# The Matador Thrust



## KPM

More videos up on the "Bowie Knife Connection"  FB page and YT page, including this one!


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

Nice
Love the photo bombing dog


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> More videos up on the "Bowie Knife Connection"  FB page and YT page, including this one!



Nice video. Not sure If I agree with this tactic though.

Problems I see. Once you snap back like that, it will be hard to recover your balance if he keeps coming forward. You could very well end up with a knife wielding dude sitting on your chest. Not good.

By removing your arms from the line, you are removing the only protection you have between that knife and your soft gooey inside bits.

For me, I have found the best tactic is to remove your shirt, grab a towel, and wrap that other arm with it to use as a shield or to entangle the other blade. Yes, your odds of getting cut go up, but the odds of a fatal wound go down. Cuts heal, death doesn't.


----------



## drop bear

It is similar footwork to slipping away from a leg kick.


----------



## Buka

I’m not locking my front knee straight and sitting on my heel for anything. Ever.


----------



## CB Jones

Martial D said:


> For me, I have found the best tactic is to remove your shirt, grab a towel, and wrap that other arm with it to use as a shield or to entangle the other blade.



Why do you remove your shirt?

And if you can go grab a towel and wrap your arm.....why not just leave?  Or get a better weapon?

Just curious....So how many knife fights have you tried this tactic with?  And do you carry a towel with you everywhere?  Did you get that from  A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?







  just busting your balls a little.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

CB Jones said:


> Why do you remove your shirt?
> 
> And if you can go grab a towel and wrap your arm.....why not just leave?  Or get a better weapon?
> 
> Just curious....So how many knife fights have you tried this tactic with?  And do you carry a towel with you everywhere?


You either have not read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, or you have not taken it to heart. ALWAYS have your towel. And DON'T PANIC. As true for a knife fight as anything else.


----------



## CB Jones

kempodisciple said:


> You either have not read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, or you have not taken it to heart. ALWAYS have your towel. And DON'T PANIC. As true for a knife fight as anything else.



Thats exactly what I was thinking


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

kempodisciple said:


> You either have not read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, or you have not taken it to heart. ALWAYS have your towel. And DON'T PANIC. As true for a knife fight as anything else.


For the record-I don't bring a towel to work, I feel like my boss would frown on that. But I have both a towel and a blanket in my car to make up for it. Next time I get stuck on a Vogon spaceship, I will be prepared!


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> It is similar footwork to slipping away from a leg kick.



Or slipping a punch in boxing....just low-line rather than high-line.


----------



## KPM

Buka said:


> I’m not locking my front knee straight and sitting on my heel for anything. Ever.



This is for a knife-fight.  If someone is making a deep lunge to try and thrust a knife into your belly, you don't have to really worry about them stomping on your locked out knee.


----------



## KPM

*Problems I see. Once you snap back like that, it will be hard to recover your balance if he keeps coming forward. You could very well end up with a knife wielding dude sitting on your chest. Not good.*

---Good point.  But this is for someone lunging forward with a knife thrust, or doing a big slashing motion.....not for someone charging at you.   And its mostly an "oh ****!" move that you do at the last moment.  Otherwise a step off of the line is better, or a shuffle step back out of range.  But sometimes you just don't have time for that!

*By removing your arms from the line, you are removing the only protection you have between that knife and your soft gooey inside bits.*

---The idea is to get the soft gooey parts out of range.  Why put your arms in range and let them get cut?   I didn't show it in the video, but the check hand can be used to parry a thrust inward and away from your belly as you are landing your Matador thrust to his shoulder.  This doesn't work for a big extended slash to your belly though.  And it can tend to distract from just getting the hell out of range as quickly as possible!

*For me, I have found the best tactic is to remove your shirt, grab a towel, and wrap that other arm with it to use as a shield or to entangle the other blade. Yes, your odds of getting cut go up, but the odds of a fatal wound go down. Cuts heal, death doesn't.*

---If I see someone is suddenly doing a lunging thrust at my abdomen, I don't think I would have time to pause and take my shirt off or grab a towel and wrap it around my arm!      If I have done that in anticipation of the fight, that's all well and good!  But that's a different tactic.   It was very common amongst Mexican Knife fighters in the 1800's to wrap their serape around the other arm before engaging in a fight.


----------



## Martial D

CB Jones said:


> Why do you remove your shirt?
> 
> And if you can go grab a towel and wrap your arm.....why not just leave?  Or get a better weapon?
> 
> Just curious....So how many knife fights have you tried this tactic with?  And do you carry a towel with you everywhere?  Did you get that from  A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just busting your balls a little.



Why? It's like a shield. The idea is for the blade to get caught up in the fabric long enough to coundter with your own, or to at least try to get a 2 on one on the knife hand. 

I've seen this technique taught in various places, but I'm not sure Douglas Adams knew it.


----------



## punisher73

For me personally, I am not a fan of it.

First, this is set up as a "knife duel" the way you describe it and your actions about blade placement in case he keeps coming forward.  You have your hands and blade lower already.  A knife fighter is not going to enter with a deep lunge or slash because that pathway is already closed.  You are going to get probing flicks or a way to work past your blade first because the mindset is different than if the other person is unarmed.

Next, I see this as kind of an "ohh crap" defense since you are placing yourself in a position that allows no immediate follow up without a body shift/change.  I would teach it as such if you were unarmed and not ready and then follow up with getting out of dodge.


----------



## KPM

punisher73 said:


> For me personally, I am not a fan of it.
> 
> First, this is set up as a "knife duel" the way you describe it and your actions about blade placement in case he keeps coming forward.  You have your hands and blade lower already.  A knife fighter is not going to enter with a deep lunge or slash because that pathway is already closed.  You are going to get probing flicks or a way to work past your blade first because the mindset is different than if the other person is unarmed.
> 
> Next, I see this as kind of an "ohh crap" defense since you are placing yourself in a position that allows no immediate follow up without a body shift/change.  I would teach it as such if you were unarmed and not ready and then follow up with getting out of dodge.



Yes, if you watch my videos I make it very clear that the Bowie Knife method is a dueling/fighting method, not a self-defense method.  And no, when facing off with someone holding a big knife I will not be standing stationary presenting him a target.  Everything will be in motion, so...yes....an opponent may very well think there is the opportunity to lunge in with a deep thrust.  And ....yes.....I commented above that this is essentially an "oh ****!" move for when you don't have time to use much in the way of footwork.   And the follow up is going to be to recover forward from the "hip hike" as the opponent is recovering back from his lunging thrust and hopefully nail him with a strike before he can recover his balance and defend well.    I guess I really should have waited until I had my students with me to film this one so people could more clearly understand how it works.


----------



## punisher73

Thank you for clarifying that.  I must have missed it (bad speakers).

But, again a trained knife fighter isn't going to lunge in like that because you are moving around.  A trained fighter is going to remove your blade and/or hands before going in for the kill with a low thrust to the body.  This defense is much more applicable if you are unarmed and the other person is armed.  Duels completely change the psychology and dynamics of an encounter.

If only one person is armed, they are going to take more chances with the blade than if they are facing a person with a blade.  Techniques and strategies have to take that into account.  Again, unless the premise is that you are trained knifefighter against a complete untrained fighter who may be desperate it needs to be a very specific scenario.


----------



## pgsmith

punisher73 said:


> But, again a trained knife fighter isn't going to lunge in like that because you are moving around. A trained fighter is going to remove your blade and/or hands before going in for the kill with a low thrust to the body



  The Japanese sword arts with which I am familiar dictate taking the arms if you are engaging with the short sword, which is essentially what this is. We are taught to not cut or thrust at the body unless you are already grappling as it leaves your opponent too many openings. There are much better responses to the scenario that has been painted, in my opinion.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Why? It's like a shield. The idea is for the blade to get caught up in the fabric long enough to coundter with your own, or to at least try to get a 2 on one on the knife hand.
> 
> I've seen this technique taught in various places, but I'm not sure Douglas Adams knew it.



