Martial Arts vs Multiple Attackers

[K-man]

In the "Sport and TMA ... Again" thread Steve posed an interesting question ....

Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble? I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers. Agreed. But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble. The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.

I have trained in different places with different people proposing different solutions, most of which have been IMHO less than optimal. Possibly the best I have seen is the Systema defence which I have included in my general training.

Perhaps you might like to share the approach you take in accommodating multiple attackers and does your style actually teach you how to fight multiple attackers as part of the syllabus?
:asian:

 

[lklawson]

The best strategies for dealing with multiples, in order from least to best:

• Take the initiative (attack first)
• Bring equal or greater number of friends (why is it only the bad guys that are allowed to have "multiples?")
• Superior weapons
• run-fu

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MJS]

In the "Sport and TMA ... Again" thread Steve posed an interesting question ....



I have trained in different places with different people proposing different solutions, most of which have been IMHO less than optimal. Possibly the best I have seen is the Systema defence which I have included in my general training.

Perhaps you might like to share the approach you take in accommodating multiple attackers and does your style actually teach you how to fight multiple attackers as part of the syllabus?
:asian:

Nice topic! In Kenpo, we had a few multi man attacks, ie: shoulder grabs, punches from the front and rear, being held from the rear while being punched. Practical? Well, that's up for debate..lol. Hey, I'm being honest. But that was usually the extent of it...just the preset techs. However, training on my own, and with others....I like the idea of trying to stack the opponents so you use one as a shield against the others. I also liked the idea of the use of the shield, but while you're holding one of the attackers, preferably in a painful hold, choke of sorts.

IMO, it's really hard to know exactly what'll happen. I'd say the environment you're in will also play a big part. ie: parking garage or crowded nightclub. Personally, given the fact that the odds are stacked against you from the start, I'm all for doing whatever you have to do, to survive. If it means picking up an improvised weapon, ie: pool stick, a bottle, or a chair, and using it, then go for it.

edit---as Kirk mentioned...run-fu!!! In a situation like this, hanging around, prolonging the fight is just stupid. As soon as an opening to escape presents itself, I'm getting the hell out of there.

 

[ballen0351]

It does teach it but I'm not satisfied with it. I've yet to come up with something better. I have been in a 3 vs 1 "fight" i was trying to arrest one and his two cousins started attacking me. I won but only because I was just much larger and stronger then the three they were drunk and basically had no skill and were not armed. Had any of them had a knife I'd have been stabbed a lot.
Part of the issue I had was it was a surprise attack by the two cousins I was already engaged with the one guy and the other two attacked from behind.
I could have turned out much worse for me but I got lucky.

 

[skribs]

In TKD, one of the reasons stated for chambering the punch the way we do is that your elbow goes back, which allows you to strike a target behind you with that arm. I also know that as you get more advanced, they emphasize sparring 2-on-1 or greater for testing, to show that you can handle being outnumbered.

Hapkido (and from what I've seen, Aikido) focus on grappling techniques that force your attacker down but keep you standing. I feel this would be an ideal situation: in 1-on-1, you can still get a compliance hold or break, and against multiple attackers you can set someone down and still be standing.

From what I've seen, many self-defense focused arts (Krav, Kajukenbo, KFM, etc.) will have you work on dealing with multiple attackers. How well they do that is probably up to the school.

Onto weapons, I competed in an IDPA tournament once, and if I was dealing with multiple attackers I'd definitely be happy to have my M&P handy.

 

[Mark Lynn]

In TKD, one of the reasons stated for chambering the punch the way we do is that your elbow goes back, which allows you to strike a target behind you with that arm. I also know that as you get more advanced, they emphasize sparring 2-on-1 or greater for testing, to show that you can handle being outnumbered.
I know the rear elbow application for the chambering hand is talked a lot about in TKD and Karate but I believe that application or explanation for the chambering hand is pretty misguided, not impossible but unlikely. It just doesn't make sense to use that explanation when the chambering hand is being pulled back as you are stepping forward in your kata punching or blocking. In Heian Sandan at the end of the kata there is a sequence where the reverse elbow and a hooking punch are used together at the same time and the application is shown to be a defense against a rear bear hug. I have seen some other katas where the rear elbow is being shown, Ju I No being one but...... out of all of the kata that I know of in the ITF forms that I teach, a sequence where that rear elbow would apply maybe appears in two and it is debate able if they would truly work in the sequence shown. In fact I believe the techniques are actually dealing with a person in front of you instead of behind you which is why I say it is debate able.

The chambering hand works better as a method of grabbing, checking, controlling and or pulling a person then being used as a rear elbow to a person in the back of you.

As to sparring 2 vs 1 or more we do that in class and testing but it has more to deal with adding stress to the student of having multiple people going after them, then really teaching how to handle "strategically" multiple attackers.

