posted 10-09-2002 03:15 AM               

I suspect that the first two reasons, more power, and easy draw. Certainly Fiore shows the dagger worn on the right hip as opposed to behind the body or in front of the body.

posted 10-09-2002 05:42 AM               

With the dagger worn on the right, it's a lot easier to draw it blade down: your hand naturally goes to that position, whereas to draw it with the blade above the hand you have to twist the forearm around quite uncomfortably...

posted 10-09-2002 06:19 PM               

I sincerely believe that stabbing blades and reverse and hammer grip that emphasise thrusting are better, particularly with a diamond section dagger which by design cannot be made into a great cutter. This is another story however.

I actually think that the main reason why the reverse grip is favoured is that holding the blade this way and using attacks on the pass adds predictability to the contest and makes the dagger fight more like a sword fight than it would be is a system more like modern fencing were employed. Position and tactics are much more important than honed reflexes here where most of the knife systems in use today emphasise reflex and speed.

By adopting reverse grip left foot forward(LLF) with the blade far above my head I eliminate the possibility that an opponent is going to have a go at my weapon hand before I break distance.

The same is true for the grip where the blade is held right foot forward (RFF) and low by the left hip or left foot forward and low in forward grip by the right hip. These postures also make weapon retention far less of a prob than it could be.

So these three postures are held at a distance where a pass is required to attack stop the fight degenerating into a handsniping affair. Now because a pass is required to attack the attacker cannot expect his attack to not be detected 'ala boxing. He can vary the height of his blow or make "S" cuts (quite dangerous to do with a dagger) but whippy feints are not really viable.

Also because of the pass the attacks have alot of weight behind them as well as coming from outside the centreline rather than straight down it. As such, these attacks either must be voided completely or must be dealt with in a strong fashion. The key here is that the attacker can create a threat that must be dealt with before moving his body into distance. The defender must deal with the attack before he can think about doing anything else. (simultaneous defence and counterattack is desirable)

At no time is there an "edge of wide distance" game played where a leaning of the body can put a fighter into range. This is suicide range where the luckier fighter with the best reflexes wins the encounter rather than he with the most skill.

Now because of the large "window of time" to perceive attacks in this method of fighting the initial attack is often beaten successfully and second intention attacks become the order of the day. Daggers are quite short weapons and the attack brings the two combatants well into distance for grappling. You will notice that many of Talhoffer's defences are done on a left foot pass. This brings both hands well into range for strong grappling as well as allowing the defender to get to the outside of the attacker and get two hands vs one in the grapple.

Obviously, in this type of fighting, stabbing and grips that optimise power in the stab are favoured. The styles of knife fighting that primarily use sabre grip and a "modern fencing" (for want of a better term) method such as the Sevillian method of Navaja play are stylised compliant duelling methods NOT all in fighting methods and should be treated as such. If you have access, check out the difference between the works of John Styers and Rex Applegate. The first is a knife fighting method, the second is a method of killing with a knife. These are subtle but important differences.

If one guy wants to play at close range and grapple then it is difficult to stop him in any type of fight. Only if both are happy to fight at wide distance is a duelling method the better option.
Cheers
Stu.

posted 10-10-2002 05:41 AM               

Each grip offers its own advantages and disadvantages. Additionally, some grips work better with a certain kind of knife or dagger than others. Therefore, I don't believe it would be wise to claim one grip to be inherently superior to all others.

Stu, you make some excellent points. I've asked a very similar question at the combatives forum, but it doesn't seem to have attracted much attention.

Frankly, I happen to think that the current trend toward the reverse grip in "serious" combatives is to a significant extent based on marketing hype. I concur with your overview of strengths of the reverse grip, particulary as they apply to reasonably large daggers (6" or so), but I don't think it's the be all, end all of knife fighting.

Much like you, I don't believe in "duelling" systems or fencing with a knife a la Styers. However, this does not mean that the saber grip as such is useless. As a matter of fact, I think it has some very real benefits. Obviously, Fairbairn and Applegate felt the same way, which is a good enough indication.

In my experience, the saber grip excels at low attacks, which are probably the most dangerous maneuvers that can be done with a knife. In a life or death situation it's often very difficult to assess the situation. If the opponent is holding a knife low you might not even realize that he is carrying one.

Reverse grip clearly lets you put your entire mass behind the knife in a downward thrust. But this is of little value if you target the opponent's chest. Attempting to stab somebody in the sternum or anywhere in the rib cage for that matter is a poor tactic because the knife might easily get stuck in the bone structure. A far better alternative would be to attack the neck or face area, which can be done just as effectively with the saber grip and even with a very small blade.