Bowie knife is a big freaking knife though.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Bowie knife is a big freaking knife though.


All the more reason to not let it impale you. Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones(still really friggin dangerous obviously) but the main threat from  a knife like that is impalement.


----------



## KPM

A few of you are obviously not very familiar with western swordsmanship, from which a lot of Bowie Knife technique was derived.


----------



## KPM

Jim Keating has been teaching the Passata Sotto and In Quartata methods with the Bowie Knife for 20 years. I haven't put those on video yet. John Steyers taught them as part of his knife-fighting method for Marines in the 40's/50's.  These come from Italian Rapier.  The Matador thrust was intended to counter something like the Passata Sotto or a direct lunge.  In western swordsmanship, especially the Rapier, the lunge to the mid-section was a major technique.


----------



## CB Jones

Martial D said:


> Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones



How so?


----------



## Martial D

CB Jones said:


> How so?


More flex to the blade. Thinner blade makes for easier deeper cuts. More force required with a big blade to get the same effect.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> All the more reason to not let it impale you. Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones(still really friggin dangerous obviously) but the main threat from  a knife like that is impalement.



You saying people designed machetes all wrong?


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> You saying people designed machetes all wrong?


LOL.

Not at all. The reason a machete is so awesome is because it is  a long end weighted heavy but thin blade, designed for slashing. Contrast this with a hilt weighted thick blade designed for stabbing, which is what a Bowie is.


----------



## punisher73

KPM said:


> Jim Keating has been teaching the Passata Sotto and In Quartata methods with the Bowie Knife for 20 years. I haven't put those on video yet. John Steyers taught them as part of his knife-fighting method for Marines in the 40's/50's.  These come from Italian Rapier.  The Matador thrust was intended to counter something like the Passata Sotto or a direct lunge.  In western swordsmanship, especially the Rapier, the lunge to the mid-section was a major technique.



And this was exactly one of the biggest complaints about his method back then as well by other knife fighters.  It was based on "dueling" from fencing and not life or death knife fighting.  There is no direct correlation that I have come across that the knife methods he taught were ever used by him in combat and were passed on like they were in the FMA's for example. 

The rapier is a completely different dynamic and weapon because of it's range than a knife with a blade about 8-12 inches versus 39 inches.


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> LOL.
> 
> Not at all. The reason a machete is so awesome is because it is  a long end weighted heavy but thin blade, designed for slashing. Contrast this with a hilt weighted thick blade designed for stabbing, which is what a Bowie is.



Uh....no.  If you think the Bowie is not for slashing, then you need to watch my videos!


----------



## KPM

punisher73 said:


> And this was exactly one of the biggest complaints about his method back then as well by other knife fighters.  It was based on "dueling" from fencing and not life or death knife fighting.  There is no direct correlation that I have come across that the knife methods he taught were ever used by him in combat and were passed on like they were in the FMA's for example.
> 
> The rapier is a completely different dynamic and weapon because of it's range than a knife with a blade about 8-12 inches versus 39 inches.



So,  I guess the Spanish Navaja fighters didn't know what they were doing either?????   Did you note illustration of the Navaja player in that video using the Passata Sotto?  I guess John Steyers didn't know what he was doing either when he was training Marines to go into combat?  Maybe he put the Passata Sotto in his instructional manual just for fun???


----------



## pgsmith

KPM said:


> So, I guess the Spanish Navaja fighters didn't know what they were doing either????? Did you note illustration of the Navaja player in that video using the Passata Sotto? I guess John Steyers didn't know what he was doing either when he was training Marines to go into combat? Maybe he put the Passata Sotto in his instructional manual just for fun???



  A question for you out of curiosity ... Why do you attack those with questions rather than explaining your reasoning and attempting to convince them? It is very difficult to convince anyone of anything if you attack them and put them on the defensive.

  Just a thought.


----------



## KPM

pgsmith said:


> A question for you out of curiosity ... Why do you attack those with questions rather than explaining your reasoning and attempting to convince them? It is very difficult to convince anyone of anything if you attack them and put them on the defensive.
> 
> Just a thought.



First, it wasn't question.   It was a direct statement he made that specifically put ME on the defensive.  It wasn't politely stated as a question, as you are doing above.  He stated *"There is no direct correlation that I have come across that the knife methods he taught were ever used by him in combat and were passed on like they were in the FMA's for example."*   I pointed out that it was used by the Spanish Navaja fighters and by US Marines, and so obviously was passed on.  And this was in the thread prior to his statement.  So I answered his question....which was really a statement.  And it is pretty ridiculous to expect someone to have used Bowie Knife methods in combat in modern times in order to be taken seriously.  Don't you think?


----------



## punisher73

sorry double post


----------



## punisher73

KPM said:


> First, it wasn't question.   It was a direct statement he made that specifically put ME on the defensive.  It wasn't politely stated as a question, as you are doing above.  He stated *"There is no direct correlation that I have come across that the knife methods he taught were ever used by him in combat and were passed on like they were in the FMA's for example."*   I pointed out that it was used by the Spanish Navaja fighters and by US Marines, and so obviously was passed on.  And this was in the thread prior to his statement.  So I answered his question....which was really a statement.  And it is pretty ridiculous to expect someone to have used Bowie Knife methods in combat in modern times in order to be taken seriously.  Don't you think?


I pointed out factually, that many people in Styers time criticized what he was training the Marines on because it was based on his use of the word "dueling" and not based on life or death. It is not "ridiculous" to ask if Styers ever had occassion to use the methods he taught while in combat, many of the early combatives instructors did use what they taught. For example, Col. Applegate's combatives were used by him and his men in Shanghai and that is what was passed on as working techniques. I referenced the FMA's for knife techniques that had been used successfully by people and passed on.

Second, even in Cold Steel (Styers) and the historical examples, those are ALL shown as a defense against a high line thrust, wherein the "defender" counters with a low thrust to the body. That is NOT what we are talking about. The discussion was the defense shown from the video when in a knife dueling scenario that the "attacker" leads a long distance low body thrust.

Back to my original post, which seems to still stand:

_For me personally, I am not a fan of it.

First, this is set up as a "knife duel" the way you describe it and your actions about blade placement in case he keeps coming forward. You have your hands and blade lower already. A knife fighter is not going to enter with a deep lunge or slash because that pathway is already closed. You are going to get probing flicks or a way to work past your blade first because the mindset is different than if the other person is unarmed.

Next, I see this as kind of an "ohh crap" defense since you are placing yourself in a position that allows no immediate follow up without a body shift/change. I would teach it as such if you were unarmed and not ready and then follow up with getting out of dodge._

You clarified that it was based on a knife dueling system, and I stated my concerns with the method and said when I would find that defense applicable.

_But, again a trained knife fighter isn't going to lunge in like that because you are moving around. A trained fighter is going to remove your blade and/or hands before going in for the kill with a low thrust to the body. This defense is much more applicable if you are unarmed and the other person is armed. Duels completely change the psychology and dynamics of an encounter.

If only one person is armed, they are going to take more chances with the blade than if they are facing a person with a blade. Techniques and strategies have to take that into account. Again, unless the premise is that you are trained a knifefighter against a complete untrained fighter who may be desperate *it needs to be a very specific scenario.*_

Also, to point out in regards to John Styers. Even in the method he presents in Cold Steel, the primary target is the attacker's hands and working on removing those first. Just as I stated in my first post.