Hapkido (and from what I've seen, Aikido) focus on grappling techniques that force your attacker down but keep you standing. I feel this would be an ideal situation: in 1-on-1, you can still get a compliance hold or break, and against multiple attackers you can set someone down and still be standing.
I agree and this is kind of where I stand on teaching grappling, throwing take downs etc. etc. For my school and my curriculum I stress getting the person to the ground and get away. Or if possible shove the person into someone else, or a wall, chair, desk, bar, etc. etc. I don't want to control him or make him submit per say if I can hit them (stun or cause them pain) off balance or throw them and then take off. I find getting away easiest if I'm not on the floor.

From what I've seen, many self-defense focused arts (Krav, Kajukenbo, KFM, etc.) will have you work on dealing with multiple attackers. How well they do that is probably up to the school.

Onto weapons, I competed in an IDPA tournament once, and if I was dealing with multiple attackers I'd definitely be happy to have my M&P handy.

One of the better sparring type drills I've seen and used has been the Mob Attacks drill that I got from Iain Abernethy.

Break up the class into separate groups of say four students. Tell them they are #1, 2, 3, 4, and move onto the next group and number them 1-4 and so on. Then tell them to start with everyone attacks person #1 in the group and after they get going call out a different number and everyone attacks that person and so on. Make the drill quick with rapid changes of numbers so that everyone keeps shifting and attacking each other. The point of the drill is to help the student adapt and handle a situation where they are in a crowd and something touches off and panic ensues and the mob takes over, chaos reigns and you need to cover and get through. Not only is the drill a lot of fun but it is different then normal multiple sparring where it is 2-3 against one and the person has to evade them around the mat and fight them off. In Mob Attacks your fighting a person and suddenly everyone is against you, then you are fighting with the group against someone new and then they are back to attacking you etc. etc.

Oh well time for my Modern Arnis class

 

[skribs]

I know the rear elbow application for the chambering hand is talked a lot about in TKD and Karate but I believe that application or explanation for the chambering hand is pretty misguided, not impossible but unlikely. It just doesn't make sense to use that explanation when the chambering hand is being pulled back as you are stepping forward in your kata punching or blocking. In Heian Sandan at the end of the kata there is a sequence where the reverse elbow and a hooking punch are used together at the same time and the application is shown to be a defense against a rear bear hug. I have seen some other katas where the rear elbow is being shown, Ju I No being one but...... out of all of the kata that I know of in the ITF forms that I teach, a sequence where that rear elbow would apply maybe appears in two and it is debate able if they would truly work in the sequence shown. In fact I believe the techniques are actually dealing with a person in front of you instead of behind you which is why I say it is debate able.

While this is true in katas, our basic punching exercises and our self defense one-sparring drills often involve horse stance. I agree it's a weak argument, but it is an argument

I agree and this is kind of where I stand on teaching grappling, throwing take downs etc. etc. For my school and my curriculum I stress getting the person to the ground and get away. Or if possible shove the person into someone else, or a wall, chair, desk, bar, etc. etc. I don't want to control him or make him submit per say if I can hit them (stun or cause them pain) off balance or throw them and then take off. I find getting away easiest if I'm not on the floor.

Playing devil's advocate, an art that specializes on the ground (i.e. Jiu-Jitsu) would have a better chance if taken to the ground than an art where you try to stay standing, because you've practiced for that scenario. There's always a pro and a con.

I like that gang-up drill.

 

[K-man]

In the early days, 30 odd years ago, we were taking on three or four opponents but what I wasn't aware of then was that everyone was attacking as we trained, that is like sport karateka. So we got used to having guys all round us but because they weren't actually grabbing in hindsight it wasn't all that realistic. Even now I don't believe I have seen anything in my karate or aikido that truly prepares you for multiple attackers. The other little gems that we were given in those days was "take out their biggest guy or the one giving the most lip" and "move to be outside the circle", "use one attacker as a shield", etc. Now there is some merit to those maxims but I don't believe overall they will necessarily allow you to get out of trouble. The other thing then was everyone was unarmed. Now my opinions have been changed radically over the years but before discussing my current beliefs, I would be interested to hear what training others are doing in this area.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

I know the rear elbow application for the chambering hand is talked a lot about in TKD and Karate but I believe that application or explanation for the chambering hand is pretty misguided, not impossible but unlikely. It just doesn't make sense to use that explanation when the chambering hand is being pulled back as you are stepping forward in your kata punching or blocking. In Heian Sandan at the end of the kata there is a sequence where the reverse elbow and a hooking punch are used together at the same time and the application is shown to be a defense against a rear bear hug. I have seen some other katas where the rear elbow is being shown, Ju I No being one but...... out of all of the kata that I know of in the ITF forms that I teach, a sequence where that rear elbow would apply maybe appears in two and it is debate able if they would truly work in the sequence shown. In fact I believe the techniques are actually dealing with a person in front of you instead of behind you which is why I say it is debate able.

