Shivworks

[Garland]

These guys have to be doing an FMA of some sort...anyway, check it, it's cool stuff.

https://www.shivworks.com

[johnj]

As it should, Craig (aka Southnarc) teaches functional FMA. I believe he is a former Pekiti player. He is on selfedefenseforums.com among others and provides some very educational input. I remember meeting him at the first public Carl Cestari (foremost authority on WWII hand-to-hand) seminar in New Jersey a few years back.

Yours in the Arts,

John J

https://www.swacom.com

[Garland]

Cool website! Thanks for the info.
On the topic of Cestari...and W.E. Fairbairn, Rex Appelgate....besides what they cover in their books...what are the methodologies they use to train?
Also...the WW2 Combatives mixed with FMA.....does it flow well? I mean, naturally you'd have to discard a great deal of the Fairbairn method of knife play if you were dealing with a skilled FMA player, right? (i.e. the knife arm in back for the WW2 guy, as to the knife arm leading in, um, say Pekiti/Dekiti Tirsia, or Sayoc)
I have no idea, just thoughts.

[Sun_Helmet]

Hello,

Just to add some detail on Sayoc - there's a variety of knife postures, all depending on the actual scenario. For example, if you have to draw from a position it changes how you might lead. The attacker's weapon or another element may alter how you lead with a knife.

--Rafael--

Sayoc Kali

[johnj]

Garland wrote>

On the topic of Cestari...and W.E. Fairbairn, Rex Appelgate....besides what they cover in their books...what are the methodologies they use to train?

To be honest, I do not have the books. I can only speak of my experiences from the training sessions and that particular seminar which is limited. The most obvious is how they encourage the combat mindset, the “take your man out” approach. And I can attest that they successfully instilled this mindset in 90 participants that day. Like all good instructors they stress principles over techniques and focus on heavy repetition. In addition, body tempering was prevalent throughout the drills / training. For example, we practiced the shuto or edge of hand with partners. One person would stand with arms out while the other would deliver a shuto from forearm to neck on each side. Although we did not exchange knockout power, it was enough to make you cringe and affect nerves. I gained a whole new appreciation for the “old school” techniques and its effectiveness. Whether strikes, kicks, takedowns or chokes…experiencing the effects was part of training.

Also...the WW2 Combatives mixed with FMA.....does it flow well? I mean, naturally you'd have to discard a great deal of the Fairbairn method of knife play if you were dealing with a skilled FMA player, right?

In terms of empty-hand FMA flow vs. the more rigid posture and somewhat elongated techniques, I would say NO. However, I am only concerned with principles, strategy, mindset and approach etc.

Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to experience much of the knife uses. But, from what I saw of one aspect, they relied heavily on thrusting and movements are always executed with intent even when solo training. Tulisan knife from the Ilustrisimo system is also a thrusting style so they compliment each other. The only methods I would typically discard or better yet not need to practice would be in the nature of sentry takeouts. I realize there are benefits to knowing them (i.e. defensive purposes, if ANY even apply ) but then again I tend to avoid places that would put me in that predicament. It would be difficult to totally discount particular aspects of the Applegate system especially since it is one of only a few combat tested styles/methods.

I concur with Rafael’s points. There is often a preference in postures or lead and for good reasons such as tactile monitoring and retention. However, draw point(s), recovery, scenario etc. will often dictate it. And adaptability and use is essential.

Yours in the Arts,

John J

https://www.swacom.com

[Sun_Helmet]

The only methods I would typically discard or better yet not need to practice would be in the nature of sentry takeouts. I realize there are benefits to knowing them (i.e. defensive purposes, if ANY even apply ) but then again I tend to avoid places that would put me in that predicament.

John,

Here's a few 'defensive' scenarios:

We teach that anytime you are in a gun scenario and you do not have a firearm, it is very difficult to do a face to face takeout (although we have done it to well seasoned firearms guys - it is not a scenario one would want to be in). Thus, the options of training sentry removal is actually something that is most likely one of the few real world scenarios that can occur. So we train to take by surprise from a variety of angles, just like a sentry takeout.

