fighting multiple opponents-myth or reality?

[BlackCatBonz]

well for my first first point....."most" people that attack in groups are big cowards and cant fight in the first place. if you take out the leader, like in most battle situations, the troops become lost and lose their will to fight. but if you have ten 100lb weaklings coming at you, thats 1000lbs of human you have to deal with.
2nd point,bruce lee style techniques will land you in the hospital
3rd point, most people on here will never be in a "real" fight, which tells me they're practicing the best kind of martial arts.........to the rest of you that dont believe one person can fight four or more......train train train

shawn

 

[loki09789]

well for my first first point....."most" people that attack in groups are big cowards and cant fight in the first place. if you take out the leader, like in most battle situations, the troops become lost and lose their will to fight. but if you have ten 100lb weaklings coming at you, thats 1000lbs of human you have to deal with.
2nd point,bruce lee style techniques will land you in the hospital
3rd point, most people on here will never be in a "real" fight, which tells me they're practicing the best kind of martial arts.........to the rest of you that dont believe one person can fight four or more......train train train

shawn

Actually, I would say that 'most people' who attack in groups would fall into one of two categories:

1. Practiced predators that have developed a tactical success plan where they have learned to coordinate their attack.

2. Incited groups that have found courage in their numbers and are acting irrationally for what ever reason.

Cowards? Doesn't matter if you get hit in the head with a brick because they were too 'chicken' to step up.

Pride, courage, ego are not important to decipher when it comes to dealing with self defense, whether individual or group attackers.

Intention, motivation, patterns of behavior....much more objective way to view it. It also removes the whole 'beaten' mentallity if you happen to be 'losing' the fight against a 'coward' and all the doubt that will arise between the chemical release that is going to happen (and creates a "get the hell out of here!" mentallity) and the fact that you are getting bested.

I just want to get out of there.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

i said "most"....not all, and i do not disagree with #1 or #2.
as for wanting to get out of there.......thats where my whole never getting into a fight comment comes into play.
that doesnt mean that one should completely dismiss the element of training against multiple attackers......quite the contrary. when you train to fight against many people, it invariably increases your skill when fighting one opponent.
i have done much multiple opponent training and have been involved in more than my fair share of multiple opponent encounters as a bouncer. now some would say,"well fighting against drunk people isnt a challenge"
not everyone in a bar is 100% drunk, 100% of the time. ive seen more vicious attempts at hurting someone while working in a bar than i have seen anywhere else.

shawn

 

[Paul B]

would your response be reactive or proactive?

Hi Guys,

Here's the old standby....it depends. By preference reactive. I try to avoid situations where I would have to attack a group of people before/instead of them attacking me. This goes back to the old "Sen" arguement.

Strictly speaking about this one instance we have been asked to comment on,this was a needless thing,and mindless to boot. There is nothing good to be gained from this,except maybe how not to act. Oh,and god sometimes protects idiots from themselves.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

being reactive in a fight is the best way to get hurt. especially when dealing with multiple attackers. when you run, they chase....most of the time. if they run faster, you'd better have a plan B. Paul B stated that he would try to avoid a situation like this. but if you were in a situation that you knew demanded that you act.......being preparatory or proactive is the best thing.

shawn

 

[Adept]

being reactive in a fight is the best way to get hurt.

Not true. Not having control of a fight is a good way to get hurt. Being in control, and being reactive are not mutually exclusive.

2nd point,bruce lee style techniques will land you in the hospital

This also made me raise an eyebrow. Have you made much of a study of JKD?

 

[Paul B]

being reactive in a fight is the best way to get hurt. especially when dealing with multiple attackers

Agreed,absolutely. I do not however,attack a group of people out of the blue,whether words were exchanged or not. There has to be a very good reason to put oneself in that position. This example is not one of them.

being preparatory or proactive is the best thing.

I am reactive to the situation,and what the situation calls for,if that situation calls for me to be "proactive" by attacking the attackers,then so be it.:asian: I prefer for that to be the last option available,though,or even the only option,for that matter.