Then the question of quick draw. If the dagger is worn on the right hip with the handle up, the fastest draw (for me at least) is to use a forward or saber grip with the right hand slightly bent back. A reverse grip would work much better with the dagger worn on the right hip but turned upside-down. For a cross-draw the forward and saber grip are equally useful, especially if the dagger is worn upside down in a shoulder holster or attached to the webbing suspenders as is common with military personnel.

By the way, your analysis or various knife fighting postures reminds me of a recent experiment I did with the boxing stance. This is essentially the position one would assume according to FAS combatives. Usually you would use it to launch an attack on a right pass. But surprisingly good results can be obtained using pure boxing footwork. Instead of attacking on a pass advance the left foot a little to get within striking range (assuming you were out of striking distance initially), simultaneously strike with the left hand (to clear the centerline if necessary) then thrust with the knife in your right hand. This is basically the good old 1-2, but with a knife. It's far less telegraphic than attacking on a pass and can have a considerable surprise effect if done correctly.

Sorry for mixing the original question with modern combatives again ( ), but I couldn't resist the parallels...

posted 10-10-2002 05:41 AM               

In it you wrote:
Obviously, in this type of fighting, stabbing and grips that optimise power in the stab are favoured. The styles of knife fighting that primarily use sabre grip and a "modern fencing" (for want of a better term) method such as the Sevillian method of Navaja play are stylised compliant duelling methods NOT all in fighting methods and should be treated as such.
If one guy wants to play at close range and grapple then it is difficult to stop him in any type of fight. Only if both are happy to fight at wide distance is a duelling method the better option.

---This is exactly what I meant by saying that the medieval methods are more "tactical" oriented than "duelling" oriented. "Tactical" may not be the best word to use, but I haven't come up with anything else. :-)

posted 10-10-2002 05:50 AM               

---Nobody has said that the medieval method used only the reverse grip. The original question was why the reverse grip appears more frequently in the Fechtbucher than the forward grip. We have only been suggesting reasons for that.

Each grip offers its own advantages and disadvantages. Additionally, some grips work better with a certain kind of knife or dagger than others. Therefore, I don't believe it would be wise to claim one grip to be inherently superior to all others.

---I don't think we would argue that one grip is inherently superior to all others. But given the situation, method of carry, and style of fighting, one grip may very well function better than others. But that is certainly not to say that the other grips would not be useful at times.

posted 10-10-2002 07:00 AM               

We are talking about medieval dagger fighting - not modern knife combat whether street based or battlefield based, and its techniques and methods are directly affected by the period that it is developed in, for example the clothes and the armour.

As Stuart so rightly pointed out medieval knife combat is quick and brutal, and although I do not necessarily agree that the style is only one of combat to the death, it is definately one where the primary purpose is to put your opponent down as quickly as possible, whether that takes the nature of of trapping, locking, throwing, maiming.
Other periods and indeed other geographic locations have their own styles of knife combat building up, to take the modern, which again, I would argue as to whether it is in the way of duelling, concentrates much more upon the injurying of the knife hand through the use of small cuts and slices.
The modern style, although effective would be of little use against a man in a woollen doublet wearing good leather gloves, let alone one who is armoured, just as medieval knife combat, although teaching as important lessons of knife usage would be at a severe disadvantage in modern day being used in Jeans and T-shirt against a modern style, albeit the modern practitioner may well end up dead. This is one of the few cases where we are really comparing chalk and cheese when comparing modern and medieval knife fighting.

The target for a grip with the point below the hand is around the face and neck area and not really the chest. If you look at the protection that plate gives then an attack to the chest is even more daft, but around the neck and the face there are plenty of holes in both armour and skeleton to play with, plus in addition to this, we are not after burying the dagger to the hilt, just enough to get 1cm or 2cm at the most give the point a wiggle and get out. If this is done in the right place then the fight will be quickly over, in my opinion.
Fiore advises with this grip not to stab below the chest because if the blow is moving from a high position downwards then at some point the point of the dagger will come off line and not hold any more threat, the other reason has more to do with geometry in that this can be the furthest point away from the starting place of the hand.

If you are using the dagger with the point above the hand, he also advises not to thrust above the chest, the reason being that it is easier to counter as it has the longer distance to travel.