For example, any hostage scenario, or psychopath on a killing spree (LIRR gunman /Columbine / airplane). They are all circumstances which we have no real control over, a matter of fate and bad timing since the location may be a place which most would consider a 'safe' area. You do not want to give your position away until you are ready to act and finish what needs to be done.

Another reason to teach it is to recognize patterns of surprise, body mannerisms or concealment such as found in prison shankings and prevent them... shankings are technically 'sentry' removals even though the victim may be an inmate or a correctionals officer.

Some may not call them sentry removals, but they basically follow the patterns and methods one needs to be stealthy and to surprise the receiver.


--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali

[johnj]

Rafael,

I am referring to Military use of strategy and techniques where the premise is irreversible i.e. sneak from the rear, cup and insert blade to clavical

Yes, the ideas of training for elements of surprise, angles, concealment, mannerisms etc. are essential to real world self-defense. However, we were discussing military methods of use. While it is true that anyone can be a victim of crime/violence at anytime and place, the above depiction is uncommon. A situation where someone grabs you from behind and holds a knife at your neck differs from a premeditated kill.

John J

https://www.swacom.com

[Sun_Helmet]

Rafael,

I am referring to Military use of strategy and techniques where the premise is irreversible i.e. sneak from the rear, cup and insert blade to clavical

I was as well.
Except I have the knife.
In some real world scenarios - everything taught in military sentry takeouts apply. More likely they are much more frequent than duel scenarios and actually warrants the good guy using military tactics.

FWIW, a sentry takeout is no longer taught in that order, nor are the targets bone related.

As of this moment, Fairbairn is but one of the knife systems that is warfare tested. Sayoc has been teaching US SF for several years now.

While it is true that anyone can be a victim of crime/violence at anytime and place, the above depiction is uncommon. A situation where someone grabs you from behind and holds a knife at your neck differs from a premeditated kill.

John, to clarify - are you refering to the attacker having the knife or the good guy?

--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali

[johnj]

I was as well.
Except I have the knife.
In some real world scenarios - everything taught in military sentry takeouts apply.

I do not want to deviate completely from the original topic of shivworks. However, I will reiterate what I stated in relation to Garland’s questions/comments. I (personally) don’t find it necessary to practice the Military use of knife methods that have irreversible outcomes i.e. Sentry (then & now), quick kills or what have you
Unless YOU are Military personnel or teach them, I do not agree that it applies to civilian training. This is my opinion and for obvious reasons such as legal and moral ramifications.

More likely they are much more frequent than duel scenarios and actually warrants the good guy using military tactics.

Dueling was never an issue or in discussion. However, I will simply say that elements found in sparring/dueling whether weapons or empty-hands certainly has its place in training.

FWIW, a sentry takeout is no longer taught in that order, nor are the targets bone related.

My example was simply that, one example. I guess I should have been better off saying, subclavian artery. I think readers understood my point but hey, thanks for pointing it out

As of this moment, Fairbairn is but one of the knife systems that is warfare tested. Sayoc has been teaching US SF for several years now.

What's your point?

John, to clarify - are you refering to the attacker having the knife or the good guy?

I am speaking of the attacker. In most criminal instances, that would be the role. Although if you were fortunate enough to swing it the other way, more power to you.
John G. Jacobo

https://www.swacom.com

[PFSofPA]

I'm not sure what this discussion is about. Is practicing sentry kills the preferred method of Sayoc? Is knife sparring wrong? Does the development of attributes derived from knife sparring have no place in empty hand training? How is Sayoc battle tested? Is it too dangerous to train at speed?

Anybody can do knife sentry kills with high percentage of success. Just take the prison shiv scenarios. Does anybody believe that these inmates have trained in knife fighting? No. They win by the element of surprise and dedication to a mindset of destroying an unsuspecting victim.

Each system of knife, stick, empty-hand fighting has something to offer. No one system is the truth. When people start saying theirs is the best that's good because it shows dedication commitment to their particular system. It doesn't necessarily mean its true, however.