I still believe that the technique as shown and presented (knife duel) is not a good choice for that scenario. Nothing you have shown contradicts that either. The debate is NOT using a low line thrust to the body as a counter, which is what it has been turned into. The debate is about the defense used against that low line thrust to the body.


----------



## Flying Crane

Instead of the Matador Thrust, would it be more effective to simply slash down across the top of his forearm?  seems to me you would be in position to do so, with higher liklihood of success than thrusting back trying to hit his shoulder or torso that is fairly far away from you.

As far as the hand scooping/redirecting of the blade with your palm, we had some similar knife defenses in the Tracy Kenpo that I used to train.  Honestly, I’m very very glad that I never found myself in a situation where I would need to test the viability of such a move.  I think it’s a hazardous strategy.


----------



## punisher73

KPM said:


> So,  I guess the Spanish Navaja fighters didn't know what they were doing either?????   Did you note illustration of the Navaja player in that video using the Passata Sotto?  I guess John Steyers didn't know what he was doing either when he was training Marines to go into combat?  Maybe he put the Passata Sotto in his instructional manual just for fun???



For the record, we don't agree which is ok.  But, I didn't take this as a "personal attack" against me. There was no name calling or any insults. 

It's kind of funny because even before this, I thought to myself that I should put that it's just the technique I didn't agree with (no matter who was showing it).  I thought the instructional video was very well put together, the technique was demonstrated very well and that it was done with knowledge.

It just all boils down to, for ME, I'm not a fan of the technique.


----------



## pgsmith

KPM said:


> First, it wasn't question.   It was a direct statement he made that specifically put ME on the defensive.  It wasn't politely stated as a question, as you are doing above.  He stated *"There is no direct correlation that I have come across that the knife methods he taught were ever used by him in combat and were passed on like they were in the FMA's for example."*   I pointed out that it was used by the Spanish Navaja fighters and by US Marines, and so obviously was passed on.  And this was in the thread prior to his statement.  So I answered his question....which was really a statement.  And it is pretty ridiculous to expect someone to have used Bowie Knife methods in combat in modern times in order to be taken seriously.  Don't you think?



  Therein lies the crux of my question. You are the one that posted a video of your methods. Since you are the one that posted it, it is automatically your position to prove that it is worthwhile, not your reader's position to prove that it isn't. Then, when people questioned your methods, you answered with statements such as ...



> A few of you are obviously not very familiar with western swordsmanship, from which a lot of Bowie Knife technique was derived.





> Uh....no. If you think the Bowie is not for slashing, then you need to watch my videos!





> So, I guess the Spanish Navaja fighters didn't know what they were doing either????





> Maybe he put the Passata Sotto in his instructional manual just for fun???



  These are all aggressive answers that basically tell your readers "I'm right because I, or someone else, says so" rather than explaining why, or exploring if, your video is correct. Frankly, your video goes against most of what I've been taught over the last 20 years regarding using the Japanese short sword. However, since I have no wish to be ridiculed or attacked, I have refrained from asking any questions beyond my initial statement.

  Something to consider before posting your next installment.

  Cheers,


----------



## Buka

Flying Crane said:


> Instead of the Matador Thrust, would it be more effective to simply slash down across the top of his forearm?  seems to me you would be in position to do so, with higher liklihood of success than thrusting back trying to hit his shoulder or torso that is fairly far away from you.
> 
> As far as the hand scooping/redirecting of the blade with your palm, we had some similar knife defenses in the Tracy Kenpo that I used to train.  Honestly, I’m very very glad that I never found myself in a situation where I would need to test the viability of such a move.  I think it’s a hazardous strategy.



I agree with slashing across the forearm. It's a natural move, too. I love knife training, it's a lot of fun. Kind of nasty at times, though, a lot of bruising and bangs. At least in a self defense world.

Not a fan of redirecting with the palm. And I'm not a fan of knife training found in most Martial Arts systems. To me, if you want to learn the kinfe, train with a knife fighter.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> I agree with slashing across the forearm. It's a natural move, too. I love knife training, it's a lot of fun. Kind of nasty at times, though, a lot of bruising and bangs. At least in a self defense world.
> 
> Not a fan of redirecting with the palm. And I'm not a fan of knife training found in most Martial Arts systems. To me, if you want to learn the kinfe, train with a knife fighter.


I agree with your assessment of much of th knife defense material found in a lot of martial systems.  Not much of it gives me a good feeling.

It does beg the question tho: where do you find a real knife fighter, someone who has survived multiple knife engagement encounters, to have that experience?  That must means the person had to either kill some folks or cut them up pretty badly. In most jurisdictions, in modern society, that gets you incarcerated.  So who is it who has that experience?


----------



## Buka

Flying Crane said:


> I agree with your assessment of much of th knife defense material found in a lot of martial systems.  Not much of it gives me a good feeling.
> 
> It does beg the question tho: where do you find a real knife fighter, someone who has survived multiple knife engagement encounters, to have that experience?  That must means the person had to either kill some folks or cut them up pretty badly. In most jurisdictions, in modern society, that gets you incarcerated.  So who is it who has that experience?



Therein lies the rub. We are all sort of limited as to what is around us, even if we go looking.

I've been lucky.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> Therein lies the rub. We are all sort of limited as to what is around us, even if we go looking.
> 
> I've been lucky.


Aye, some things are harder to find than others.


----------



## Buka

Martial D said:


> LOL.
> 
> Not at all. The reason a machete is so awesome is because it is  a long end weighted heavy but thin blade, designed for slashing. Contrast this with a hilt weighted thick blade designed for stabbing, which is what a Bowie is.



Knives actually frighten me more than firearms. But machetes frighten me even more than women do.
I don't even like training with them. But as my knife instructor always warns, "machete is the most common type of blade world wide."

Maybe I scare too easy. But I no like them suckers.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> Knives actually frighten me more than firearms. But machetes frighten me even more than women do.
> I don't even like training with them. But as my knife instructor always warns, "machete is the most common type of blade world wide."
> 
> Maybe I scare too easy. But I no like them suckers.


I love playing with blades of all kinds, including knives, swords, tomahawks.  The though of getting stuck by one is pretty gruesome, but Ive always trained my sword forms with sharp, live blades.

I was rebuilding swords a few years ago.  Hilts and scabbards were my specialty.


----------



## pgsmith

Buka said:


> Knives actually frighten me more than firearms. But machetes frighten me even more than women do.
> I don't even like training with them. But as my knife instructor always warns, "machete is the most common type of blade world wide."


As one of my Japanese sword instructors put it ... A sharp blade is always loaded, and there is no safety.


----------



## KPM

*I pointed out factually, that many people in Styers time criticized what he was training the Marines on because it was based on his use of the word "dueling" and not based on life or death. *

---First, factually I've never seen anyone criticize Styers.  We're talking about work he did 60 years ago or more.  And then, as now, the Marines were pretty hardcore.  I doubt he'd be teaching them something that no one thought would work.  Second, what makes you think that "dueling" would not be based on life or death?  Historically, LOTS of people died in duels.  So much so that it was outlawed in Europe fairly early on.  So much so that commentators of the day proclaimed the fact that so many good young men were dying needlessly.  The primarily difference between a "self defense" method and a "dueling" method is that a self defense method concentrates on responding to a surprise attack, deploying your weapon under stress, and being able to escape from a situation as quickly as possible.  A dueling method focuses on facing off with an opponent and exchanging.  If you think that facing off with someone and exchanging with sharp blades is not a "life or death" situation.........  If you think that a Marine facing off with a Japanese soldier on a battlefield with sharp weapons wouldn't be a "dueling" situation......


