The Matador Thrust

[Flying Crane]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

---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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Good movie.

 

[KPM]

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.