Please poke holes in my ideas

[Jay Vail]

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).

Making stuff up is some guy in the dojo/salle playing around with techniques, typically not with committed realistic attacks, trying to figure out what might work. Then because he thinks he’s discovered something cool, he announces his find and proclaims himself the master of a new style. Always, none of his techniques have been tested in the real world.

Now, to the old masters and the old fight books. First, all the techniques in those books remained in use for at least 200 years (1400-1600) and almost certainly longer. The techniques also happened to be common throughout Europe. You can see this by comparing the German and Italian manuals. They are virtually identical in terms of technique.

Second, many of the knife techniques in the old books are identical to those in chin-na, koryu jujutsu and silat.

The fact that these techniques are UNIVERSAL and have persisted over hundreds if not thousands of years in Europe and Asia ought to tell you something. That something is that this is the real stuff. It is widespread and long lasting because it works and has been repeatedly tested. As I said before, I know of people who have used this stuff to defend themselves.

Anybody tinkering with the real stuff is asking for death or serious injury. I know of people who have been hurt because of their reliance on made up techniques. Nobody is smart enough to invent something better than already exists.

[Stewart Sackett]

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.

I’m not hugely impressed (or concerned) with my own credentials so the issue of whether or not I know what I’m talking about doesn’t worry me too much. I started this thread so that I could post what I’ve experienced, what I’ve been told & what I guess. If those things are wrong then this is a venue for me to learn that.

It has been my experience that I can hold a 2-on-1 with my near arm over the top of the arm I’m holding (waki gatame) but that it’s more secure to hold the arm with my near arm underneath. Strictly from a wrestling/MMA standpoint I’ve always seen the arm over treated as a mistake & corrected by coaches.

Back to history: You say that using both of your arms to control your opponent’s dominant arm is a “standard feature of the old methods” & that in your research there were no historical instances of daggers being drawn inside the clinch. This seems to support my basic theory that Ringen used arm control to prevent the possibility of a dagger being drawn during standing wrestling.

[Jay Vail]

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.

I’m not hugely impressed (or concerned) with my own credentials so the issue of whether or not I know what I’m talking about doesn’t worry me too much. I started this thread so that I could post what I’ve experienced, what I’ve been told & what I guess. If those things are wrong then this is a venue for me to learn that.

It has been my experience that I can hold a 2-on-1 with my near arm over the top of the arm I’m holding (waki gatame) but that it’s more secure to hold the arm with my near arm underneath. Strictly from a wrestling/MMA standpoint I’ve always seen the arm over treated as a mistake & corrected by coaches.

Back to history: You say that using both of your arms to control your opponent’s dominant arm is a “standard feature of the old methods” & that in your research there were no historical instances of daggers being drawn inside the clinch. This seems to support my basic theory that Ringen used arm control to prevent the possibility of a dagger being drawn during standing wrestling.

Waki gatamae is a very dangerous technique. It is easy to break somebody's arm with it. That's probably why the sports coaches don't allow it. It's not a mistake. It's for safety.

Furthermore, waki gatamae is not really designed to induce a submission. It is designed to break the arm. Therefore, it is not really a hold and you are not supposed to spend any time there attempting to control him. You are supposed to break something.

In fact, applying waki gatamae and then sitting is banned from judo competition for the very reason that, energetically applied, it easily results in an elbow break. Interestingly, this application of the technique is featured in Fiore. I can tell you from practical experience that it is very effective in all its iterations.

Before you start speculating about whether ringen used arm control to prevent the draw, I suggest you read the sources rather than spin theories. Theories based on guess work are useless. Not only that, they are unhelpful, especially for us, who base our practice of written sources. Fidelity to the sources is our first priority. Filling in the blanks or importing ideas from other systems without a full understanding of the sources is dangerous.

The coroner's reports do not support your notion that the draw was prevented by wrestling. Most of the accounts are depressingly similar: Bob and John were drinking. They got into an argument. John pulled his knife and stabbed Bob. Bob died of his wounds.

This does not preclude the notion that they wrestled first, but I don't think so. The accounts are too much like police reports (and as I used to be a police reporter, I read my share of them). Even in modern day knife assaults, few occur in the midst of a clinch -- although some do. Most, however, are like the medieval killings: one guy standing outside contact draws and stabs the other guy.

