WWII hand to hand self-defense video

**colonelpong2** · Posted On: 10/03/2006 11:58pm

I especially wonder about the segment jsut after the one minute mark when he demonstrates the take dwon from the pistol in the back. When turning off the line, he reaches past and over the top of the gun arm. relies totally on the twist getting him off the line and the enemy not compensating. Surely he would have a much better chance if he swept that left arm low and used it to redirect the gun hand at the same time as the twist?

I porobably described what i mean really badly here

**PPlate** · Posted On: 10/04/2006 2:14am

Originally Posted by colonelpong

I especially wonder about the segment jsut after the one minute mark when he demonstrates the take dwon from the pistol in the back. When turning off the line, he reaches past and over the top of the gun arm. relies totally on the twist getting him off the line and the enemy not compensating. Surely he would have a much better chance if he swept that left arm low and used it to redirect the gun hand at the same time as the twist?

I porobably described what i mean really badly here

I have no real experience with gun disarms, so purely speaking from what I think only.

Your explaination is good. However I think that if you swept the arm low, you will lose control of the gun arm and make it very hard to grab and control the gun arm after you've knocked it away from you.

If you do it like in the tape, and if you do it without telegraphing and have some practice under your belt, I think you'll have a good chance of pulling it off. With practice the entire move can be done in a very quick move, so the time he turns to the time he has the gun arm trapped under his arm is a very quick instance. All you need to "setup" beforehand is to make sure one leg is slightly back to enable you to turn very quickly.

However, anyone who is experienced with using a gun will not stick it up your back anyway, they'll hold it close to their body and you'll have near to zero chance of pulling off any kind of disarm.

**PPlate** · Posted On: 10/04/2006 2:18am

Just wanted to add that from what little I know of WWII combatives, Fairbarn's stuff has been field tested under pressure first in Shanghai and then by operatives of the SOE in the war, and whatever didn't work was fedback to Fairbairn and removed from the syllabus. Under these circumstances, I would say his stuff must be good.

**bujutsuboy** · Posted On: 10/04/2006 2:56am

I studied WW2 Combatives (and similar stuff) for a while. Here's a few points.

1 - It was designed to teach people in about a week. That's all they had, so they went for easy to do strikes that would have brutal effect. They had no time to study the intricacies of Judo etc. So, within those restrictions, they did a good job

2 - The system relies on using sneakiness and nastiness also (called "Artifice" and "Vehemence" in the texts). They don't go up to an adversary and challenge him to a fight. They use deception and dirty tactics to win. The other guy should be finished before he knows he is in a fight.

3 - The devotees over estimate it terribly. There's a guy going round called Carl Cestari, and his followers revere him to the point of insanity. His stuff is ok I suppose, but his guys reckon that merely buying his videos will make you impossible to beat! The truth is that it is a simple fighting system that can help you win a fight.... but those handful of techniques are hardly "all you will ever need", and there is no way you could get the better of a half decent MMA fighter unless you crept up on him from behind or something.

4 - PPlate said "Fairbarn's stuff has been field tested under pressure first in Shanghai and then by operatives of the SOE in the war." Has it? That's one of the things the devotees say.... but finding any hard evidence of that seems hard! Personally I reckon that 99.9% of killings in the war were done with bombs and bullets. Genuine case studies of unarmed killings don't seem to be common.

Phew! That's longer than I though it would be.

Oh yes, and 5? Forgive the corny film. It was 60 years ago after all!

**Gezere** · Posted On: 10/04/2006 7:59am

4 - PPlate said "Fairbarn's stuff has been field tested under pressure first in Shanghai and then by operatives of the SOE in the war." Has it? That's one of the things the devotees say.... but finding any hard evidence of that seems hard! Personally I reckon that 99.9% of killings in the war were done with bombs and bullets. Genuine case studies of unarmed killings don't seem to be common.

Beat me to it.

Alot of Fairburn and Applegate lovers use thel"tested in the war" line there is little to no proof of it. In contrast there has been acutal engagements in Iraq, Afgahnistan, and in the Balkans of CQC were MAC trained soldiers have been involved they are reported to higher command and are sent to Benning for feedback. Now one thing to remember is that Combatives doesn't just mean H2H but can be used in time you are unable to just shoot the bastard. However the vast majority of kills in combat are by bullet and bombs as Bujutsuboy said.