 

[AC_Pilot]

Has anyone here seen Paul Vunak's "mass attack" videos?


Paul explains the pros and cons of multiple opponents and gives some excellent concepts and techniques. One main point is if you concentrate on one opponent and take him out of commission, then you can move to the next guy. Trying to fight them all at once you will get swarmed. Get Vunak's first mass attack video at a minimum!

 

[BlackCatBonz]

1. Not true. Not having control of a fight is a good way to get hurt. Being in control, and being reactive are not mutually exclusive.


2. This also made me raise an eyebrow. Have you made much of a study of JKD?

1. this is true.....i was a bouncer in a club for 5 years.....4 of those as head doorman. this isnt just an off the cuff remark....it's reality. in a situation with multiple opponents the only way to get the advantage is by being proactive... not reactionary. i have been in many multiple opponent situations...i would say more than one on one. you only make the mistake of being reactionary once. most times people think being reactionary and letting the situation unfold as it will is probably a better thing to do, so that they can deal with it as a problem arises. that is inexperience talking.
does a cowboy let cows run wild when he is trying to wrangle them and hope that they go where he wants them to? absolutely not.......he blends with them in a proactive way to push them where he wants them to go.
"aww heck," you say "humans are smarter than cows."
sure they are......but humans are still animals with a herd mentality, and they group together, swarm....whatever.
in short, you have to be in charge......first.

2. whether i have made much of a study of jeet kune do or not.......fighting principles are universal....what goes in must go out.....what goes up must go down. you can get into a philosphical argument or a technical argument, but the facts remain the same. yes there is a big difference from the way he fought in the movies compared to his actual method, but i think the multiple opponent fighting moves people are most familiar with are the ones seen in his movies.

shawn

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Has anyone here seen Paul Vunak's "mass attack" videos?


Paul explains the pros and cons of multiple opponents and gives some excellent concepts and techniques. One main point is if you concentrate on one opponent and take him out of commission, then you can move to the next guy. Trying to fight them all at once you will get swarmed. Get Vunak's first mass attack video at a minimum!

so when you are trying to take the first guy out......the rest are just standing there with their arms at their sides waiting for their turn?


shawn

 

[MJS]

so when you are trying to take the first guy out......the rest are just standing there with their arms at their sides waiting for their turn?


shawn

I may be wrong, as I have not seen the tape in question, but I believe the idea might be to position yourself so as to only deal with one at a time. Granted, the others will not be standing around, but again, I think the idea is to deal with one at a time.

Mike

 

[Adept]

1. this is true.....i was a bouncer in a club for 5 years.....4 of those as head doorman. this isnt just an off the cuff remark....it's reality. in a situation with multiple opponents the only way to get the advantage is by being proactive... not reactionary. i have been in many multiple opponent situations...i would say more than one on one. you only make the mistake of being reactionary once. most times people think being reactionary and letting the situation unfold as it will is probably a better thing to do, so that they can deal with it as a problem arises. that is inexperience talking.
does a cowboy let cows run wild when he is trying to wrangle them and hope that they go where he wants them to? absolutely not.......he blends with them in a proactive way to push them where he wants them to go.
"aww heck," you say "humans are smarter than cows."
sure they are......but humans are still animals with a herd mentality, and they group together, swarm....whatever.
in short, you have to be in charge......first.

Way to miss my point, cowboy.

As I said, not being in control is a good way to get hurt. Being pro-active does not equal control of the situaiton. As you say, to be in charge first. Being in charge does not mean taking the first swing.

 

[Bod]

I think there is a difference between proactive and preemptive.

At one extreme you have running up to every group of people you see, swinging wildly to make sure you get the first shot in.

At the other extreme you stand in the middle of an army trying to parry shots coming at you from all directions.

Once a multiple attackers situation has begun you have to get proactive. That is different to preemptive - we can discuss the rights and wrongs of that another time. Defensive moves go out the window. Big punches executed with big footwork are the order of the day. Same goes for kicks and throws.

If they stay put hit them. If they see it coming and move, herd them.

Stay on the outside.

