The Edged Weapons Overview course is a 16 hour focused overview of knife application methods that will give the student a fundamental and broad understanding of edged weapons. Like all ShivWorks courses EWO is contextually underscored and emphasizes conceptual framework applied through the minimalist, functional toolbox. All software is presented from the “reductionist’s” point of view to maximize retention and maintenance efficiency.
This was my third combatives-oriented course, and my second class that focused primarily around edged weapons. I have previously taken a ShivWorks ECQC, a Steve Tarani/HiTS Edged Weapons, and various beginner and intermediate pistol courses. I have also been taking BJJ classes (directly because of ECQC) once or twice a week for the last 5 months, and am currently a white belt with one stripe. I used a Nok training Clinch Pick (CP) primarily, carried at the 1145 by slipping it through a belt loop, with the occasional use of a Chinese CP trainer, carried at the 1130 with the handle angled downward, and a Sypderco Endura trainer with zip ties on the thumb hole to simulate a waved folder, carried in the left side pocket, tip up, the spine of the blade toward my centerline. My clothing was standard streetwear, besides the usage of an Under Armour compression long-sleeve, t-shirt with relative form-fitting jeans, with a pair of low-cut sneakers. Protective gear was recommended, but I only utilized a mouth guard during the final evolution, and a soft neosprene knee pad for the entire duration of the class on my right leg, more for therapeutic compression than protection. I am 5'8", and approximately 140 lbs.
Craig Douglas (AKA SouthNarc) was the primary instructor. Class started at around 0840 on TD1. Weather was slightly chilly to start out with, but warmed up to being a beautiful day, a clear 70ish degrees. There were 24 students, with roughly half having of taken prior ShivWorks courses, with the majority of the repeats having of taken ECQC, although a few had only taken AMIS. Most of the students were just civilians (including several doctors, very useful in case of injuries), although we had a couple of members of the military, military contractors, a LEO, and a trainer.
We started out with a weapons check, removing all live blades, firearms, mags, etc., then with everyone giving a quick bio of themselves, with Craig going last, detailing his undercover work, which dealt primarily in narcotics, and included both buys, sells, and even murder-for-hires. He noted that through his career, he had many failures in training, particularly an incident when he was almost beaten to death in a hotel room by a socket wrench during a coke buy gone bad, resulting in a fractured skull, surviving only because of the quick intervention of a backup team. This forced him to re-evaluate much of his training, and he realized that only about 25%-30% of his training actually worked, and that even then, it was rarely taught in the correct context.
We then moved on the the criminal assault paradigm, which is to say how criminals work. As most criminals are opportunists, the five basic tenets of the criminal assault paradigm are: uneven initiative (one party will surprise the other, significantly increasing the surprised party's reaction time and reducing their motor skills), uneven armament (one party will be definitively better armed), extremely close range, multiple assailants, and the general usage of weapons. Most training does not adequately address these issues, e.g., assuming both parties are aware of each other's intent, assuming both parties have their weapons deployed already, etc., and thus fail to adequately prepare students for the kind of attacks they are likely to encounter in the real world. Even with adequate training, Craig estimates that there is generally only a 50% win ratio, and that his survival through his UC career could be attributed just as much to luck as it was to skill.
Craig then went on to discuss the issue of range. A basic axiom that essentially all edged weapons courses will agree on is that, for the purposes of defense, range buys time. However, the problem with that is that most human interactions occur at a very close range, typically arm's reach. At such a close range, even a small change in distance could have a large effect (changes in distance becoming exponentially more important as the range closes). To illustrate that, Craig stood at arm's reach to a student; Craig would attempt to touch the student's stomach before the student could slap his hand away, with both starting with their hands at their side. Craig had essentially a 100% success rate at that distance, yet just a half-step backwards resulted in a complete reversal of fortunes, with Craig getting intercepted every time.
Of course, in order to be able to maintain range, one must have situational awareness. Despite the popular cliché of how one should "always be in condition yellow", the reality is, different environs and times will result in different states of awareness; for example, it is unlikely that one would exhibit the same amount awareness walking down the aisle of a grocery store during the day and walking through a dark alley next to a dive bar downtime at 0130.
Craig stated that it's easy to think of awareness as being something in a constant state of flux, as a field that narrows and broadens constantly, depending on the situation at hand. The key thing to remember is to avoid task fixation in an exposed area, to keep from narrowing one's field of awareness too much; common examples include the now-classic holding a texting conversation while walking, trying to balance a checkbook in the car while in a parking lot, etc. The obvious issue with having a narrow field of vision is that this allows the criminal to very easily attack with uneven initiative.