The chambering hand works better as a method of grabbing, checking, controlling and or pulling a person then being used as a rear elbow to a person in the back of you.

There are numerous applications where the rear elbow strike is employed in Goju kata. As you point out, the explanation given for the chambering hand is usually pretty basic because most karate is practised at sparring distance which is the sport influence. Okinawan karate is practised at grappling range and the application of the chambering hand is readily apparent at that range. Certainly, in the main your opponent is in front but the kata include turns which put you behind your opponent or back to your attacker in certain applications. But if you are punching an opponent in front of you with your front hand I would say with absolute certainty the carriage arm elbow is not striking behind. However, if for example, you had hold of your opponent's right wrist with your right hand and you were pushing it out in front of you and turning to your right, now your left elbow is perfectly located to drive into the floating rib area.

While this is true in katas, our basic punching exercises and our self defense one-sparring drills often involve horse stance. I agree it's a weak argument, but it is an argument

I see 'horse stance' as a grappling stance normally used in a throw or takedown.

Playing devil's advocate, an art that specializes on the ground (i.e. Jiu-Jitsu) would have a better chance if taken to the ground than an art where you try to stay standing, because you've practiced for that scenario. There's always a pro and a con.

I would take the opposite tack here. Intentionally going to the ground to grapple against multiple opponents isn't going to have a pretty outcome. Fighting from the ground as practised in say Systema is a different thing altogether.

I like that gang-up drill.

:asian:

 

[billc]

Your best chance of complete victory...carry a gun. After that, a knife or club are the next best ways to deal with multiple attackers. If you don't have a weapon, don't hold back, eyes, throat or knees are your best bet to get the other guys attention. Just saying...

 

[skribs]

I would take the opposite tack here. Intentionally going to the ground to grapple against multiple opponents isn't going to have a pretty outcome. Fighting from the ground as practised in say Systema is a different thing altogether.

I agree. I was saying if you are attacked by multiple attackers and if someone gets you on the ground, then the training style with more experience on the ground is more likely to be comfortable while on the ground, until you can get back up. In other words, compared with someone who focuses on standup, you're choking one guy out while getting the snot kicked out of you instead of getting choked out while getting the snot kicked out of you.

I don't know much about Systema, to be honest.

 

[RTKDCMB]

There are several approaches to handling multiple attackers, 2 on one and 3 on one sparring is common, 2 on one sparring is usually part of the black belt test such as shown in the video below:

One of the main objectives is to use one attacker as a barrier to the others to make it easier and to stay mobile. There are 2 person grabs and we are always mindful of a possible second attacker when learning the defence against holds from a single person, how to determine who the biggest threat is and eliminate them first and the selection of vulnerable targets and use of effective and efficient (better to only have to hit someone once to take them out than to have to hit them 20 times) techniques.

 

[RTKDCMB]

In other words, compared with someone who focuses on standup, you're choking one guy out while getting the snot kicked out of you instead of getting choked out while getting the snot kicked out of you.

Both cases will decrease the amount of snot you will have at the end.

 

[TKDTony2179]

There are several approaches to handling multiple attackers, 2 on one and 3 on one sparring is common, 2 on one sparring is usually part of the black belt test such as shown in the video below:

One of the main objectives is to use one attacker as a barrier to the others to make it easier and to stay mobile. There are 2 person grabs and we are always mindful of a possible second attacker when learning the defence against holds from a single person, how to determine who the biggest threat is and eliminate them first and the selection of vulnerable targets and use of effective and efficient (better to only have to hit someone once to take them out than to have to hit them 20 times) techniques.

It look like a tournament point sparring that had little to do with a real fight.

 

[TKDTony2179]

The best strategies for dealing with multiples, in order from least to best:

• Take the initiative (attack first)
• Bring equal or greater number of friends (why is it only the bad guys that are allowed to have "multiples?")
• Superior weapons
• run-fu

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Only part I would disagree on is to attack first. It is 2 or more people so I will become a counter fighter. They give me a limb I will sweep, block, maintain distance, circle, and strike a vital area to help me win. If I attack first I am giving them the chance to take my weakness. No I only want to exploit their weakness. Counter fighter is the way to go.

 

[RTKDCMB]

It look like a tournament point sparring that had little to do with a real fight.

Looks can be deceiving, especially when you don't know what you are looking at.

 

[K-man]

I agree. I was saying if you are attacked by multiple attackers and if someone gets you on the ground, then the training style with more experience on the ground is more likely to be comfortable while on the ground, until you can get back up. In other words, compared with someone who focuses on standup, you're choking one guy out while getting the snot kicked out of you instead of getting choked out while getting the snot kicked out of you.