[Sun_Helmet]

[I]I do not want to deviate completely from the original topic of shivworks. However, I will reiterate what I stated in relation to Garland’s questions/comments. I (personally) don’t find it necessary to practice the Military use of knife methods that have irreversible outcomes i.e. Sentry (then & now), quick kills or what have you

Yes, I got that.
No one is trying to convince you otherwise, but I was actually answering Garland's inquiry about opinions on whether or not military/FMA can mix and how it could apply to civilians.

From my POV - from someone who teaches both military and civilians that yes it CAN apply to a civilian in certain scenarios.

Unless YOU are Military personnel or teach them, I do not agree that it applies to civilian training. This is my opinion and for obvious reasons such as legal and moral ramifications.

Not disagreeing with you having an opinion.
I am stating is that it is NOT that obvious.
If it were, people would not be talking about it.

Perhaps, the sentry takeouts you have witnessed do not apply.
However,some Sayoc military methods certainly apply, and I listed scenarios where it would. Morally or legally it would hold up just as much as any civilian 'defense' methods would. In fact, actually understanding the difference between the two could assist the civilian in taking proper legal/moral actions AND weigh them with taking the actions that means survival.

There's no such thing as absolutes in legal or moral standards, it applies just like any knife related scenarios- it is case by case.

Nothing is cut in stone... there's certainly nothing wrong with civilians learning military combatives if they have the proper instructors guiding them through the realities of knife scenarios.

Dueling was never an issue or in discussion. However, I will simply say that elements found in sparring/dueling whether weapons or empty-hands certainly has its place in training.

Well, one can take the same stance on legal and moral standards if one is training civilians how to use dueling or sparring as part of their training. Therefore if there's a place for those type of scenarios, there's definitely a place for military tactics. That is how it applies to the discussion.

My example was simply that, one example. I guess I should have been better off saying, subclavian artery. I think readers understood my point but hey, thanks for pointing it out

No problem.
However, some readers get confused about targeting.
One is either targeting the bone or the artery groupings - big difference in legal/moral/realistic ramifications.

What's your point?

Garland asked whether military and FMA can flow together and yes, they have.... seamlessly. He also specifically listed Sayoc in one of his followups.

One has options to seek out separate systems like Fairbairn AND an FMA school, and then figure out how to flow them together.

However, there's already combat tested system(s) that include BOTH and ARE being used by the high speed ops.... today... like Sayoc.

I am speaking of the attacker. In most criminal instances, that would be the role. Although if you were fortunate enough to swing it the other way, more power to you.

Thanks for the clarification, John.
In most serious criminal cases especially when firearms are used by the attacker, or one is being held against their will AND if the good guy has a blade... their primary physical option is to use 'military style' knife tactics... not necessarily 'civilian' ones. Meaning, my POV is that the good guy has the knife and must find ways to use it to survive against a higher weapon threat. When the knife guy is NOT the criminal, the use of the knife in legal/moral circles are almost always determined by whether or not the bad guy had more firepower/posing lethal threat .

If one never knew how to use stealth and certain methods that are taught in military combatives, they may make some crucial mistakes.

For example, not inserting the blade FIRST prior to cupping the mouth, the difference in order is that the bad guy gets to alert other baddies, or has a half beat to react - which could make a bad situation worse.

The definition of what 'military' options entail may mean something totally different to others- thus the differing opinions.

Everyone's mileage does vary, and differing opinions are good to have if one wants to gather a variety of information.

Btw, this long missive is partially based on your comment on whether ANY defensive scenarios apply and some do: when the threat level (bad guy) is so much higher than a knife guy (good) not trained in certain military methods can realistically overcome.

--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali

[Sun_Helmet]

I'm not sure what this discussion is about. Is practicing sentry kills the preferred method of Sayoc?

Practicing sentry kills CAN be applied to civilian scenarios if the proper context is taken. I listed a few above- such as serious scenarios where one has to defeat the bad guys in the quickest/most effective manner. However, Sayoc covers many aspects of knife training and combatives.

Is knife sparring wrong? Does the development of attributes derived from knife sparring have no place in empty hand training?