We then moved onto the somewhat famous managing unknown contacts (MUC) portion of the course. It was noted that in trying to keep range, most people would assign different levels of possible threats to different people, thus allowing some people in closer than others. Factors such as race, age, gender, dress, presence of children, etc., all would play a role in most people's threat assessments. Since it's difficult to accurately bin all contacts, Craig suggests it's simplest to just use just two classifications: known contacts and unknown contacts (UCs). The art of MUC is being able to keep an encroaching UC away without also agitating said UC.
For the first component of the MUC, Craig suggests starting out with a polite request for the UC stop. This may not work for many benign reasons, such not noticing the request due to task fixation, agitation (e.g., seeking help for an injury), mental development issues (e.g., autism), etc. If the request fails, one should try raising their voice, ideally to the level of a shout, while issuing a command. The shouted command will hopefully startle or jar the UC. If this also fails, a possible verbal last resort would be to include the usage of profanity, as it can clearly indicate that one's extreme displeasure at the UC. However, if one normally does not use profanity, this is probably not the time to start, as this could be seen as a weak attempt to posture, and may be taken as a sign of weakness/panic. Also, note the distinction between "back the fuck up" vs. "back up, motherfucker"; the former uses profanity simply to accentuate the command, while the latter uses it as an insult, which may result in agitating the UC further, an obviously undesirable effect. Craig also notes that for most people, it is far better to view this as a monologue of sorts, to essentially ignore what the UC might be saying, as trying to hold a dialogue takes away from one's ability to process information and react in a timely manner; verbal agility can have some rewards, but the risk of getting caught up in trying to think of what to say and thus lengthening one's reaction time is not worth the risk.
The second component of MUC is the lateral movement in an arc. Typically, one would not want to step straight backwards, as it is stepping blindly into unknown territory, while also leaving you vulnerable to any possible assailants that are behind you. Simply moving laterally, without an arc, is better in terms of checking for assailants, but still allows the encroaching UC to move in closer, albeit at a slower rate than just standing still. By incorporating the arc (if the UC is at 1200 and you are at 0600, move to the 0300 or 0900), one can keep the encroaching UC at a distance while also checking the rear easier, while also collapsing the sector/narrowing the field of threat, ideally from a 180° to a 45°.
The final component of MUC is "the fence", as coined by Geoff Thompson. To create a fence, keep the hands high and compressed. This will help greatly reduce the time needed to protect one's head if an attack comes in, while staying in a non-threatening position. It also allows for one to easily attack first if need be, while being able to minimize any telegraphing.
With all the MUC components taught, we then paired up and drilled this, rotating to new partners after several minutes.
I had been able to do some sustainment with some training partners in between EWO and ECQC, so I felt that I had decent movement, and keeping the fence up at all times came naturally. However, I had a tendency to resort to profanity first, and raising my volume last and to a not raise it high enough, most likely due to the large amount of profanity I use in everyday conversation, combined with most people's inhibitions with shouting. I was able to incorporate eye jabs, as taught in ECQC, and which was covered next.
After the MUC practice, we then went over pre-fight indicators, signs and cues that can be very obvious once learned that indicate that an encroaching UC was getting ready to attack. A good way to search for these cues is to simply look for them on video sharing sites with street fights and robberies. The first of four cues that Craig went over was the so-called "grooming cue", where the hand goes to the face or neck area and does something, such scratching the ear, brushing the jawline, rubbing the nose, running the hand through the hair, etc. The second is the "target glance", where the UC will do darting glances to the left, right, or rear. The third, and possibly hardest one to pick up on just because it may happen only right before the assault, is a definitive weight shift, where the UC will shift their weight from a neutral position to a loaded position, where one leg will have much more weight so they will be able to move more explosively. Thus, we then drilled the same thing, but this time with the encroaching UC simulating the cues, with the person being encroached upon calling out "cue" whenever a cue was seen. Craig stressed the importance of actually verbalizing "cue", as it was an actual action, and would help us actually react to a cue (such as drawing a gun, blade, etc.), rather than simply recognizing it but failing to act upon it.
I had a habit of missing the target glances, as I would be busy staring at the hands, which isn't entirely a bad thing, I suppose.
Next, Craig gave us the eye jab. This is to be utilized if excessive encroachment occurs, and one feels the need to initiate. The eye jab elicits a disproportionate amount of distraction compared to the actual damage done; generally, the worse thing that Craig has seen is a scratched cornea; the way he saw it, it would be far better to have to go to court (since you were the initiator of the "attack") with the encroacher having a case of pink eye over having his jaw wired shut. This was practiced with a backwards boxing glove, with the defender doing an eye jab at the boxing glove as held up by the encroacher. The first set of drills the glove was held up at all times, the second was reactionary, with the defender needing to eye jab only once the encroacher put it up.