**PPlate** · Posted On: 10/04/2006 11:06am

>>
1 - It was designed to teach people in about a week. That's all they had, so they went for easy to do strikes that would have brutal effect. They had no time to study the intricacies of Judo etc. So, within those restrictions, they did a good job
<<

I agree.

>>
2 - The system relies on using sneakiness and nastiness also (called "Artifice" and "Vehemence" in the texts). They don't go up to an adversary and challenge him to a fight. They use deception and dirty tactics to win. The other guy should be finished before he knows he is in a fight.
<<

Agree again.

>>
3 - The devotees over estimate it terribly. There's a guy going round called Carl Cestari, and his followers revere him to the point of insanity. His stuff is ok I suppose, but his guys reckon that merely buying his videos will make you impossible to beat! The truth is that it is a simple fighting system that can help you win a fight.... but those handful of techniques are hardly "all you will ever need", and there is no way you could get the better of a half decent MMA fighter unless you crept up on him from behind or something.
<<

I also agree that perhaps it is over estimated. I certainly don't think that learning it will make you impossible to beat, did any of his followers claim that?

However, I have a few of Cestari's tapes, and I don't think his stuff is "ok". I actually think it is great. To be completely honest, I actually thought it was mind-blowing when I first saw it.

I am learning MMA and Muay Thai now, but I think that if any person only has a very short time to learn how to defend him/herself, Cestari's materials will be it (provided you train it "alive"). I've taken many valuable lessons from his material.

I don't know if you've seen any of his tapes or just the short clips on youtube (which I didn't find very impressive), but if you have his older stuff, which I have, especially the "Holds and Grabs" tapes or the "Basic strikes" tapes, it has a lot of very good street stuff in it that I haven't seen anywhere else.

One thing about street fights in my limited experience is that it's not a duel, as in you get invited to a one-to-one fight and then circle off to fight like in a cage fight. Most times it's a spontaneous thing where one party gets mad and starts pushing or throws a punch, and that's where the dirty tricks part of Cestari's material proves to be so valuable.

The way you stand, and the initial non-telegraphing strike you do, that Cestari teaches in his tapes, are in my opinion humanly impossible to defend against if you have your hands down.

>>
Has it? That's one of the things the devotees say.... but finding any hard evidence of that seems hard! Personally I reckon that 99.9% of killings in the war were done with bombs and bullets. Genuine case studies of unarmed killings don't seem to be common. <<

Again, I'll readily admit my ignorance, but there are walking encyclopedias on these stuff on this yahoo list:

combatives @ yahoo dot com

If you'd like to clarify where this info came from those folks there will most probably be able to provide it for you.

**Neildo** · Posted On: 10/04/2006 11:11am

The only technique i remember is: you grab the front of a nazi's pith helmet and yank back, it will dig into his neck and break it.

British commando trick.

**Sam Browning** · Posted On: 10/04/2006 11:31am

As has previously been said, while they say there was feedback, there is next to no documentation of it, and its hard to see what, if anything they changed in their teaching. I only know of one example of one such change. The Fairbain Sykes knife had a round handle, and applegate says that one solder screwed up cutting a German's throat because in the dark he placed the flat of the blade against the guys throat for the cut. In the Fairbain Applegate the knife has a rectagular handle so that you always know the orientation of the sharp part of the blade. Its also a lot stronger blade because the tip had a tendency to break off on the FS, especially when the troops, were in camp, got bored, and started to use it for things it was not intended for, (camp work, knife throwing practice)

**PPlate** · Posted On: 10/04/2006 11:37am

As far as I know (which is very very little), some of these changes were reflected in the differences between the manuals printed at the start of the war, and those printed towards the end of the war. Note that this is what I picked up from reading the discussions that go on, I certainly have zero first hand knowledge of it as my version of Get Tough and KOGK are all reprints.

Some of the folks on the list I mentioned own original copies of those said manuals I believe.