*It is not "ridiculous" to ask if Styers ever had occassion to use the methods he taught while in combat, many of the early combatives instructors did use what they taught. *

---Do you know for fact that he didn't?  Or that the person he learned it from directly didn't?  Or that Marines that he taught it to didn't?  By asking if he did, you seem to imply that what he was teaching is invalid.  You imply that the only way someone can be legitimately teaching a combative method is if they themselves have used it in combat.  Which is a pretty ridiculous suggestion.


*For example, Col. Applegate's combatives were used by him and his men in Shanghai and that is what was passed on as working techniques. I referenced the FMA's for knife techniques that had been used successfully by people and passed on.*

---And you don't think that the Passato Sotto technique was ever used successfully?  


*Second, even in Cold Steel (Styers) and the historical examples, those are ALL shown as a defense against a high line thrust, wherein the "defender" counters with a low thrust to the body. That is NOT what we are talking about. The discussion was the defense shown from the video when in a knife dueling scenario that the "attacker" leads a long distance low body thrust.*

---Actually, you stated _"a trained knife fighter isn't going to lunge in like that because you are moving around. A trained fighter is going to remove your blade and/or hands before going in for the kill with a low thrust to the body." _ To which I replied _"Jim Keating has been teaching the Passata Sotto and In Quartata methods with the Bowie Knife for 20 years. I haven't put those on video yet. John Steyers taught them as part of his knife-fighting method for Marines in the 40's/50's. These come from Italian Rapier. The Matador thrust was intended to counter something like the Passata Sotto or a direct lunge. In western swordsmanship, especially the Rapier, the lunge to the mid-section was a major technique." _  So....you said a trained knife fighter would not do the attack that I was saying the Matador Thrust was intended to defend against, and I provided you information showing that what you said was not true.  So it was part of the discussion.  My video showed an historical technique used to defend against an historical type or types of attack to the midsection, and you questioned the validity of that.

*Back to my original post, which seems to still stand:
*
_*For me personally, I am not a fan of it.*
_
---That's fine.  No problem.  But you made statements that simply were not true.  You didn't ask questions to explore my response or to get me to clarify where I was coming from, you made simple flat-out statements.  If you want to have a discussion and toss ideas back and forth about what may be better or worse, or what is best for which scenario, that's fine too.  But when you make definitive sounding statements....especially inaccurate ones.....this doesn't encourage a good discussion.  And then when someone comes along to suggest I have "attacked" you by not answering questions that were really statements, well.......



*Also, to point out in regards to John Styers. Even in the method he presents in Cold Steel, the primary target is the attacker's hands and working on removing those first. Just as I stated in my first post.*

----Never denied that.  But evidently you don't think Styers had any combat experience with his method and so must not know what he was talking about when it comes to the Passato Sotto, so why are you now deferring to him in this matter?


*I still believe that the technique as shown and presented (knife duel) is not a good choice for that scenario.*

---How are you defining the scenario?  Because it seems to me you may be creating a false dichotomy between "self defense" and "dueling."  

* The debate is NOT using a low line thrust to the body as a counter, which is what it has been turned into.*

---No, that's not true at all.  I showed a historical defense (Matador Thrust) against a low-line attack.  I provided an example of such a low-line attack that this defense may have been intended for (Pasatta Sotto), and you questioned the validity of that low-line attack.  That's it.


----------



## KPM

*Instead of the Matador Thrust, would it be more effective to simply slash down across the top of his forearm?  seems to me you would be in position to do so, with higher liklihood of success than thrusting back trying to hit his shoulder or torso that is fairly far away from you.*

---Maybe so!  I would never imply that the Matador Thrust is the ONLY way to defend against a low-line attack!  Just one way, and a way that was used historically in western bladesmanship.  If you already have your arms relatively extended and are caught by surprise by a low-line thrust, hiking the hips back is a instinctive response....who hasn't done that as a kid when someone tried to punch them in the stomach?  Part of that instinctive response is to throw the arms forward.  The Matador Thrust just builds upon this response by making it a thrust.  By all means, if the time and situation allows a better response may be to shuffle back at an angle and slash down onto the guy's arm!


----------



## KPM

*Therein lies the crux of my question. You are the one that posted a video of your methods. Since you are the one that posted it, it is automatically your position to prove that it is worthwhile,* 

----No its not.  You can take or leave it.  If you don't personally like the technique, that's Ok.  But its better to ask questions about how I see it working, or why I do something in a certain way than to just make statements that are inaccurate.  And then for you to come along and claim I am attacking someone because I didn't answer questions that weren't actually asked........


*not your reader's position to prove that it isn't. Then, when people questioned your methods, you answered with statements such as ...*

---Hey....I'm open to questions!  Just ask...."why did you.....?"  Or...what do you think about.....?"   





*These are all aggressive answers that basically tell your readers "I'm right because I, or someone else, says so" rather than explaining why, or exploring if, your video is correct.*

---No.  I think you have it backwards.  Politely asking questions of someone if fine.  I'll answer to the best of my abilities.  People making flat out statements about what they think is happening, and often inaccurate statements at that....this is telling people that they think I am wrong rather than asking for clarification.  And "Punisher" said he didn't feel attacked by my response, nor did he seem offended.  That was all you.  


* Frankly, your video goes against most of what I've been taught over the last 20 years regarding using the Japanese short sword. However, since I have no wish to be ridiculed or attacked, I have refrained from asking any questions beyond my initial statement.*

---That's fine.  Japanese methods and western swordsmanship methods are likely quite different.  If you want to politely discuss the differences I'm very open to that.  And I promise I won't make flat out statements about how wrong you are without asking for clarification of what you are describing!  

*Something to consider before posting your next installment.*

---Something to consider when you choose to participate in a discussion before you go accusing people of "attacking" anyone.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> It does beg the question tho: where do you find a real knife fighter, someone who has survived multiple knife engagement encounters, to have that experience?  That must means the person had to either kill some folks or cut them up pretty badly. In most jurisdictions, in modern society, that gets you incarcerated.  So who is it who has that experience?



Yeah, I agree.  That's kind of like someone studying a traditional Japanese sword method.  Where are you going to find an instructor who has actually used a Samurai sword in combat?  And if you are learning from someone who hasn't used a sword in combat, is that invalid?  Its also like expecting to learn combat handgun...if your instructor has never been in a gunfight does that make it invalid?


----------



## drop bear

Just going to say. Knife on knife is generally dueling. 

I have seen people pull weapons. Had it done to me. And I have never seen people when you have a knife and they have a knife just rush on in there. 

It is two people trying to stab each other while also trying to stay as far  away  from each othe as they can.


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> a hilt weighted thick blade designed for stabbing, which is what a Bowie is.



Didn't mean sound flippant before.  I was just a bit surprised by this statement.  Not sure why anyone would conclude that a Bowie knife was designed for stabbing.  I read one author in a historical context....can't remember if it was an old magazine or newspaper article....anyway, he concluded that the Bowie knife was designed for stabbing because it featured a cross-guard.  This was someone who clearly didn't understand how a blade is used.  The longer a blade is, the more likely you are to have "blade on blade" contact.  When you have "blade on blade" contact, there is a real and likely danger of the opponent's blade sliding down and cutting your hand.  That's one thing a  cross-guard protects against.  When doing a thrust and meeting resistance, there is a real danger of your hand sliding forward from your handle onto your own blade.  That's the other thing a  cross-guard protects against.  Military sabers are NOT designed for thrusting, and yet they feature cross-guards.  So that old article's author was clearly mistaken.

Historically in the past, any big knife carried around for fighting or self defense was called a "Bowie knife."  Design features could vary pretty widely.  Some didn't have a cross-guard at all.  One version was double-edged and essentially a big dagger.  It was sometimes called an "Arkansas Toothpike" as well.  I would tend to agree that this one was designed primarily with thrusting/stabbing in mind.

