbing attacks if a dagger had been drawn & stop the dagger from being drawn in the first place. It also meant that trying to draw a dagger from inside the clinch was a risk as the necessary arm movement tended to create openings for joint attacks. As a result daggers tended to be drawn either before the clinch or after an opponent had been thrown to the ground.

What we’ve been doing in ARMA Portland is using Greco-Roman arm control tactics as a delivery system to set up the various throws & joint attacks from the fightbooks while at the same time preventing daggers from coming into play. It seems to be fairly effective with the biggest stabbing risk now coming from your opponent stealing your dagger rather than drawing his own. Invariably, any prolonged clinch freeplay that ignores arm-control ends with someone getting poked with a rondel.

I would very much like to hear feedback about the idea of Ringen as being an arm-control centered grappling system.

Stewart, stop trying so hard to over intellectualize things. This stuff is really simple. The old techniques are designed to work at any range, including where the the attacker is standing close enough to touch you without taking a step. In fact, if you can't make them work at that range, you need to start over. The fact that the manuals show them at longer ranges is unimportant.

As you note arm control is the key: deflect the attack and control the arm. Work your counter. That's all there is too it.

[Jay Vail]

A major influence on my understanding of knife defense & Greco-Roman wrestling is a man named Karl Tanswell. He’s an MMA coach in the UK who’s taught a few seminars in Portland over the years. Some time ago Karl was stabbed. He survived & after recovering from his wounds decided to create a curriculum to defend against knife attacks. What he eventually came up with was a system based on principles of Greco-roman wrestling, specifically the position called the outside 2-on-1. He does an excellent job addressing what to do if you’re being stabbed & I noticed that the outside 2-on-1 & 2-on-1 grips in general are quite common in the fightbooks. What Karl doesn’t address & what I think I see in the manuals is grappling strategies to preempt the drawing of a knife in the first place.

Here’s a link to a video clip from seminar he taught:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7410961341925544918&q=karl+tanswell&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
You can see Karl & a bunch of people who’ve just learned his system trying things out.

The most commonly practiced clinch drill at my gym is to start with our hand behind our backs & fight for head position just using footwork & posture, then add in hand fighting while continuing to fight for head position, then allow body grips as well but still maintain the head fight. For ARMA purposes we’ve been doing pretty much the same thing only spending the majority of the time fighting head & hands, with rondels on our belts incase anyone stops paying attention to their opponent’s arms.

We drill techniques from the codex & then try to fight our way to them in the clinch.

Edit: at the 30 second mark in that video you can see Karl using a 2-on-1 & driving with his head to control a knife arm. It’s a great example of the sort of thing I’ve been talking about & would work to stop a knife from being drawn just as it works to stop one from being used.

Stewart, with all due respect to Mr Tanswell, I have been stabbed twice and I have had the privilege of meeting a number of people who have survived knife attacks as I did.

So I say with some reluctance, that whatever Mr Tanswell has to say is largely dojo BS. There is some value to it, but there is so much more in the old manuals, that the guy is a kindergartner compared with the old masters.

The best source of what to do when you are attacked with a knife is in Fiore, Talhoffer, Meyer and Marozzo. I wouldn't trust anybody who tells you they know what to do unless they couple it with a claim they've studied those masters. That stuff is simple and straightforward, and I am convinced that you can bet your life on it. And betting your life on your training is what you will have to do when the time comes for you to face the blade. (In fact, those I know who have survived knife attacks did relying on techniques similar to those described in the old manuals.) Do what you want to do, but I'm betting on the old masters.

In five minutes, I can show you a technique from Fiore that will make all that fumbling around you see in the Tanswell videos unnecessary.

Stop trying to make stuff up and stick to the manuals. They have what you need know.

[david welch]

The best source of what to do when you are attacked with a knife is in Fiore, Talhoffer, Meyer and Marozzo. I wouldn't trust anybody who tells you they know what to do unless they couple it with a claim they've studied those masters. That stuff is simple and straightforward, and I am convinced that you can bet your life on it. And betting your life on your training is what you will have to do when the time comes for you to face the blade. (In fact, those I know who have survived knife attacks did relying on techniques similar to those described in the old manuals.) Do what you want to do, but I'm betting on the old masters.

In five minutes, I can show you a technique from Fiore that will make all that fumbling around you see in the Tanswell videos unnecessary.

Stop trying to make stuff up and stick to the manuals. They have what you need know.

I was talking to somebody the other day and remembered something from my Army days. All this stuff passes my old 1st Sargents "heavy bag" rule.