In fairness, Meyer gives some advice about what to do when your opponent draws. He says to grab the drawing arm.

When you have to deal with someone who has a dagger about which you are worried, then fall on his nearest hand with the same hand, that is with your right on his right, his left with your left; with whichever hand you grip him, jerk his hand toward it. If he then draws his dagger with the other hand, then grasp with your other hand outside over the same arm that you have pulled to you, and grasp the other arm by the bicep, as shown by the figure <3.10v> on the [left] in Image D. Thus he cannot thrust at you, even if he has drawn his dagger with that hand; you can thus cast him, or undertake another counter.
In sum, grappling is extremely important with the dagger, and grips are executed not only with one hand but also with both hands. Now so that you can have an understanding of this, I will reiterate it for you through some examples.

It does not appear he contemplates a draw from the clinch, although his ideas could be adapted to that circumstance, as could anything in the manuals. Indeed, the ideas of all the old masters could be used in that circumstance, I think.

The only "clinch" the manuals appear to take into account is a collar grab.

[david welch]

It does not appear he contemplates a draw from the clinch, although his ideas could be adapted to that circumstance, as could anything in the manuals. Indeed, the ideas of all the old masters could be used in that circumstance, I think.

The only "clinch" the manuals appear to take into account is a collar grab.

Well, yeah. It's like in our training. Once you start training wearing knives and daggers, and with multiple enemies stuff like going into a clinch and rolling starts looking a lot less attractive. I'm guessing he doesn't contemplate drawing from the clinch because he doesn't contemplate fighting from a clinch except as a transition.

[G.MatthewWebb]

When you have to deal with someone who has a dagger about which you are worried, then fall on his nearest hand with the same hand, that is with your right on his right, his left with your left; with whichever hand you grip him, jerk his hand toward it. If he then draws his dagger with the other hand, then grasp with your other hand outside over the same arm that you have pulled to you, and grasp the other arm by the bicep, as shown by the figure <3.10v> on the [left] in Image D. Thus he cannot thrust at you, even if he has drawn his dagger with that hand; you can thus cast him, or undertake another counter.
In sum, grappling is extremely important with the dagger, and grips are executed not only with one hand but also with both hands. Now so that you can have an understanding of this, I will reiterate it for you through some examples.

Jay,

Do you have this image D available to post. I don't own the book and why would I use my right to grab his right? Wouldn't it be more natural to use your left to grab his right---his hand with the weapon?

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
USA

[Brent Lambell]

Nobody is smart enough to invent something better than already exists.

Mr Vail,

I have been watching this thread trying to stay objective as Mr Sackett is a fellow Portland study group member, but I feel the need to chime in on that one comment.

I FULLY agree with the principle that the fechtbuchs teach tried and true techniques for hundred of years that helped men survive on the battlefield. I think anyone arguing that point would have a tough time here in the ARMA forum. But that is not to say that their techniques are the best for any and all contexts. While relying upon a "dojo" technique in a life or death situation might be akin to playing Russian Roulette, I would argue that we need to leave space for modern self defense situations and modern systems designed to deal with them. I would point to krav maga as a great example (but that is just an amateur martial artist's opinion). At the same time, medieval dagger is the only knife/dagger-based system I know and yes, I do trust in it as much as I can.

There was also a time when the medieval fighting system either evolved from or superceded a previous art form. I have heard allusions to the idea that the Greeks had a very developed martial art system similar to what we study - pankration was merely a part of it like ringen is just a portion of ours - and I have to believe it is different from what we study in at least a stylistic manner.

I think a lot of good information is coming out of this discussion, thank you everyone for their input. I hope my two cents are helpful.

[JeffGentry]

When you have to deal with someone who has a dagger about which you are worried, then fall on his nearest hand with the same hand, that is with your right on his right, his left with your left; with whichever hand you grip him, jerk his hand toward it. If he then draws his dagger with the other hand, then grasp with your other hand outside over the same arm that you have pulled to you, and grasp the other arm by the bicep, as shown by the figure <3.10v> on the [left] in Image D. Thus he cannot thrust at you, even if he has drawn his dagger with that hand; you can thus cast him, or undertake another counter.
In sum, grappling is extremely important with the dagger, and grips are executed not only with one hand but also with both hands. Now so that you can have an understanding of this, I will reiterate it for you through some examples.