But over time a "Bowie" knife was really seen as a knife with a pretty classic design.  It had a deep belly, a clip point, an off-center tip, and a cross-guard.  That deep belly combined with the curve in the blade to that off-center tip was meant specifically for slashing and snap cuts.  The clip point was meant specifically for back cuts.  That off-center tip was meant for thrusting from wider or curved angles.  It was true fighting knife design meant for multiple aspects of the fight....not just thrusting.


----------



## Martial D

Buka said:


> Knives actually frighten me more than firearms. But machetes frighten me even more than women do.
> I don't even like training with them. But as my knife instructor always warns, "machete is the most common type of blade world wide."
> 
> Maybe I scare too easy. But I no like them suckers.


I've seen enough videos out of Africa and Brazil to be inclined to agree. The idea of losing a limb is pretty terrifying.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> Didn't mean sound flippant before.  I was just a bit surprised by this statement.  Not sure why anyone would conclude that a Bowie knife was designed for stabbing.  I read one author in a historical context....can't remember if it was an old magazine or newspaper article....anyway, he concluded that the Bowie knife was designed for stabbing because it featured a cross-guard.  This was someone who clearly didn't understand how a blade is used.  The longer a blade is, the more likely you are to have "blade on blade" contact.  When you have "blade on blade" contact, there is a real and likely danger of the opponent's blade sliding down and cutting your hand.  That's one thing a  cross-guard protects against.  When doing a thrust and meeting resistance, there is a real danger of your hand sliding forward from your handle onto your own blade.  That's the other thing a  cross-guard protects against.  Military sabers are NOT designed for thrusting, and yet they feature cross-guards.  So that old article's author was clearly mistaken.
> 
> Historically in the past, any big knife carried around for fighting or self defense was called a "Bowie knife."  Design features could vary pretty widely.  Some didn't have a cross-guard at all.  One version was double-edged and essentially a big dagger.  It was sometimes called an "Arkansas Toothpike" as well.  I would tend to agree that this one was designed primarily with thrusting/stabbing in mind.
> 
> But over time a "Bowie" knife was really seen as a knife with a pretty classic design.  It had a deep belly, a clip point, an off-center tip, and a cross-guard.  That deep belly combined with the curve in the blade to that off-center tip was meant specifically for slashing and snap cuts.  The clip point was meant specifically for back cuts.  That off-center tip was meant for thrusting from wider or curved angles.  It was true fighting knife design meant for multiple aspects of the fight....not just thrusting.


Sure, I'll grant you that. There are several designs called 'bowie'.  I'll also admit that it would suck a lot to get slashed by one, regardless of design.


----------



## CB Jones

Martial D said:


> Sure, I'll grant you that. There are several designs called 'bowie'.  I'll also admit that it would suck a lot to get slashed by one, regardless of design.



It sucks to be slashed regardless of the blade....lol

I have cut myself across the thigh with a chainsaw and I once got slashed across the shoulder with an old steak knife......the old steak knife hurt the worse...lol.


----------



## pgsmith

KPM said:


> ---Something to consider when you choose to participate in a discussion before you go accusing people of "attacking" anyone.


  I was not accusing you of anything, I was merely pointing out what I saw. I personally don't think you know as much as you think you do.

  Good luck with your videos. Hope they allow you to achieve whatever it is you are attempting to achieve.

  Done.


----------



## KPM

pgsmith said:


> I was not accusing you of anything, I was merely pointing out what I saw. I personally don't think you know as much as you think you do.
> 
> Good luck with your videos. Hope they allow you to achieve whatever it is you are attempting to achieve.
> 
> Done.


----------



## Martial D

CB Jones said:


> It sucks to be slashed regardless of the blade....lol
> 
> I have cut myself across the thigh with a chainsaw and I once got slashed across the shoulder with an old steak knife......the old steak knife hurt the worse...lol.


I've been stabbed and slashed with a steak knife. The blade broke on my hip bone, but the slash severed two tendons on my left Pinky finger.  Damn thing still doesn't go straight after the surgery.

Not recommended.


----------



## KPM

Here's a bit more about the guard on a Bowie knife.  Clearly the slash and not the thrust is being emphasized here.


----------



## KPM

Just for fun!  Here is the Hollywood version of the "hip-hike."  Too bad Carradine didn't know the Matador Thrust!


----------



## Buka

I know it's just the movies, but I love movies. This was from a film "The Hunted" in 03. I've seen film of the actual training by the knife fighters for the film, it was very good. But here's a couple of the scenes from the movie. A training scene, the fight, then a commentary about the fight which is good. This is pretty much the way we were trained.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> Here's a bit more about the guard on a Bowie knife.  Clearly the slash and not the thrust is being emphasized here.


That stuff is pretty cool, good on them for creating a knife fighting style specific to that sort of knife.

But at the same time, I'm not sure the people that created it we're using it like that. I'd imagine it was mostly used for butchering and skinning as well as  self defense vs wild animals.


----------



## CB Jones

Buka said:


> This was from a film "The Hunted" in 03.



Good movie.


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> That stuff is pretty cool, good on them for creating a knife fighting style specific to that sort of knife.
> 
> But at the same time, I'm not sure the people that created it we're using it like that. I'd imagine it was mostly used for butchering and skinning as well as  self defense vs wild animals.



Oh yeah, I'm sure you are correct!  But there is no denying that through-out most of the 1800's in the US a Bowie knife was a common sidearm and saw plenty of action in hand-to-hand exchanges.  Probably most didn't have any kind of training.  But there was also a segment that DID have training and were pretty deadly with it!  A lot of it was likely figured out from "rough and tumble" exchanges.  But a lot of it was derived from western swordsmanship.  Plenty of people in the era would have had some military background and have learned the use of a military saber.  Others very likely had background in european fencing that was directly descended from the use of the rapier.  And a cross-guard wouldn't be necessary for butchering and skinning animals.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Just for fun!  Here is the Hollywood version of the "hip-hike."  Too bad Carradine didn't know the Matador Thrust!


Funny, Carradine was resheathing a clean Bowie at the end, after stabbing the other fellow.  Oops!


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> Funny, Carradine was resheathing a clean Bowie at the end, after stabbing the other fellow.  Oops!



Yep!  And somehow he magically shifted his knife from his right hand to his left hand just before he stabbed his opponent!


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Yep!  And somehow he magically shifted his knife from his right hand to his left hand just before he stabbed his opponent!


Yes well, I suggest we all just not think too hard on these points.


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> This is for a knife-fight.  If someone is making a deep lunge to try and thrust a knife into your belly, you don't have to really worry about them stomping on your locked out knee.


You can slip the front foot as easily as rocking back on the heel and it allows a stronger, deeper riposte.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

punisher73 said:


> For me personally, I am not a fan of it.
> 
> First, this is set up as a "knife duel" the way you describe it and your actions about blade placement in case he keeps coming forward.  You have your hands and blade lower already.  A knife fighter is not going to enter with a deep lunge or slash because that pathway is already closed.  You are going to get probing flicks or a way to work past your blade first because the mindset is different than if the other person is unarmed.


Bowie knife.  They're big knives.  Very nearly short swords in some cases.



> Next, I see this as kind of an "ohh crap" defense since you are placing yourself in a position that allows no immediate follow up without a body shift/change.  I would teach it as such if you were unarmed and not ready and then follow up with getting out of dodge.


Rocking back on the heel?  Yes.  That's not how I was taught the matador.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

punisher73 said:


> Thank you for clarifying that.  I must have missed it (bad speakers).
> 
> But, again a trained knife fighter isn't going to lunge in like that because you are moving around.  A trained fighter is going to remove your blade and/or hands before going in for the kill with a low thrust to the body.


That depends on how and what he's trained in.



> This defense is much more applicable if you are unarmed and the other person is armed.  Duels completely change the psychology and dynamics of an encounter.