If you are doing hand to hand or knife/ stick/other personal weapons work, put on a pair of boxing gloves or heavy bag gloves. If you can't make it work wearing heavy bag gloves while training, throw it away, it won't work when you need it.

Note: All the old stuff passes the "heavy bag" test.

[Stewart Sackett]

Stewart, with all due respect to Mr Tanswell, I have been stabbed twice and I have had the privilege of meeting a number of people who have survived knife attacks as I did.

So I say with some reluctance, that whatever Mr Tanswell has to say is largely dojo BS. There is some value to it, but there is so much more in the old manuals, that the guy is a kindergartner compared with the old masters.

The best source of what to do when you are attacked with a knife is in Fiore, Talhoffer, Meyer and Marozzo. I wouldn't trust anybody who tells you they know what to do unless they couple it with a claim they've studied those masters. That stuff is simple and straightforward, and I am convinced that you can bet your life on it. And betting your life on your training is what you will have to do when the time comes for you to face the blade. (In fact, those I know who have survived knife attacks did relying on techniques similar to those described in the old manuals.) Do what you want to do, but I'm betting on the old masters.

In five minutes, I can show you a technique from Fiore that will make all that fumbling around you see in the Tanswell videos unnecessary.

Stop trying to make stuff up and stick to the manuals. They have what you need know.

To be clear, I’m not trying to “make stuff up” I’m trying to interpret what I’ve read & what I’ve seen in an attempt to understand it as a cohesive system. I’ve studied & been exposed to other things outside the fightbooks & I try to be honest about how that influences my interpretation of techniques.

If you have criticisms of the S.T.A.B. (survival tactics against blades) curriculum I’d be very interested to hear them but I don’t think the fact that someone hasn’t had exposure to the historical manuals means their ideas are automatically without merit (at least in the broader context of fighting, it would be hard to have specific ideas about Ringen without ever having read a fightbook).

[Jay Vail]

Stewart, with all due respect to Mr Tanswell, I have been stabbed twice and I have had the privilege of meeting a number of people who have survived knife attacks as I did.

So I say with some reluctance, that whatever Mr Tanswell has to say is largely dojo BS. There is some value to it, but there is so much more in the old manuals, that the guy is a kindergartner compared with the old masters.

The best source of what to do when you are attacked with a knife is in Fiore, Talhoffer, Meyer and Marozzo. I wouldn't trust anybody who tells you they know what to do unless they couple it with a claim they've studied those masters. That stuff is simple and straightforward, and I am convinced that you can bet your life on it. And betting your life on your training is what you will have to do when the time comes for you to face the blade. (In fact, those I know who have survived knife attacks did relying on techniques similar to those described in the old manuals.) Do what you want to do, but I'm betting on the old masters.

In five minutes, I can show you a technique from Fiore that will make all that fumbling around you see in the Tanswell videos unnecessary.

Stop trying to make stuff up and stick to the manuals. They have what you need know.

To be clear, I’m not trying to “make stuff up” I’m trying to interpret what I’ve read & what I’ve seen in an attempt to understand it as a cohesive system. I’ve studied & been exposed to other things outside the fightbooks & I try to be honest about how that influences my interpretation of techniques.

If you have criticisms of the S.T.A.B. (survival tactics against blades) curriculum I’d be very interested to hear them but I don’t think the fact that someone hasn’t had exposure to the historical manuals means their ideas are automatically without merit (at least in the broader context of fighting, it would be hard to have specific ideas about Ringen without ever having read a fightbook).

The world is full of know it all guys who think they've discovered some secret, unbeatable fighting technique. They are fooling themselves and you. All that works was discovered long ago. What works is in the manuals. This clinch defense Tanswell works is not in the manuals. It probably will work up to a point, since it uses the principle from the manuals of immobilizing the arm. But the fact you do not see Tanswell's approach in ANY period manual should tell you something about his concept's overall effectiveness.

The weaknesses of Tanswell's system are apparent on the video link you posted. The defenders only have a hold of the attacker without subduing him by breaking the arm or putting him on the ground, where he is weakest. At one point, the attacker manages to switch hands. Any hold that permits the attacker to switch the knife to the other hand is very dangerous for the defender. The Medieval techniques do not allow this.

Moreover, this hold is easily defeated. But then, any hold that does not result in a grounding or a broken arm eventually can be defeated.

[Stewart Sackett]

The world is full of know it all guys who think they've discovered some secret, unbeatable fighting technique. They are fooling themselves and you. All that works was discovered long ago. What works is in the manuals. This clinch defense Tanswell works is not in the manuals. It probably will work up to a point, since it uses the principle from the manuals of immobilizing the arm. But the fact you do not see Tanswell's approach in ANY period manual should tell you something about his concept's overall effectiveness.