Jay,

Do you have this image D available to post. I don't own the book and why would I use my right to grab his right? Wouldn't it be more natural to use your left to grab his right---his hand with the weapon?

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
USA

Hey Mat

This put's you into a situation of an outside one on one with the right hand an the left is coming across his chest to grip the other arm so it is a good facilitator for a throw.

The key to reading some of the ringen is to have a basic understanding of wrestling.

Jeff

[Jay Vail]

When you have to deal with someone who has a dagger about which you are worried, then fall on his nearest hand with the same hand, that is with your right on his right, his left with your left; with whichever hand you grip him, jerk his hand toward it. If he then draws his dagger with the other hand, then grasp with your other hand outside over the same arm that you have pulled to you, and grasp the other arm by the bicep, as shown by the figure <3.10v> on the [left] in Image D. Thus he cannot thrust at you, even if he has drawn his dagger with that hand; you can thus cast him, or undertake another counter.
In sum, grappling is extremely important with the dagger, and grips are executed not only with one hand but also with both hands. Now so that you can have an understanding of this, I will reiterate it for you through some examples.

Jay,

Do you have this image D available to post. I don't own the book and why would I use my right to grab his right? Wouldn't it be more natural to use your left to grab his right---his hand with the weapon?

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
USA

Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to post the image.

When you grab his upper right arm or shoulder with your right hand it checks him momentarily and prevents his ability to stab you. Then you throw him or work another counter.

You could grab his right arm with your left or with both your hands, a technique shown in Fiore. Meyer just gives you another option. It isn't meant to be the only way to do things.

[Jay Vail]

Nobody is smart enough to invent something better than already exists.

Mr Vail,

I have been watching this thread trying to stay objective as Mr Sackett is a fellow Portland study group member, but I feel the need to chime in on that one comment.

I FULLY agree with the principle that the fechtbuchs teach tried and true techniques for hundred of years that helped men survive on the battlefield. I think anyone arguing that point would have a tough time here in the ARMA forum. But that is not to say that their techniques are the best for any and all contexts. While relying upon a "dojo" technique in a life or death situation might be akin to playing Russian Roulette, I would argue that we need to leave space for modern self defense situations and modern systems designed to deal with them. I would point to krav maga as a great example (but that is just an amateur martial artist's opinion). At the same time, medieval dagger is the only knife/dagger-based system I know and yes, I do trust in it as much as I can.

There was also a time when the medieval fighting system either evolved from or superceded a previous art form. I have heard allusions to the idea that the Greeks had a very developed martial art system similar to what we study - pankration was merely a part of it like ringen is just a portion of ours - and I have to believe it is different from what we study in at least a stylistic manner.

I think a lot of good information is coming out of this discussion, thank you everyone for their input. I hope my two cents are helpful.

Brent, there a couple of points circulating among these posts. First, in recreating ringen and dolchfechten we need to stick close to the sources. I think we have agreement on that.

Second, can the medieval techniques be adapted to the modern day. My point about this is that what works has already been discovered. People who think they have discovered something new and cool and effective are often kidding themselves. Either it has been discovered before or it is useless nonsense. You have to be really really careful about what you import into your interpretation for modern day use because of the real potential that that cool impressive idea is garbage.

A case in point for the proposition that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to close combat is krav maga. There is nothing I have seen in krava maga that is new. It looks like just repackaged stuff that is old. For instance, their "bursting" technique in response to a knife attack can be found in jujutsu and kungfu. I personally like this response and use it myself in training now and then. It is simple and effective, at least as a set up (altho it suffers from the violation of the principle that your first objective is control of the attacking arm; but sometimes you have to break the rules), and is really easy to teach and apply. The guy who put this system together seems to have done a good job of taking what is useful and discarding what is junk.

[Maarten Franks Spijker]

I have found that even a lot of longsword techniques (Especially half-swording) translate VERY well to the umbrella or walking stick. I think pretty much everything in those manuals is still useful to some degree. No horses? What about on a motorcycle, bicycle, electric scooter, or out of a car window? Think outside of the box, mate.

Any thoughts on modernising Petter's counters that try to keep the enemy from removing his knife from a sheath?