I prefer the approach of looking as if you are going to engage one while moving of and quickly striking another. I've only ever pulled that off once, and the chap moved, I got to the outside and ran.

I saw a program on Jackie Chan, how he choreographs his multiple attacker situations, where four people are throwing shots at him simultaneously (as against your typical Bruce Lee where they come in one at a time and stand around comically waiting their turn in between times). Even though he knows all his attackers moves in advance, they still have to call out a distinctive kiai as they throw their shot, so that he can get the timing right. And sometimes he still gets hit.

If you can get hit being reactive to four stunt-goons who are cueing you everytime they do a choreographed move, what does that say about being reactive in a multiple attacker situation?

 

[AC_Pilot]

The concept presented by Vunak is to position yourself to face and take out one attacker only at first (or you may simply find yourself in a situation where they cannot all come at you at once) Vunak presents the concept of taking out the closest attacker with something like a pre-emptive head butt and straight blast. If someone's in my face I'm taking them out of commission immediately if I can. If they attack first instead of "bracing" or posturing in-your-face I have heavily trained in an explosive low body shot-front kick which WILL take a man out of commission. As long as I have about 4 to 5 ft distance that is. At that point, whatever is done to take the first guy out, you have to flow and take out the next guy with whatever works. You must keep the pressure on.

The ancient battle of Stirling bridge is a perfect example, using hand to hand warfare as a lesson:
The Scottish clansmen (about 5,000) including leaders Sir William Wallace and Sir Andrew Murray were on the North end of a 2 mile long bridge over the Forth river, hiding in the forest very close by.. the invading English were at the South end, with approximately 50,000 to 100,000 men. The Scots waited until the right moment, when the English were just beginning to issue out of the North end, the Scots quickly surprise attacked and cut them off. The Scots, through superior fighting skills, size and strength per man compared to the English (attributes) and the fact that only one or two men on each side could fight at the clash point, prevailed utterly that day and slaughtered at least 20,000 English and maybe a lot more . It was a total rout, the English never could bring their longbows into play, and the English were chased all the way South to York. My clan, MacGregor, was there on the bridge with Wallace, hence my interest and knowledge.

If the Scots had sat there and let 5,000 or more English get out onto the North plain, they would have been swarmed. They pre-empted, just about the only way to survive a mass attack.

Bruce did not believe in confining combat into rigid "rules". He believed in what worked, and he would definitely , as a "chess player" martial artist, want to game out a way to defeat any type of attack. I believe Vunak has caught the essense of this in the "mass attack" tape, but just like anything else, whether you can pull it off in the real world depends on YOU and the exact scenario you find yourself in and how many are attackiing you. I think all other things equal, facing two attackers would not be even close to facing 3 or 4.

Having said all that If I'm mass attacked it's probably time to use my concealed pistol, since great bodily harm may ensue if I go the unarmed route. Anything can happen no matter how great a fighter you are. If I don't have time and some creeps at the bar or elsewhere SURPRISE me, and I don't have time to draw first then I'll put these concepts into play without telegraphing. The crucial key is to get the first blows in, with great pressure/momentum, keeping one guy between the others and you if possible, as a shield. Dumog can be helpful for this.
Another analogy of an ideal mass attack result: If you've ever seen a male African lion attacking a hyena pack you'll get the picture.. the first hyena dies under that explosive attack, and the others run. This is the ideal scenario but a lion does not have to kill just one if a second hyena gets brave

Vunak does recommend immediate retreat after the encounter. That's just common sense, they could recover and continue the attack or reinforcements could arrive.
Putting on my SCA helmet now, for the incoming tomatoes

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Way to miss my point, cowboy.

As I said, not being in control is a good way to get hurt. Being pro-active does not equal control of the situaiton. As you say, to be in charge first. Being in charge does not mean taking the first swing.

i dont believe i said anything about taking a swing.....where did you read that?

shawn

 

[BlackCatBonz]

I think there is a difference between proactive and preemptive.

At one extreme you have running up to every group of people you see, swinging wildly to make sure you get the first shot in.

At the other extreme you stand in the middle of an army trying to parry shots coming at you from all directions.