I had issues with telegraphing the eye jab, as I would pull back a bit. Craig also noted what he called a cognition bump, where students would freeze up for a second on the reactionary target as their mind tried to process what they were suppose to do; ingraining this technique is really the only way to overcome this issue, which can occur for any number of trained reactive actions.
Craig then went over how traditionally, when an opponent initiates, many fighting styles emphasized a diagnostic response, which is to say, one would choose a defense or counter-attack based on the attack. However, this generally takes a huge amount of skill and reaction time, and is unrealistic for the vast majority of people. Thus, Craig prefers a non-diagnostic response, also known as a default response. The two goals of this response is to keep you conscious, and to keep you upright and thus mobile. To stay upright, keep the hips square to the target and do a level change, dropping the hips and widening the feet slightly. The back should be straight, and the head aligned with the hips. To stay conscious, the weak hand arm should make a vertical elbow shield, with the bicep against the cheek, while the strong hand arm should make a horizontal elbow shield, also with the bicep against the cheek. This leaves only the crown of the head exposed, and helps keep the head from moving in relation from the neck. We then practiced the default position, with the opponent attacking strictly at random. After a could rounds of that, MUC was added back in.
One of the failings of traditional training techniques popular in the gun world is the general lack of pressure testing. Thus, we would be classifying the rest of the drills being run in the class as being either consensual or non-consensual, competitive or non-competitive, and whether or not it was technical. For example, a consensual, technical drill would be one where one party offers no resistance, so the other party could learn the very basic idea of the technique. A non-consensual, non-competitive drill would have one party offer resistance, but their endgame is not to win that drill. A non-consensual, competitive drill would have both parties trying to win the drill.
To illustrate these ideas of drill classification, while also trying to emphasize how important posture can be, Craig had us do the infamous "mountain goat drill". In this drill, which was run non-consensual and competitive, one would lock forehead with another's forehead, and try to drive the other person back.
I had done this drill before in ECQC, and will candidly admit that I went in doing it rather softly, as I had already absorbed the lesson, and did not bring anything to help protect my forehead from the bruise that arises from going into this drill with full power.
We then went into the idea of cutting the corner, which is to transition the body so that one's hips are square to the side of the opponent's hips, giving one the ability to drive the opponent off balance and into the direction that one is facing. The face/forehead should be in the opponent's neck, to help push them off balance. The drills to do this was first done technically and consensually, before being run competitively and non-consensually.
At this point, we started to discuss what the arms and hands were doing. The basic things to do are: the underhook, the overhook, the bicep tie, and the wrist tie. Head control, while useful in a weapons free environment, is far more dangerous to attempt against an armed opponent, as it leaves a hand free for them to access their weapons. When able to get an opponent in a double underhook, the opponent cannot easily defend your weapon deployments, has a hard time accessing their own weapons, and nor can then easily defend their own weapons from being taken. In order to get out of an underhook, one would swim out and wind up getting their own underhook. We then ran the standard pummelling drill, in which both students would have one underhook and one overhook, swimming out from the overhook to and underhook at the same time, i.e., if your left arm started out in the underhook and your right arm started with an overhook, one pummel would have your left arm in the overhook now and the right arm in an underhook. Note that one should also be cutting the corner to the side that the underhook is on.
I would spend too much time trying to swim into an underhook, as instead of just cramming my hand into the opening underneath the armpit and forcing myself in, I would try to find an entry point first, thus leaving me vulnerable to getting into a double underhook.
We broke for lunch at this time.
After lunch, we went over the best way to try to break a very tight underhook, which might render any attempts to swim futile: the whizzer. Using the bony wrist edge on the opponent's elbow, try to turn their elbow in, while cutting the corner; getting the hips back for posture will help immensely. This was first practiced consensually and technically, then non-consensual and competitive, with both sides starting at the netural and trying to get hooks in.
After learning the hooks, we then moved on to arm ties, namely, the aforementioned bicep ties and wrist ties, which are great ways to control an opponent's limbs and thus help keep any deployed edged weapons from reaching you, along with how to escape them. To get out of a bicep tie, roll the thumb in and under the opponent's arm, also giving you the ability to get a bicep tie of your own. To get out of a wrist tie, strip out of the opponent's thumb; one can attempt to attach to the opponent's wrist at that point, too, though it may be quite difficult. We practiced this competitively and non-consensually.
Craig's preferred position of dominance is to have an underhook on the weak side and a tie on the strong side. This was practiced non-consensually and non-competitively. Afterward, it was drilled with the person that was doing the hook and tie trying to prevent their opponent from being able to deploy a Nok trainer (many students had their own, including a couple with multiple Nok trainers to provide to other student's to supplement Craig's own pile of Nok trainers), with the drill ending once the trainer was deployed; this was done non-competitive and non-consensual. After that, we ran the same drill again, but this time attempting to trap the blade-wielding arm with a tie of some sort before ending the drill.