No.  I don't really like the matador but that's now how it is used.

[qutoe]If only one person is armed, they are going to take more chances with the blade than if they are facing a person with a blade.  Techniques and strategies have to take that into account.  Again, unless the premise is that you are trained knifefighter against a complete untrained fighter who may be desperate it needs to be a very specific scenario.[/QUOTE]Sorry, but I don't think that your basis of understanding extends to the systems employed by classical western blade methods.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

pgsmith said:


> The Japanese sword arts with which I am familiar dictate taking the arms if you are engaging with the short sword, which is essentially what this is. We are taught to not cut or thrust at the body unless you are already grappling as it leaves your opponent too many openings. There are much better responses to the scenario that has been painted, in my opinion.


Do the blades have honking S-guards or quillions?  Bowie knives regularly do and they make parrying cuts to the limb much easier.  Further, there is a systemic difference in fencing theory between the Japanese methods and the European methods, even as applied to the curved sabers.  Much of it is influenced by crossguards, shell-guards, and complex hand/basket guards.  Blade engagements are practically encouraged with western systems and very much discouraged with eastern ones.  Surely you must have noticed this?

I've done friendly sparring matches with cutlass wasters v. wakazashi and bowie knive v. large tanto.  The cross/shell-guards definitely change the game.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> All the more reason to not let it impale you. Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones


That is probably the most inaccurate statement about knives that I've ever read.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> Jim Keating has been teaching the Passata Sotto and In Quartata methods with the Bowie Knife for 20 years. I haven't put those on video yet. John Steyers taught them as part of his knife-fighting method for Marines in the 40's/50's.  These come from Italian Rapier.  The Matador thrust was intended to counter something like the Passata Sotto or a direct lunge.  In western swordsmanship, especially the Rapier, the lunge to the mid-section was a major technique.


Passata sotto is a major element of navaja as well.  I kinda hate the drop-knee version of it.  It's hard on my knees.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> LOL.
> 
> Not at all. The reason a machete is so awesome is because it is  a long end weighted heavy but thin blade, designed for slashing. Contrast this with a hilt weighted thick blade designed for stabbing, which is what a Bowie is.


Some bowies, some times, in some cases.

And even then the claim that they're not good at slashing is wrong.  Crap, I've seen rapiers and arming swords do terrifying slashes, tip slashes, and draw-cuts, and those things are all about the thrust!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

punisher73 said:


> And this was exactly one of the biggest complaints about his method back then as well by other knife fighters.  It was based on "dueling" from fencing and not life or death knife fighting.  There is no direct correlation that I have come across that the knife methods he taught were ever used by him in combat and were passed on like they were in the FMA's for example.


By "him?"  You mean Jim Bowie?  Crap, we know next to nothing about his knife-fighting skills or technique.  His dad (and brother) were military men and likely were taught saber or short sword styles which might have been passed on to Jim.  Beyond that we know for an absolute *FACT* that standard european fencing methods were directly applied to bowie knife training, particularly in New Orleans.  It is also highly likely that Spanish Navaja methods were applied.  In most cases, when there were big knife fighting styles "from the Old World" available for instruction they were directly applied to the bowie knife.



> The rapier is a completely different dynamic and weapon because of it's range than a knife with a blade about 8-12 inches versus 39 inches.


And yet the Maestros in New Orleans applied european Cut-and-Thrust methods directly to the bowie knife when they taught.  Apparently so did El Rubio Bravo, at least according to his own writings.  But he was kinda a douche.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> Uh....no.  If you think the Bowie is not for slashing, then you need to watch my videos!


Or take a class.  Or just try it out.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

punisher73 said:


> I pointed out factually, that many people in Styers time criticized what he was training the Marines on because it was based on his use of the word "dueling" and not based on life or death. It is not "ridiculous" to ask if Styers ever had occassion to use the methods he taught while in combat, many of the early combatives instructors did use what they taught. For example, Col. Applegate's combatives were used by him and his men in Shanghai and that is what was passed on as working techniques. I referenced the FMA's for knife techniques that had been used successfully by people and passed on.


That doesn't explain away Biddle (or the fencing masters of New Orleans).  And Applegate was using a much smaller, two-edged dirk, not a bowie knife.  And I've read Applegates stuff a number of times.  He wasn't teaching "knife fighting" either.  He was mostly teaching assassination ("sentry removal").  He also liked the "convulsive" grip. You lose most of your wrist mobility with that grip.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Flying Crane said:


> Instead of the Matador Thrust, would it be more effective to simply slash down across the top of his forearm?  seems to me you would be in position to do so, with higher liklihood of success than thrusting back trying to hit his shoulder or torso that is fairly far away from you.


Depends.  Sometimes yes, some times no.  For a committed, deep, lunge, a inquartatta or intagliatto will work.  A single-time counter thrust works great, ala Destreza style.  For a less committed thrust, the retraction/recovery of the arm often puts the arm out of target pretty quick.



> As far as the hand scooping/redirecting of the blade with your palm, we had some similar knife defenses in the Tracy Kenpo that I used to train.  Honestly, I’m very very glad that I never found myself in a situation where I would need to test the viability of such a move.  I think it’s a hazardous strategy.


Yeah, it's in pretty much everything.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

pgsmith said:


> Therein lies the crux of my question. You are the one that posted a video of your methods. Since you are the one that posted it, it is automatically your position to prove that it is worthwhile,


I don't think that's necessarily so.  If his goal is to document or illustrate what he does then, no.  He doesn't have to prove its value to anyone any more than a Tai Chi player has to prove that their stuff is "effective on the street."

Nevertheless, that certainly seems to be the default belief of most folks today.  Too bad too.  Can't people just learn something because it has an interesting or historic context?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> Just going to say. Knife on knife is generally dueling.
> 
> I have seen people pull weapons. Had it done to me. And I have never seen people when you have a knife and they have a knife just rush on in there.
> 
> It is two people trying to stab each other while also trying to stay as far  away  from each othe as they can.


The Lunge (punta lunga) isn't "just rush(ing) on in there."  It's a specific method for delivering a fast linear thrust, covering a ton of distance very quickly, while presenting a threat which MUST be dealt with, simultaneously minimizing danger to the thruster, by forcing a defense, presenting on a small target (the weapon arm), and keeping that behind the blade and guard of the sword.  It's actually elegant in its deadly application.  At one point in history it was sort of considered a secret super technique, back when thrusts were more often made on the pass.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> Didn't mean sound flippant before.  I was just a bit surprised by this statement.  Not sure why anyone would conclude that a Bowie knife was designed for stabbing.  I read one author in a historical context....can't remember if it was an old magazine or newspaper article....anyway, he concluded that the Bowie knife was designed for stabbing because it featured a cross-guard.  This was someone who clearly didn't understand how a blade is used.  The longer a blade is, the more likely you are to have "blade on blade" contact.  When you have "blade on blade" contact, there is a real and likely danger of the opponent's blade sliding down and cutting your hand.  That's one thing a  cross-guard protects against.  When doing a thrust and meeting resistance, there is a real danger of your hand sliding forward from your handle onto your own blade.  That's the other thing a  cross-guard protects against.  Military sabers are NOT designed for thrusting, and yet they feature cross-guards.  So that old article's author was clearly mistaken.
> 
> Historically in the past, any big knife carried around for fighting or self defense was called a "Bowie knife."  Design features could vary pretty widely.  Some didn't have a cross-guard at all.  One version was double-edged and essentially a big dagger.  It was sometimes called an "Arkansas Toothpike" as well.  I would tend to agree that this one was designed primarily with thrusting/stabbing in mind.
> 
> But over time a "Bowie" knife was really seen as a knife with a pretty classic design.  It had a deep belly, a clip point, an off-center tip, and a cross-guard.  That deep belly combined with the curve in the blade to that off-center tip was meant specifically for slashing and snap cuts.  The clip point was meant specifically for back cuts.  That off-center tip was meant for thrusting from wider or curved angles.  It was true fighting knife design meant for multiple aspects of the fight....not just thrusting.