The position of the knife on the right hip is excellent in my opinion, as the hand raises it will catch the handle of the knife and draw, not only can you get an attack in on the draw (with edged knife) but also it immediately primes you for the strike, but different people wear knives in different places and whatever suits best, I say - but I will follow the old medieval dudes on this one.

Re - use of the left hand - absolutely.

Sorry Tomaz if it seems directed against your post - it isn't intentional - its just that I don't agree with some of it.

BTW, I am not arguing superiority of anything either - just different tools for different jobs - thats all

posted 10-10-2002 07:19 AM               

Not having too much to add, but one thing:

Consider the relative immobility of the weapon hand when gripping a rondel dagger.

Most originals I know pretty much 'lock' the hand between the two disks, making grip shifts while being _in_fighting_distance_ a pretty hazardous thing to do.

I know, not all daggers had rondels, but a ballock-style hilt -usually made of polished wood or even horn- is quite "slippy" and the last thing you possibly want is to loose your weapon while shifting grips.

So, in order to chance grips, you usually have to step out of distance, which may not be always possible.

And who says one cannot stab upwards from a reverse grip? If you are in the low guard with the dagger near your left hip and the point forward, all you have to do is straighten the arm while passing forward, this will usually bury your dagger in your opponents right side, somewhere where his liver is.

Doesn't sound like a bad thing to me

posted 10-10-2002 07:29 AM               

Trust you to add another level into this discussion - exchanging grips - no one had even mentioned that.....I completely agree and this is another example of the style of knife fighting being dictated to by the conditions of the day.

Fiore says don't strike below the chest with the dagger in reverse grip.
Sure you can manage the strike that you are talking about but you have to twist the forearm to achieve the correct orientation, which is not comfortable. I feel that this sort of strike is more easily dealt with than with quick attacks from high, if the dagger is with the point over the hand then a perfectly feasable attack in my opinion.

posted 10-10-2002 07:36 AM               

One more thing to add to this as we're considering the predominance of grips. In the Medieval context, you are much more likely to end up facing a weapon other than dagger - a sword for instance.

The overhand grip is much more effective for countering heavier weapons in this context.

One more thing to add to the already excellent points made here about carry style, thrust strength, clothing, likely application, etc.

posted 10-10-2002 07:42 AM               

I don't have to twist my forearm to do the thrust I've described, it's really just a straightening of the arm while passing forward, pretty much like a hammerfist/tetsui-uchi type of blow to the short ribs/liver area, only with 6-8" of pointy steel protruding from my fist

posted 10-10-2002 07:46 AM               

Agree totally about the issue of facing another weapon than the dagger, but it's also important to note that a lot of dagger stuff is shown against an unarmed attacker or vice versa.

IMO, the dagger was very often the first weapon that was being used aside from fists. Or the last one.

posted 10-10-2002 09:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joerg Bellinghausen:
Hi Rob!

I don't have to twist my forearm to do the thrust I've described, it's really just a straightening of the arm while passing forward, pretty much like a hammerfist/tetsui-uchi type of blow to the short ribs/liver area, only with 6-8" of pointy steel protruding from my fist

Cheers,
Jörg

---

---I gotta go along with Jorg on this one. I utilize the same strike. It is illustrated in the Codex Wallerstein.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

posted 10-10-2002 10:29 AM               

Another fine thread!

Just some more fuel for the fire...the dagger system of the German master Andres Lignitzer has no real preference for either the forward or reverse grip. His mini-system (which is compact and elegant like his buckler plays) of eight techniques features dagger counters for attacks from both grips, as well as some unarmed counters against those attacks which work for either.

Pete Kautz and I have both concluded that Lignitzer's stuff makes for an excellent set of fundamentals. You can layer on bits of Martin Huntfeltz's dagger work as well, but it's not quite as systemized.

posted 10-10-2002 11:03 AM            

Someone called 'modern' style 'fencing'; the 'modern' styles I have seen and tried to practice >deliberately< distance themselves from 'fencing' styles (the practicioners of which tend to expose both upper arms and body by over-committed lunges); the impression that modern knife fighting has (at least correctly practised) anything in common with (modern) fencing is, I believe erroneous (they're not taught as a 'system' anymore!).

But there is also a tendency to see 'modern' styles as lightweight, as in when Rob said "The modern style, although effective would be of little use against a man in a woollen doublet wearing good leather gloves". Again this misinterprets 'modern' styles. Styles designed to fight opponents in (often heavy) combat gear (WWII uniforms include heavy woollen tunics) and leather jackets do exist; these styles include not just 'snap-cuts' (which are fast against jeans and tee-shirt) and thrusts, but powered slashes which >will< penetrate such heavy clothing - all with a forward grip.