Of course, a tie only a delaying action against a deployed blade. Craig showed us two techniques to use after establishing the tie, both of which involved getting both hands on the blade-wielding arm. The first is "the seatbelt": starting with one hand in a wrist tie on the blade-wielding arm, move to the opposite side of that arm, have your free arm come behind the person and also grab that arm, generally near also near the wrist, with the palm facing outward. The other technique is the baseball double wrist tie: grabbing the opponent's wrist like one would a baseball bat, lock your elbows and move the blade away from your body and the opponents body (the further from his core, the weaker he is), then hip switch to get to the outside, use your shoulders to drive him away, while still keeping the arm isolated; doing a level change will help significantly in keeping the opponent off balance and unable to just switch the blade to their free hand. This was practiced non-consensual and non-competitive, first trying to keep the blade from even being deployed, then utilizing one of the techniques to isolate the blade.
After that, Craig then had a lecture sorts over the different possible weapons that one could use. Knives can generally be put into two distinct categories, folders and fixed blades, with folders then being binned between those that open during deployment (i.e., waved knives, as exemplified by many EKI knives) and those that open after deployment. Craig prefers to wear his folders in the hip thigh crease, as it is easier to get a good grip on it compared to having it clipped in the pocket toward the outside of the waist. Ideally, when trying to draw the folder, one should try to get the base of the thumb all the way to the bottom of the folder before trying to draw it out. Craig prefers to hold the deployed blade in a hammer grip, rather than a saber grip; while certainly harder to slash with such a grip, Craig prefers a point driven methodology, as it is more versatile, e.g., if a blade is dropped during a fight and you must scramble to pick it up, you may not know which side has the edge by the time you recover the blade; also, the hammer grip has much more strength in terms of retention. As to the wave, while definitely superior to non-waved knives in terms of deployment, as it has less number of steps from the draw to deployment, still isn't perfect, and may often come out half-deployed or totally not deployed, the former being rather common in knives that are not maintained and thus having sticky deployments. In terms of size, a 5" to 7.5" OAL is probably the optimal size for any knife used for EDC, as a balance between useful blade length and concealment, with 1000 to 0200 midline carry being the easiest for deployment and defending against takeaways. One should try to set up a fixed blade for the most neutral position possible, i.e., one that allows for a draw with an unbroken wrist. While double edged knives are generally superior for self-defense, they tend to be illegal in most places. An interesting compromise between a folder and a fixed blade is having a fixed blade with a pocket clip and utilizing a pocket sheath.
In terms of actually attacking with a blade, Craig prefers three main areas, around the head and neck, under the arm pits, and what he calls "the fork", which is the area that runs from the inside of one knee to the inner thighs, to the inside of the other knee, while extending to the back of the waist. The usage of the blade in self-defense has two distinct stages: "get off me" and "stay off me". Most blade fight stoppages are like handgun fight stoppages in the sense that they are purely psychological, i.e., "I don't wanna be stabbed/shot anymore"; interestingly, entangled stabbing victims will often state that they were unaware that they were being stabbed initially, instead thinking that they were merely being struck with fists. When stabbing, utilize all one's strength to penetrate a high probability vascular as deeply as possible; Craig is personally not a fan of biomechanical cutting. One should try to keep the blade close to the core, as this helps with retention and control, and when stabbing, utilize the hips to help with driving the blade in.
At this point, we had the first evo of the class. The bad guy starts with a FIST helmet and boxing gloves and encroaches, attacking at one point; the defender has a Nok trainer, and cannot initiate. The evo ends after the entanglement ends. Ideally, one should disengage from behind.
Many people made the mistake of trading weapons access for getting hit in the head, which in a real fight could be disastrous. As for my own performance, I had planned to go into the default position and then immediately hammerfist to create space and hopefully deployed, but instead, I froze up upon the attack and failed to go into the default position. I was able to get in and tie up my opponent so that he couldn't attack me, but then had no exit strategy. I attempted to trip him up and thus make my escape, but instead wound up getting pulled down with him. I was able to put my opponent in half guard, tied him up, and was able to deploy my Nok CP after some initial difficulty (the foam caught up against the fabric of the belt loop), but failed to figure out a proper escape, although several options actually exist. While I would probably have been relatively safe against a single assailant in that position, as I was inflicting far more damage than he was, the fact that he had me trapped meant that a second assailant could have easily kicked my head in while I was pinned. My attempts to shrimp out were foiled by my lack of strength and sloppy technique, highlighting my inadequate escapes. Eventually, Craig just called the evo ended with me still somewhat pinned.
TD1 ended at this point, which was about 1830.