The definition, historically speaking, of a Bowie Knife is all muddled and confused.  A lot of that can be placed at the feet of the news media.  Even back then, as now, the scary things were what got written about.  In the 19th Century a "Bowie Knife" was their "Assault Weapon."  Every big knife was a "Bowie Knife" by the time the newspapers wrote about it, regardless of its shape or configuration.

I've spent a lot of time reading old news paper accounts (my research on Slungshot).  Then, as now, you really have to sift the material.  There NEVER was such a thing as "journalistic integrity."  ...ever.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> Here's a bit more about the guard on a Bowie knife.  Clearly the slash and not the thrust is being emphasized here.


That's awful.  They're stupidly close.  Did neither of them read Silver?

About what I've come to expect of Thompson.  I respect all he's done to promote western martial arts, but I would not go to him specifically for instruction.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> That stuff is pretty cool, good on them for creating a knife fighting style specific to that sort of knife.
> 
> But at the same time, I'm not sure the people that created it we're using it like that. I'd imagine it was mostly used for butchering and skinning as well as  self defense vs wild animals.


You would be wrong.  The bowie knife was often a utility weapon, but it is terrible for skinning.  Maybe some of the heavy butchering.  There are plenty of accounts of bowie knife used for fighting, as a secondary weapon beside the tomahawk and/or rifle, and for dueling.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## KPM

lklawson said:


> You can slip the front foot as easily as rocking back on the heel and it allows a stronger, deeper riposte.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yep!  That is the "pendulum step" or called "Lutang" in Kali Ilustrisimo.   I consider the "Hip Hike" more of an "oh crap!" move than the pendulum step.  In other words, something to do when you don't have much else you can do!  ;-)


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> Oh yeah, I'm sure you are correct!  But there is no denying that through-out most of the 1800's in the US a Bowie knife was a common sidearm and saw plenty of action in hand-to-hand exchanges.  Probably most didn't have any kind of training.  But there was also a segment that DID have training and were pretty deadly with it!  A lot of it was likely figured out from "rough and tumble" exchanges.  But a lot of it was derived from western swordsmanship.  Plenty of people in the era would have had some military background and have learned the use of a military saber.  Others very likely had background in european fencing that was directly descended from the use of the rapier.  And a cross-guard wouldn't be necessary for butchering and skinning animals.


Quillions get in the way of butchering.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> Yep!  That is the "pendulum step" or called "Lutang" in Kali Ilustrisimo.   I consider the "Hip Hike" more of an "oh crap!" move than the pendulum step.  In other words, something to do when you don't have much else you can do!  ;-)


I haven't seen it represented in any western system.  But now I'm curious.  I'll have to keep an eye out for it in the old manuals.  Maybe in the Navaja manual?  I'll have to go reread it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## KPM

lklawson said:


> I haven't seen it represented in any western system.  But now I'm curious.  I'll have to keep an eye out for it in the old manuals.  Maybe in the Navaja manual?  I'll have to go reread it.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


>


I'm very familiar with the Highland Broadsword system, though when I study it, I prefer the John Gaspard Le Marchant system.  This is slipping the front leg on a parry or guard, which I completely agree with in the context, it is not rocking back the lead leg on its heel as you illustrate.  I don't recall seeing that implementation of a leg slip in any western system.  But, like I said, I'm curious now and will be watching for it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## KPM

lklawson said:


> I'm very familiar with the Highland Broadsword system, though when I study it, I prefer the John Gaspard Le Marchant system.  This is slipping the front leg on a parry or guard, which I completely agree with in the context, it is not rocking back the lead leg on its heel as you illustrate.  I don't recall seeing that implementation of a leg slip in any western system.  But, like I said, I'm curious now and will be watching for it.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Ah!  I thought you meant the leg slip.  The rocking back on the heel when doing the "Hip Hike" is from Kali Ilustrisimo and is done to give that extra 6 inches or more of rearward movement to get those soft squishy parts out of range as much as possible.  I practiced it and it made sense to me!   You said "I don't recall seeing that implementation of the leg slip in any western system."  But is not Angelo's Highland Broadsword a western system?   There is an artist painting of two highlanders fighting  with broadswords that specifically shows the leg slip to avoid a cut to the leg....if that is what you mean.


----------



## Martial D

lklawson said:


> That is probably the most inaccurate statement about knives that I've ever read.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Everyone has an opinion, including manufacturers of kitchen knives,machetes, scythes sycles...etc.


----------



## Martial D

Martial D said:


> Everyone has an opinion, including manufacturers of kitchen knives,machetes, scythes sycles...etc.


Ok, that was a bit snide..no need for two of us to play that game. I'll explain the physics here.

The narrower the blade, the more force there is on the edge. The wider the blade gets tapering out from the edge, the more of the force is transferred from the tip, meaning it becomes blunt force rather than cutting force, slowing the blade as it penetrates.

This means more force is required to achieve the same slashing penetration.


----------



## lklawson

KPM said:


> Ah!  I thought you meant the leg slip.  The rocking back on the heel when doing the "Hip Hike" is from Kali Ilustrisimo and is done to give that extra 6 inches or more of rearward movement to get those soft squishy parts out of range as much as possible.  I practiced it and it made sense to me!   You said "I don't recall seeing that implementation of the leg slip in any western system."  But is not Angelo's Highland Broadsword a western system?   There is an artist painting of two highlanders fighting  with broadswords that specifically shows the leg slip to avoid a cut to the leg....if that is what you mean.


 no, I mean walking the lead leg back onto the heel and lifting the toe. I haven't seen that that I recall. Slipping the whole leg back is very common and shows up in more than one system but is a Hallmark of the highland broadsword system and its derivatives.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> Everyone has an opinion, including manufacturers of kitchen knives,machetes, scythes sycles...etc.


 sorry friend, but that's not an opinion, it's a fact. You wrote, "Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones."  that statement is factually inaccurate. Everything from katanas and sabers and wakizashi and all manner of large blades are excellent at slashing. Even straight blades can slash pretty well if the user knows how to slash. And Bowie knives typically have a fair amount of belly which is fairly easy to slash with. Sorry, but the claim is just wrong.

slashing is usually about technique. Some blade shapes can make it easier to slash or harder. But most of the time almost any blade shape and size can be used to slash  perfectly well.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## Martial D

lklawson said:


> sorry friend, but that's not an opinion, it's a fact. You wrote, "Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones."  that statement is factually inaccurate. Everything from katanas and sabers and wakizashi and all manner of large blades are excellent at slashing. Even straight blades can slash pretty well if the user knows how to slash. And Bowie knives typically have a fair amount of belly which is fairly easy to slash with. Sorry, but the claim is just wrong.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)


I see you skipped over the post where I explained the physics. Ok then.


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> I see you skipped over the post where I explained the physics. Ok then.


 look friend, the statement was just wrong. And your attempt at physics doesn't change that.


----------



## Martial D

lklawson said:


> look friend, the statement was just wrong. And your attempt at physics doesn't change that.


Ok so..you have no argument or reason to put up against known physics. Just..LK says so.

Your opinion is noted.


----------



## lklawson

So this 




slashes better than this?


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> Ok so..you have no argument or reason to put up against known physics. Just..LK says so.
> 
> Your opinion is noted.


don't get snarky. You're the one that said something factually inaccurate and easily disproven.


----------



## Martial D

lklawson said:


> don't get snarky. You're the one that said something factually inaccurate and easily disproven.