So, for the "why" of preferring reverse-hand grip, I don't believe it's the weight of clothing worn.

posted 10-11-2002 03:14 AM               

Hi Alan, welcome to the conversation .

I think when people are refering to "modern" style "fencing" and linking this to the knife fight as certain historic styles, such as Bowie, seem to owe a lot to 19th century sabre, and as such with the forward grip the system that is used is one that is "like" fencing, ie sword fighting, as it has similar considerations.

Now, sorry I should be a little more exact in what I was saying, in modern street styles the tendancy, in my opinion, is to take out the knife hand as it comes forward for the attack, and this is indeed light weight - two or three layers of clothing, a motor bike jacket will foil these "light" slashes and stabs, but the idea behind this is not to kill the opponent but rather take away the danger of the knife. Once that has been removed then maybe people will move in for a more lethal intent, but because it is a civilian system, ie non military - time can be taken to achieve this.

You then mention military combative styles - now here the playing field has changed again - including the tools to do the job, as well as the nature of the clothing, and I feel that the "modern" military knife styles are extremely similar to medieval and renaissance styles.

To conclude, Fiore does not prefer one grip to the other grip, as with the two "types" of knife fighting mentioned above each have their place in the appropriate situation, in other words different tools for different jobs.

Personally I think that we cannot discount the nature of clothing when talking about knife or dagger combat - but you could well be right that people were more familiar with reverse hand grip.

However, Fiore shows both and essentially he is presenting a style that was in existance at the beginning of the 15th century and at least for the last 1/4 of the 14th Century - why would he show and discuss both types of grip if one was out of fashion or if people only used the one type of grip?
I don't know, is the honest answer, but as has been mentioned on the H2H thread, producing these treatises was not an easy task and possibly they treated that people knew enough about one style of grip or wanted to show that grip that was more relevant to the particular lessons that they are trying to get across. Alternatively, perhaps we are meant to take the same techniques shown with the reverse grips and try to apply them to the other grip....... lots to think about and to play with....

Another great thread guys

Rob

posted 10-11-2002 03:37 AM               

Just for you:

Look at the fighter on the far right, he's in the low guard. I think you can see how the attack I talked about earlier is done.

Cheers,
Jörg

posted 10-11-2002 05:11 AM               

I had it coming from the other side, doh!

Yes, Fiore would still hate this attack in my opinion, even more than before, as it is coming from the attacker's left - he would push the elbow!! So by default I would have to hate it - however....

( I don't really I use this blow quite often, but normally as the second strike and not the first and .... by the way, this is similar to the attack that you end up with from the counter to the First Master of Dagger (Play 2 for those in the know).

Is this really an attack to the belly, though it could be, or is he striking up at the downward blow from the guy on the left? Catching and hooking the wrist in a similar way to the pair on the left but from the other way?

Just a thought

Regards and thanks for clearing that
Rob

PS - there are times that I really hate being strict with myself and following Fiore - though not often....

posted 10-11-2002 05:57 AM               

I'm not talking about "modern" knife fighting (whether such a thing exists at all, which I really doubt). I'm not even referring to the navaja or other Latino systems. What I have in mind is the Fairbairn-Applegate-Sykes method of WWII which is a purely fighting-oriented and very brutal system. Its goal is one and one only - to kill the opponent as quickly as possible. No fuss about taking out the opponent's knife hand first. Attacks are focused on the face and neck area, abdomen, kidneys plus occasional shots at the hand arteries. Moreover, the FAS system is a highly practical one because it takes all those little things into account that really matter, such as heavy clothing and even webbing and gear (important in the military context).

The end result is impressive yet extremely simple and can be taught in a matter of hours. It has proven itself time and again during the past 60 years but also has serious street application. I hope this illustrates well enough where I'm coming from, but if you have some spare time I would suggest reading Fairbairn's wartime manual: http://www.vrazvedka.ru/main/learning/ruk-b/fairbairn-01.shtml

I actually agree that WWII combatives have plenty of things in common with medieval HTH, but there are differences nevertheless, the strong preference for a saber grip among others (not that reverse was the one and only in the medieval times). There is also a greatly reduced tendency for any defense against knife or even trapping.

I'm not attempting to judge medieval dagger techniques by modern military standards, but I nevertheless feel that a proper comparison between the two is possible and even necessary (always considering the context of course) to get a solid interpretation of medieval systems.