Once a multiple attackers situation has begun you have to get proactive. That is different to preemptive - we can discuss the rights and wrongs of that another time. Defensive moves go out the window. Big punches executed with big footwork are the order of the day. Same goes for kicks and throws.

If they stay put hit them. If they see it coming and move, herd them.

Stay on the outside.

I prefer the approach of looking as if you are going to engage one while moving of and quickly striking another. I've only ever pulled that off once, and the chap moved, I got to the outside and ran.

I saw a program on Jackie Chan, how he choreographs his multiple attacker situations, where four people are throwing shots at him simultaneously (as against your typical Bruce Lee where they come in one at a time and stand around comically waiting their turn in between times). Even though he knows all his attackers moves in advance, they still have to call out a distinctive kiai as they throw their shot, so that he can get the timing right. And sometimes he still gets hit.

If you can get hit being reactive to four stunt-goons who are cueing you everytime they do a choreographed move, what does that say about being reactive in a multiple attacker situation?

bravo! bravo!

shawn

 

[sgtmac_46]

this is a media clip of a four on one fight, the skater, demonstrates a way to handle multiple opponents. let's dissect the fight, what did he do right? (i've got a list ready), what did he do wrong? (other than get into a 4-1 fight). put yourself in his position, what would you have done differently? regards

http://content.collegehumor.com/media/movies/skaterfight.wmv

What he did right was to act in an aggressive and decisive manner. He created a situation where he didn't allow his four opponents the comfort of group annonymity. When a group attacks, each of the members is allowed to feel safe within the group. He took that away by attacking each member of the group, thereby reducing the feeling of safety in numbers. Each member of this group felt as if they could be injured by this guy. That's what's required when dealing with a group, make the individuals start thinking as individuals again. The second thing he did was to not turn his back on any of the opponents. One of the other reasons people in a group feel safe hitting you, is that they don't think you'll know it was them. If you watch at one point "Mike" has a guy on the ground. He sees another coming from his right rear, and immediately turns to face him. This causes the guy to visibly lose his commitment to attack, as Mike's now facing him. He kept the pace up, and he attacked with more violence than his opponents were prepared to deal with.
What did he do wrong? Well, I mean, the guy may not be a super-fighter but he held his own and he made up for it in enthusiasm. I can't say he did anything in particular wrong other than fighting four guys and letting his ego lead the way.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We don't really know if that is true, since we only see the beginning of the fight, and the only advantage he had was luck. Had the other guys been serious about wanting to hurt him, he would have been hurt. As it was, he may have ended up in hospital anyway. It didnt look like he put anyone down for the count, and once they got off the pavement you can bet they werent going to stand around and watch him any more.

I've seen this happen before. Groups attack when they feel safe in their group status. Taking that away makes people back off. You'll find this is truer than you think. I've studied this phenomenon. Usually only a couple members of a group this size want to fight. The rest simply want to watch, and will join in only if it's safe. If they are attacked aggressively they will do what these guys did. It takes a lot of group cohesion to get a group to act as a unit, it has to be trained in some way. I watched a 40 year old guy at a local river take on 6 kids. Actually, he knocked out one kid right of the bat after the kid pushed him in the water. When the other 5 watched the old guy knocked the first kid out with one punch, nobody wanted to be next. They had their "Boys" back until this guy reacted with tremendous violence and power. The group was awed. I believe that is the rule more than the exception. I believe the reality is actually counter-intuitive to what we would naturally believe. When dealing with a group you have to be decisive and cause tremendous damage immediately. The fact is, a group is awed by anyone crazy enough to take them on single handed. People don't like to fight crazy people. We see this throughout history. The single greatest example is the battle of Thermopylae in 480BC where 300 Greeks held off 20,000+ Persians. Fighting a larger group with a smaller force can be done, but Speed Surprise and Violence of Action is essential.

 

[AC_Pilot]

SGT, this is what Vunak promotes in his "mass attack" vid, and the reasoning is solid.. demoralize them by taking out their "champion". I seem to remember a lad named David who did this long ago..