Some months ago, I was overjoyed to edit and publish the best book anyone could imagine about Fairbairn’s system, by Russian scientist Dmitry Samoylov. Dr. Samoylov reconstructed what we might call Fairbairn’s “programmer’s notes,” namely the complicated calculus by which Fairbairn decided what to include in his system, and (more consequentially) what to exclude, and why. In the resulting book, Samoylov offers not just a (very, very thorough) reconstruction and contextualization of Fairbairn’s design process, but also the best description I’ve seen anywhere (including in Fairbairn’s own books) of how to train and apply the system.
I reviewed that book on my YouTube channel, and it’s available on Amazon as The Mind Is the Final Weapon: A Scientific View of the Fairbairn System. Dr. Samoylov has generously donated all profits for a children’s scholarship.
Today I’d like to think out loud about a feature of Fairbairn’s system. Previously I’ve mentioned it on this blog, in germinal form, by observing that Fairbairn builds footwork into his system below the level of the trainee’s awareness. Today I’d like to try to work that out more completely.
The Hypothesis
Roughly stated, my working hypothesis is this: In his choice of “base arsenal,” Fairbairn “funnels” (or systematically biases) the trainee into what we could call the “outside lane,” to good advantage.
Or to be more precise: Fairbairn’s base arsenal consists of the edge-of-hand blow, the chin jab (or tiger claw), and a descending sequence of low kicks. These movements are usually treated as discrete techniques chosen for efficiency and simplicity. I propose that they also produce a recurring positional effect. Each one tends to shift the trainee slightly off the opponent’s centerline, limit reciprocal striking, and enable immediate continuation. Fairbairn did not describe his system in this language; the argument here reconstructs a structural pattern that appears in repeated practice.
The three movements in Fairbairn’s base arsenal—the edge-of-hand blow, the chin jab (or tiger claw), and the descending kick sequence (of groin kick/knee kick/stomp)—differ mechanically but converge geometrically. Each drives the trainee forward while slipping slightly off the enemy’s centerline. With the edge-of-hand, as the trainee chops outward, his/her torso tends to rotate. With the chin jab, the trainee steps in, places his head unselfconsciously into what we could call an “outside head slot,” and displaces the enemy’s head through impact. And the kicks require forward entry that narrows distance. In each case, the trainee’s centerline shifts just outside the enemy’s, creating a brief asymmetry: he crowds one of the enemy’s arms and shifts away from the other, which becomes screened somewhat by the enemy’s own body. The techniques vary, but they bias the trainee toward the same position. Applied repeatedly, they tend to recreate that position until the opponent is displaced or knocked down.
Testing the Hypothesis
This claim must withstand ordinary objections. The base arsenal does not always produce a clear off-line position. In confined spaces or against multiple attackers, the trainee may remain largely square. However, the system does not depend on clean angling—it can work even if denied an ideal angle. What the system shows instead is a bias. Each movement combines forward pressure with rotation. Even when the trainee and enemy are crowded together, the trainee’s body tends to shift in ways that reduce symmetrical exchange. The asymmetry is brief and imperfect, but it recurs and stacks the odds in the trainee’s favor.
Limits
I am not interpreting Fairbairn into a positional theorist. He did not teach structured angling or sustained flank control. He did not instruct trainees to seek dominance outside an opponent’s lead shoulder. The effect described here follows from simple mechanics. The trainee strikes and advances. The alignment changes as a result. An asymmetrical angle is not an end in itself or even an explicitly stated goal; but it tends to emerge from Fairbairn’s choice of techniques for his “base arsenal,” and this cannot be a coincidence.
Deletion and Economy
This may clarify Fairbairn’s deletion of techniques. He removed movements that required setup, prolonged contact, or extended control—anything that provides the enemy time and opportunity to regain reciprocity or (heaven forbid) regain the initiative. Throws and refined grappling demand time and maintenance. The base arsenal does not. If these few movements consistently disrupt alignment and degrade reciprocity, then additional techniques add little. Fairbairn added them parsimoniously and—if I read Dr. Samoylov’s reconstruction correctly—principally to address momentary failures that placed the trainee in a severely compromised position (e.g. entangled, grounded, or severely crowded) and reset to the broad range of positions from which the trainee could use the base arsenal effectively and/or escape.
Conclusion
If I’m right (and I think I am, because I’m standing on the shoulders of a giant, Dmitry Samoylov), then not only is Fairbairn’s system more than just a collection of techniques, it’s a compression of alignment. The edge-of-hand blow, the chin jab, and the descending kick sequence converge toward a recurring body position. That position doesn’t secure dominance—this is not Brazilian jiujitsu!—but it squelches reciprocity long enough for the trainee to continue attacking so as to knock the enemy down. Whether Fairbairn described this logic explicitly matters less than the pattern that repeated practice reveals.
You may also watch my interview with author Dmitry Samoylov here:
Leave a Reply