The weaknesses of Tanswell's system are apparent on the video link you posted. The defenders only have a hold of the attacker without subduing him by breaking the arm or putting him on the ground, where he is weakest. At one point, the attacker manages to switch hands. Any hold that permits the attacker to switch the knife to the other hand is very dangerous for the defender. The Medieval techniques do not allow this.

Moreover, this hold is easily defeated. But then, any hold that does not result in a grounding or a broken arm eventually can be defeated.

To be clear I’m not saying Karl’s material is better than what’s in the manuals, the same as what’s in the manuals or even as good as what’s in the manuals. I cited him as the first person to clearly demonstrate to me how grappling & knife work can influence each other.

But, the STAB system does actually include attacks to destroy the elbow & also takedowns. What is shown in the video is predominantly people training in the control strategies necessary to allow the elbow attacks & takedowns to be applied & so that they know how to maintain relative safety if their attacks don’t go as planned. They are giving the knife guy a chance to fight in the position so that they can get a sense of how the position needs to be secured. However, if you look at the video you’ll see Karl miming an elbow attack at the 1:04 mark (compare this to plate 80 in the codex, different but similar in principle) & a student doing a flawed but serviceable takedown at the 1:33 mark.

As for the attacker switching hands, that’s all part of training for the worst-case scenario. It doesn’t happen much if you go right for the finish but in Isolation drills it is a danger & there’s always the possibility of losing your dominant position in real life so it’s good to have a contingency plan.

The outside 2-on-1 variations I’ve seen in the dagger plays of the fightbooks seem to be powerful attacks but less secure positions. I’ve seen historical variations with the near arm over the knife arm instead of under it & with the near hand controlling the elbow instead of an underhook. Both seem effective in attack but relatively slippery as positions whereas the modern wrestler’s 2-on-1 (which is basically what Tanswell is using) is less aggressive but a good safe place to bail to if things go wrong. Of course, doing Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu I do have the common bias of that art for position before submission.

Now, returning to the primary subject of the thread: you’ve stated that you believe that the old techniques are designed to work at any range. Do you believe that they were commonly required to work at any range? In other words, do you believe that it was common for daggers to be drawn inside the clinch or did proactive grappling strategies reduce the instance of such events?

[Randall Pleasant]

The weaknesses of Tanswell's system are apparent on the video link you posted. The defenders only have a hold of the attacker without subduing him by breaking the arm or putting him on the ground, where he is weakest. At one point, the attacker manages to switch hands. Any hold that permits the attacker to switch the knife to the other hand is very dangerous for the defender. The Medieval techniques do not allow this.

Moreover, this hold is easily defeated. But then, any hold that does not result in a grounding or a broken arm eventually can be defeated.

Having experiences similar to Jay, except at the other end of things, I have to agree with him on this. Learn what is clearly explained in the historical manuals. IT'S PROVEN STUFF! I'm trust my life to the teachings of Fiore, Meyer, Goliath, and Petter. The stuff I saw in the video I have seen in the real and I know how it can turned out.

[Jay Vail]

The outside 2-on-1 variations I’ve seen in the dagger plays of the fightbooks seem to be powerful attacks but less secure positions. I’ve seen historical variations with the near arm over the knife arm instead of under it & with the near hand controlling the elbow instead of an underhook. Both seem effective in attack but relatively slippery as positions whereas the modern wrestler’s 2-on-1 (which is basically what Tanswell is using) is less aggressive but a good safe place to bail to if things go wrong. Of course, doing Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu I do have the common bias of that art for position before submission.

Now, returning to the primary subject of the thread: you’ve stated that you believe that the old techniques are designed to work at any range. Do you believe that they were commonly required to work at any range? In other words, do you believe that it was common for daggers to be drawn inside the clinch or did proactive grappling strategies reduce the instance of such events?

I have a hard time beliving you know what you're talking about. The 2-on-1 (which I take to mean that you use two hands on his one arm) is a standard feature of the old methods. By outside, I take to mean you may be referring to the technique that in Japanese is referred to as waki gatamae. There's nothing slippery about that one. It's very effective.

To answer your question, daggers could have been drawn from a clinch. But in the accounts of the 87 knife homicides described in the London coroner’s rolls for 1300-1375, not a single knife was drawn from the clinch. See my book Medieval and Renaissance Dagger Combat, pp. 3-4, for typical accounts.

I work the dagger material at all ranges, close and far away. We spend a lot of time using it close up in a very fast-paced drill where the players are never beyond the true place. The stuff works fine at that range, which is the most dangerous.