Ok, let me try again. Are you familiar with the concept of drag co-efficient?

Drag co-effiicient applys regardless of whether an object is passing through water, air, wood, or flesh.

This is why wood axes taper outwards(to pass the force outward and spit the object) and why machetes have a wide yet narrow blade( to concentrate the force on the edge and minimize drag). 

But the narrower blades come at a cost of stability , which as it turns out is quite important for swords...less so for machetes. So with swords there is a ballance between the two. A little more force required to make the cut, but also your blade isn't bowing sideways as it might with a machete, as well as making it functional for parrying.

The inverse is true for thrusting. When a blade is thicker and tapered to the tip, the force is concentrated on the tip during a thrust, wheras with a wider thinner blade the force is more dispersed over a wider area..making stabbing with a machete not the best idea.

What exactly do you disagree with?


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> Ok, let me try again. Are you familiar with the concept of drag co-efficient?
> 
> Drag co-effiicient applys regardless of whether an object is passing through water, air, wood, or flesh.
> 
> This is why wood axes taper outwards(to pass the force outward and spit the object) and why machetes have a wide yet narrow blade( to concentrate the force on the edge and minimize drag).
> 
> But the narrower blades come at a cost of stability , which as it turns out is quite important for swords...less so for machetes. So with swords there is a ballance between the two. A little more force required to make the cut, but also your blade isn't bowing sideways as it might with a machete, as well as making it functional for parrying.
> 
> The inverse is true for thrusting. When a blade is thicker and tapered to the tip, the force is concentrated on the tip during a thrust, wheras with a wider thinner blade the force is more dispersed over a wider area..making stabbing with a machete not the best idea.
> 
> What exactly do you disagree with?



Ok.  I follow what your are saying, but what does that have to do with the length of the blade?  What you are talking about is the thickness of the blade, not the length.  Even if you want to bring up "drag" as a factor, you will have a cut/slash with a long blade that will initially be the equivalent of a cut with a short blade, but then you have the whole REST of the blade STILL cutting regardless of the effect of any drag.  So getting cut by a long blade stills seems just as bad or worse as getting cut by a short blade to me!

Now....my argument....which brings me close to agreeing with your original statement....is that a shorter blade is harder to control when in close.  If you are in close and about to be the victim of a blade-wielding attacker, you have a better chance of stopping a longer blade simply because you might be able to get ahold of it to stop it or slow it down, or to knock it aside.  You are going to obviously take some damage, but maybe better than being dead.  But with a short blade....it can cut you up just as badly as a long blade and you have little chance of getting ahold of it or parrying against it because it is short.   So I would come close to agreeing with your original statement, but for reasons of practicality and not physics!


----------



## punisher73

lklawson said:


> By "him?"  You mean Jim Bowie?  Crap, we know next to nothing about his knife-fighting skills or technique.  His dad (and brother) were military men and likely were taught saber or short sword styles which might have been passed on to Jim.  Beyond that we know for an absolute *FACT* that standard european fencing methods were directly applied to bowie knife training, particularly in New Orleans.  It is also highly likely that Spanish Navaja methods were applied.  In most cases, when there were big knife fighting styles "from the Old World" available for instruction they were directly applied to the bowie knife.
> 
> And yet the Maestros in New Orleans applied european Cut-and-Thrust methods directly to the bowie knife when they taught.  Apparently so did El Rubio Bravo, at least according to his own writings.  But he was kinda a douche.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



No, I was referring to John Styers knife method when I made that comment.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> Ok.  I follow what your are saying, but what does that have to do with the length of the blade?  What you are talking about is the thickness of the blade, not the length.  Even if you want to bring up "drag" as a factor, you will have a cut/slash with a long blade that will initially be the equivalent of a cut with a short blade, but then you have the whole REST of the blade STILL cutting regardless of the effect of any drag.  So getting cut by a long blade stills seems just as bad or worse as getting cut by a short blade to me!
> 
> Now....my argument....which brings me close to agreeing with your original statement....is that a shorter blade is harder to control when in close.  If you are in close and about to be the victim of a blade-wielding attacker, you have a better chance of stopping a longer blade simply because you might be able to get ahold of it to stop it or slow it down, or to knock it aside.  You are going to obviously take some damage, but maybe better than being dead.  But with a short blade....it can cut you up just as badly as a long blade and you have little chance of getting ahold of it or parrying against it because it is short.   So I would come close to agreeing with your original statement, but for reasons of practicality and not physics!


Yes, the reason a shorter blade is more dangerous irl is because you can weild it faster and it's going to be hard to get ahold of! I totally agree with that.

I may have gotten caught up with the one aspect.easy to do when you are arguing against a one liner statement with no supporting premises or arguments, as I was.


----------



## lklawson

punisher73 said:


> No, I was referring to John Styers knife method when I made that comment.


OK

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> Yes, the reason a shorter blade is more dangerous irl is because you can weild it faster and it's going to be hard to get ahold of! I totally agree with that.


I don't agree.  Again the conclusion is that an Xacto-Knife is more dangerous than a Machete because it is faster and hard to get a hold of.  Go ask any Illustrimo if, given the choice, he'd rather have an Xacto than a machete and tell him that the Xacto is more dangerous because it's smaller.  Report back on what he says.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Martial D said:


> Ok, let me try again. Are you familiar with the concept of drag co-efficient?
> 
> Drag co-effiicient applys regardless of whether an object is passing through water, air, wood, or flesh.
> 
> This is why wood axes taper outwards(to pass the force outward and spit the object) and why machetes have a wide yet narrow blade( to concentrate the force on the edge and minimize drag).
> 
> But the narrower blades come at a cost of stability , which as it turns out is quite important for swords...less so for machetes. So with swords there is a ballance between the two. A little more force required to make the cut, but also your blade isn't bowing sideways as it might with a machete, as well as making it functional for parrying.
> 
> The inverse is true for thrusting. When a blade is thicker and tapered to the tip, the force is concentrated on the tip during a thrust, wheras with a wider thinner blade the force is more dispersed over a wider area..making stabbing with a machete not the best idea.
> 
> What exactly do you disagree with?


I disagree with the over-emphasizing of fluid dynamics to this application.  The drag is simply not nearly as important a factor when slicing through flesh as almost nearly every other variable to include, but not limited to, edge sharpness, edge geometry, cutting technique, momentum, shape of cutting edge/blade (such as recurved/hook blades), and length of cutting edge (which is why the flamberge and kris designs are used) among many.

I'm sorry, but the statement, Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones" is still inaccurate.  Just no two ways about it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## KPM

I have done a series of videos on "Rapier Thrusts" and have reworked the "Matador Thrust" to make it more clearly a part of this series.  Changed it around a bit based on the input here.  Thanks for the feedback everyone!


----------



## Dirty Dog

KPM said:


> I have done a series of videos on "Rapier Thrusts" and have reworked the "Matador Thrust" to make it more clearly a part of this series.  Changed it around a bit based on the input here.  Thanks for the feedback everyone!



One small thing. That's not a rapier you're using. It's a smallsword (see what I did there?). The smallsword is thrusting only, and evolved from the rapier as firearms became more common. The hilt/guard is a dead giveaway. The hilt/guard on a smallsword would be totally inadequate for defense against a rapier.


----------



## KPM

Uh, no offense, but did you actually watch the video and listen to what I was saying?  Or did you just look at the thumbnail image?  I point out in the video that I indeed was using a smallsword and not a rapier.  I don't own a rapier, so the smallsword was just a stand in for illustrative purposes.  In no way was I suggesting that a smallsword would be used to defend against a rapier, so I don't know where you are getting that from.  The point is how to use the Matador Thrust  technique with a Bowie Knife.


----------