Sparring is part of training, just like 'sentry' removals would be. What is confusing may be that some automatically relate the word 'sentry' with a soldier standing guard on a fort. 'Sentr'y can stand for any bad guy who has more firepower than you and all you have is a knife. You are not going to get close to someone as effectively using 'civilian' methods. Any amount of surprise quick kills are part of 'sentry' tactics.

Now learning that missing link is just as useful as sparring, because no one is in control of which scenario they may someday find themselves in. No one is saying sparring is wrong - we do that all the time. Just check out some of the Sayoc DVDs for some students going at it.

How is Sayoc battle tested?

See previous post.

Is it too dangerous to train at speed?

In Sayoc we have several 'speeds' indicated for students for various drills. You can go full speed in some and other drills need time to safely train - unless your training partner has spare eyes, etc.

Anybody can do knife sentry kills with high percentage of success.

Not necessarily. There's an order of sequences one needs to factor in before doing it. You'd have to actually train with some effective non compliant military guys to learn that it isn't as easy as you think.

Just take the prison shiv scenarios. Does anybody believe that these inmates have trained in knife fighting? No. They win by the element of surprise and dedication to a mindset of destroying an unsuspecting victim.

I disagree.
Prisons like Pelican Bay have documented surveillance footage of inmates learning how to target and kill. They have angles of attack and train how to ambush. They definitely plan their kills, otherwise, you wouldn't have instances like the one when over fifty inmates targeted another group on the yard in a surprise pre-meditated attack.

Each system of knife, stick, empty-hand fighting has something to offer. No one system is the truth. When people start saying theirs is the best that's good because it shows dedication commitment to their particular system. It doesn't necessarily mean its true, however.

Exactly. That's the reason why I wanted to post that there's a variety of opinions out there. No one is trying to convince anyone, but a difference of opinions is always good. This way, people can choose what they want.

--Rafael--
Sayoc Kali

[johnj]

Not disagreeing with you having an opinion.
I am stating is that it is NOT that obvious.
If it were, people would not be talking about it.

Are you stating that moral and legal ramifications (in general) regarding the potential lethality of knife use is NOT that obvious?

There's no such thing as absolutes in legal or moral standards, it applies just like any knife related scenarios- it is case by case. Nothing is cut in stone... there's certainly nothing wrong with civilians learning military combatives if they have the proper instructors guiding them through the realities of knife scenarios.

Understood. However, I would be apt to say that in Military combat use the carefree mentality and leniency of moral and legal ramifications respectively, far exceeds that of civilian. You are providing your logic and attempting to validate your training methods and that is fine. We simply differ in our approaches.

Well, one can take the same stance on legal and moral standards if one is training civilians how to use dueling or sparring as part of their training. Therefore if there's a place for those type of scenarios, there's definitely a place for military tactics. That is how it applies to the discussion.

Why do you assume sparring/dueling is used to train civilians? Do you not think that distinctions are made between teaching functional self-defense to a civilian and the competitive sport aspects of martial arts? It serves different purposes. It is a method of promoting the sport combat of the FMA but can develop certain attributes as well as introduce both the martial arts practitioner and civilian to elements that s/he may be exposed to such as:

-Controlling of Range
-Targeted and Effective Countering (by means of tools of empty-hands)
-Mobility as it relates to evasiveness including body mechanics
-Timing
-Unpredictability
-Aggressiveness

Although my group spars, it is merely one minor aspect of training. A simple progression similar to 1-3 step sparring that isolate attacks and flow of attacks is another use of sparring based training. It is by no means the focal point for personal defense measures, at least not in my program. I’ve always been one to stress the differences in training sport from street. Whether confrontational or situational, a blade encounter does not always occur with both individuals carrying or brandishing and will not always occur or even maintain a particular range. Civilian training must be efficient and effective enough for anyone. I would think much like LEO, the Military MINDSET requires a separate training of its own.

PART I REPLY

[johnj]

No problem.
However, some readers get confused about targeting.
One is either targeting the bone or the artery groupings - big difference in legal/moral/realistic ramifications.