[Stewart Sackett]

Before you start speculating about whether ringen used arm control to prevent the draw, I suggest you read the sources rather than spin theories. Theories based on guess work are useless. Not only that, they are unhelpful, especially for us, who base our practice of written sources. Fidelity to the sources is our first priority. Filling in the blanks or importing ideas from other systems without a full understanding of the sources is dangerous.

The coroner's reports do not support your notion that the draw was prevented by wrestling. Most of the accounts are depressingly similar: Bob and John were drinking. They got into an argument. John pulled his knife and stabbed Bob. Bob died of his wounds.

The coroner’s reports are, necessarily, a biased source. It would be unlikely for them to include such accounts as:

“Bob & john were drinking. They got into an argument. John attempted to pull his knife but Bob held his arm & them beat him senseless. Both men proceeded to live to a ripe old age.”

The assumptions I’m making are these:

Ringen used arm control.

In Ringen, arm control was generally preferred over body holds.

Controlling someone’s arm prevent them from drawing a knife.

That's 1 of the reasons arm control was preferred.

So far you’ve agreed that various 2-on-1 grips were common in historical wrestling but disagreed with the rest. In particular, what assumptions do you disagree with & why?

[Jay Vail]

Before you start speculating about whether ringen used arm control to prevent the draw, I suggest you read the sources rather than spin theories. Theories based on guess work are useless. Not only that, they are unhelpful, especially for us, who base our practice of written sources. Fidelity to the sources is our first priority. Filling in the blanks or importing ideas from other systems without a full understanding of the sources is dangerous.

The coroner's reports do not support your notion that the draw was prevented by wrestling. Most of the accounts are depressingly similar: Bob and John were drinking. They got into an argument. John pulled his knife and stabbed Bob. Bob died of his wounds.

The coroner’s reports are, necessarily, a biased source. It would be unlikely for them to include such accounts as:

“Bob & john were drinking. They got into an argument. John attempted to pull his knife but Bob held his arm & them beat him senseless. Both men proceeded to live to a ripe old age.”

The assumptions I’m making are these:

Ringen used arm control.

In Ringen, arm control was generally preferred over body holds.

Controlling someone’s arm prevent them from drawing a knife.

That's 1 of the reasons arm control was preferred.

So far you’ve agreed that various 2-on-1 grips were common in historical wrestling but disagreed with the rest. In particular, what assumptions do you disagree with & why?

Stewart, your theory on preventing the draw is just a theory. I don't necessarily disagree with it. It is a logical response. Grasping the drawing arm of sword, wakizashi or tanto is a staple of Japanese koryu systems, for instance. (This is why Japanese systems spend so much time training in breaking grabs, BTW.) But then it is also a logical response to slug the guy, crush his trachea, poke him in the eye, kick him in the cods, and what not.

You need a period textual source for it to be anything other than speculation for the notion that this was a staple of ringen. This gets back to all that filling in the blanks stuff, the frog DNA if you will.

A point to ponder: If the old masters were greatly concerned about preventing the draw, you would expect to find instructions on what to do about it. You don't, except for one paragraph so far in Meyer. Why is this? (Possible hint: in modern knife attacks, the draw is rarely preempted. It happens too quickly, occurs at such a range that the defender can't get to the attacker in time if he even sees the draw, which he often doesn't, or the victim is too shocked by the blade to react soon enough.)

As for your claim that in ringen arm control was preferred over body holds, that statement is valid, if at all, depending on the context. If the other guy had a dagger, perhaps, altho I'd argue that arm control was a prelude to something else, such as a disarm or the destruction of the elbow, or a throw placing the enemy on the ground so you could deply your own dagger. Moreover, arm control is not always 2-on-1. There are numerous responses which in fact involve 1-1 control. The cover with the left hand often results in 1-1 control, for instance.

If unarmed, the assertion is plainly false. But I assume for sake of this discussion that you were referring to ringen vs. the dagger.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Geesze, guys good discussion, the only point I wanted to add as well, is that in general we don't see guys grabbing knives from the clinch, when we are assaulted in Law Enfocement with knives. The suspect usually does not have a plan and the attack is more emotional than pre-cognitive. Due to that fact that the attacker is not pre-planning his attack he usually just goes for the knife...after a bunch of other stuff has happened. Like we pepper spray the guy or try and take him into custodt roll around with the guy then there is a break in time or distance or both and then the knife is presented. In thinking about this calmly form our computer chairs it does not makes sense in most cases, who would try and close distance first then produce the knife from a cloase position such as a clinch...that is usualy not how it happens though. We end up tazing a lot of these folks, because we have created distance.

