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.
The Matador Thrust
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
CB Jones
Senior Master
How so?
Martial D
Senior Master
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
Sr. Grandmaster
You saying people designed machetes all wrong?
Martial D
Senior Master
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
Senior Master
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.
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????? 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
Master of Arts
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
Senior Master
sorry double post
Last edited:
punisher73
Senior Master
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.
Last edited:
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
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.
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
Senior Master
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
Master of Arts
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 ...
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,
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
Sr. Grandmaster
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
Sr. Grandmaster
Aye, some things are harder to find than others.
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.