In the heat of an altercation or assault where fear and adrenalin can overwhelm an individual, do you think s/he can make the distinction in targeting? I tend to think that survival instincts takeover and quite often a victim ends up doing whatever it takes to survive.

In most serious criminal cases especially when firearms are used by the attacker, or one is being held against their will AND if the good guy has a blade... their primary physical option is to use 'military style' knife tactics... not necessarily 'civilian' ones. Meaning, my POV is that the good guy has the knife and must find ways to use it to survive against a higher weapon threat. When the knife guy is NOT the criminal, the use of the knife in legal/moral circles are almost always determined by whether or not the bad guy had more firepower/posing lethal threat .

The example you cite is rather gray and there are too many scenarios to even comment on. Again, a civilian may not even be mentally prepared let alone employ the “physical option of 'military style' knife tactics” you are referring to.

For example, not inserting the blade FIRST prior to cupping the mouth, the difference in order is that the bad guy gets to alert other baddies, or has a half beat to react - which could make a bad situation worse.

Hey, thanks again for correcting the order of operation. You brought up a good point, “a half beat to react”. Just curious, in a robbery situation where the gunman is already trigger happy due to the anxiety of getting caught, do you believe there is less effort in drawing & opening your knife then him stepping back and pulling the trigger?

The definition of what 'military' options entail may mean something totally different to others- thus the differing opinions. Everyone's mileage does vary, and differing opinions are good to have if one wants to gather a variety of information.

I agree. My comments or opinions are in no way meant to discount your methods or justify mine. They are simply my reasoning logical or not to the differences in our approach to teaching that hopefully will benefit the readers.

Btw, this long missive is partially based on your comment on whether ANY defensive scenarios apply and some do: when the threat level (bad guy) is so much higher than a knife guy (good) not trained in certain military methods can realistically overcome.

I still believe there is some confusion as to what I said. As pointed out, a sentry take out or quick kill is like a prison shanking executed with stealth but is almost always fatal. And this is what I was referring to as not having any interest in practicing or teaching. However, I stated that if anything, there would be some benefits to understanding it for self-defense purposes, if any applied.

Any way, regardless of our differences, it’s always good exchanging with you as I do respect the knowledge your have researched.

John J

https://www.swacom.com

[Sun_Helmet]

Are you stating that moral and legal ramifications (in general) regarding the potential lethality of knife use is NOT that obvious?

Yes, it depends on the situation.

Understood. However, I would be apt to say that in Military combat use the carefree mentality and leniency of moral and legal ramifications respectively, far exceeds that of civilian. You are providing your logic and attempting to validate your training methods and that is fine. We simply differ in our approaches.

That's fine.
My stance is that it doesn't even have to be my training methods.
Sometimes a military style response is the best way to survive a situation.
One can not stick to absolutes.

Why do you assume sparring/dueling is used to train civilians?

That's a vague question. It assumes I stated it is the ONLY method used to train civilians. Answered by yourself in the rest of the comment.

However, your explanation supports my comment that sparring/dueling is but a FRAGMENT of training that MIGHT come in handy when the time comes... the same way a FRAGMENT of military style combative training might apply as well.

Whether confrontational or situational, a blade encounter does not always occur with both individuals carrying or brandishing and will not always occur or even maintain a particular range.

Which actually supports my stance that there is no absolute in training strictly 'civilian' or 'military'.
Certain quick kill scenarios are unfortunately required in real civilian life.
Those are actually some of the tragic cases that lethal response with a knife is easier to justify.

Civilian training must be efficient and effective enough for anyone. I would think much like LEO, the Military MINDSET requires a separate training of its own.

Certainly. However certain methods NOT taught in civilian programs can be very valuable in some scenarios. No one is saying every civilian should train military combatives, but it does not mean that certain military combative responses are not VERY effective for specific scenarios.

Just because some do not choose to teach military methods to civilians does NOT mean SOME methods won't work just well in civilian scenarios, even with legal/moral issues in mind. There's just too many variables for an absolute.

--Rafael--