In the cases where it is from a clinch, then deadly force is authorized and I am going for my glock to shoot the guy off me....but first I have to stop that knife arm due to the distance and proximics...but our modern curricula more closely relates to the manuals form the period than any other form of MA's that I have ever expirenced. We are thinking about stoping that arm...then shooting the guy wherever we can- not disarms or throws...

[JeffGentry]

Geesze, guys good discussion, the only point I wanted to add as well, is that in general we don't see guys grabbing knives from the clinch, when we are assaulted in Law Enfocement with knives. The suspect usually does not have a plan and the attack is more emotional than pre-cognitive. Due to that fact that the attacker is not pre-planning his attack he usually just goes for the knife...after a bunch of other stuff has happened. Like we pepper spray the guy or try and take him into custodt roll around with the guy then there is a break in time or distance or both and then the knife is presented. In thinking about this calmly form our computer chairs it does not makes sense in most cases, who would try and close distance first then produce the knife from a cloase position such as a clinch...that is usualy not how it happens though. We end up tazing a lot of these folks, because we have created distance.

In the cases where it is from a clinch, then deadly force is authorized and I am going for my glock to shoot the guy off me....but first I have to stop that knife arm due to the distance and proximics...but our modern curricula more closely relates to the manuals form the period than any other form of MA's that I have ever expirenced. We are thinking about stoping that arm...then shooting the guy wherever we can- not disarms or throws...

Aaron

You make a good point "in general we don't see guys grabbing knives from the clinch" , It is a natural reaction to try and stop someone from picking you up and dropping you on your head, Instinct generaly trump's all else.

"The suspect usually does not have a plan and the attack is more emotional than pre-cognitive. Due to that fact that the attacker is not pre-planning his attack he usually just goes for the knife...after a bunch of other stuff has happened." this also make's sense once distance is gained and they have a heart beat to organize there brain this is reasonable in my mind.

I did a little demonstration awhile back for our group where I assumed a dominant position specifcily the mount, my mount is realy bad, and gave my opponent a sword and let him start and he was screwed, first I got control of his sword arm and then hit him in his mask and his natural reaction was to try and cover his face, he dropped the sword and was only concerned with protecting himself the sword then became mine, it was useless to him so he just dropped it so he could protect his face with both hand's.

Just thought i would throw in some anecdotal evidence in support of Aaron.

Jeff

[david welch]

Geesze, guys good discussion, the only point I wanted to add as well, is that in general we don't see guys grabbing knives from the clinch, when we are assaulted in Law Enfocement with knives. The suspect usually does not have a plan and the attack is more emotional than pre-cognitive. Due to that fact that the attacker is not pre-planning his attack he usually just goes for the knife...after a bunch of other stuff has happened. Like we pepper spray the guy or try and take him into custodt roll around with the guy then there is a break in time or distance or both and then the knife is presented. In thinking about this calmly form our computer chairs it does not makes sense in most cases, who would try and close distance first then produce the knife from a cloase position such as a clinch...that is usualy not how it happens though. We end up tazing a lot of these folks, because we have created distance.

In the cases where it is from a clinch, then deadly force is authorized and I am going for my glock to shoot the guy off me....but first I have to stop that knife arm due to the distance and proximics...but our modern curricula more closely relates to the manuals form the period than any other form of MA's that I have ever expirenced. We are thinking about stoping that arm...then shooting the guy wherever we can- not disarms or throws...

There was an experiment a while back. I'll try and look it up, but what they did was this:

They took a bunch of police and ran them through a "safety program". At the end of the program they did a force on force evaluation.

The policemen went through an escalating encounter with a guy in a bulletman suit. Once they actually got into a fight at clinch range, the guy in the padded suit took out a training knife, held it in front of the policemen, and yelled "I am going to stab you, pig!"

Of the policemen, after the exercise was over, over 85% still didn't realize a weapon had been used in the encounter.

The adrenaline dump tunnel vision syndrome is worse the closer you get to your opponent. I don't think they really cared all that much for the clinch.