I don't know much about Systema, to be honest.

There is a huge difference between ground fighting and fighting from the ground. Systema trains you to feel comfortable on the ground. You can fight from the ground or regain your feet and keep fighting from standing. Ground fighting to me suggests I have gone to the ground with one of my attackers and even if I am choking him out I am going to get my brains kicked out by one of his mates. I would suggest attempting ground fighting against multiple attackers is the least preferred option.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

The best strategies for dealing with multiples, in order from least to best:

• Take the initiative (attack first)
• Bring equal or greater number of friends (why is it only the bad guys that are allowed to have "multiples?")
• Superior weapons
• run-fu

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Kirk's points make heaps of sense except that my friends are mostly old and out of shape which means that now I not only have to look after myself, I have to look after them too. Then we don't carry weapons here so there goes point no three and at 65 the honest truth is that most of my attackers are likely to be able to run faster and further than me. (Plus I might have my old and unfit mates with me. I know that in reality I only have to be able to run faster than them but I would probably feel bad visiting them in hospital later )

So that just leaves number one advice that I agree with totally.

Which brings me to .....

Only part I would disagree on is to attack first. It is 2 or more people so I will become a counter fighter. They give me a limb I will sweep, block, maintain distance, circle, and strike a vital area to help me win. If I attack first I am giving them the chance to take my weakness. No I only want to exploit their weakness. Counter fighter is the way to go.

I have to disagree with your tactic of waiting and counter punching. You might employ that tactic against one person but against multiples I would be taking the initiative. It is the principle taught in both Krav and Systema and I teach that to my guys when we train that scenario. Not suggesting for one minute it is wrong to wait, what works for you is all that matters.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

In the "Sport and TMA ... Again" thread Steve posed an interesting question ....

Does anyone dispute that ANY STYLE against multiple attackers is going to have trouble? I get that one doesn't want to be on the ground against multiple attackers. Agreed. But, I'd argue that your style (any style) against multiple attackers is going to have trouble. The amount of trouble depends largely on context: your experience/skill, their experience/skill, their intent (do they want to mug you or kill you?), and the environment.

I have trained in different places with different people proposing different solutions, most of which have been IMHO less than optimal. Possibly the best I have seen is the Systema defence which I have included in my general training.

Perhaps you might like to share the approach you take in accommodating multiple attackers and does your style actually teach you how to fight multiple attackers as part of the syllabus?
:asian:

Ah, we should get together again, my friend... I'd be interested in hearing Systema's approach, haven't come across any examples that show much of their group defence. We have it, though, as do a range of Koryu in different forms, but for us, we have both traditional and modern approaches.

The best strategies for dealing with multiples, in order from least to best:

• Take the initiative (attack first)
• Bring equal or greater number of friends (why is it only the bad guys that are allowed to have "multiples?")
• Superior weapons
• run-fu

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I agree with your list (I'd included putting obstacles between yourself and the group as well), but the order I feel can be rather subjective... additionally, I don't necessarily feel that they exist in isolation. For us, the first line of defence is awareness... if that fails, we move onto pre-emptive striking (with a specific criteria/hierarchy that we follow), with the overall aim of doing what we need to do to escape... knowing that we might have to turn back and re-engage if being pursued... but can spend that time looking for equalizers (actual or improvised weapons/obstacles) before following the same engage and escape strategy. The only one we don't really cover is bringing friends... the most common practice we have involving friends is protecting them. Not that it's not a good tactic, we just don't cover it in our approach, as unless they are all in the same class, it's not easy to drill such a thing for reality.

One of the better sparring type drills I've seen and used has been the Mob Attacks drill that I got from Iain Abernethy.

Break up the class into separate groups of say four students. Tell them they are #1, 2, 3, 4, and move onto the next group and number them 1-4 and so on. Then tell them to start with everyone attacks person #1 in the group and after they get going call out a different number and everyone attacks that person and so on. Make the drill quick with rapid changes of numbers so that everyone keeps shifting and attacking each other. The point of the drill is to help the student adapt and handle a situation where they are in a crowd and something touches off and panic ensues and the mob takes over, chaos reigns and you need to cover and get through. Not only is the drill a lot of fun but it is different then normal multiple sparring where it is 2-3 against one and the person has to evade them around the mat and fight them off. In Mob Attacks your fighting a person and suddenly everyone is against you, then you are fighting with the group against someone new and then they are back to attacking you etc. etc.

Oh well time for my Modern Arnis class

Hmm, honestly, I'm not fond of that one, and wouldn't use it myself except as a conditioning drill for chaos. The main reason is that our primary training aim is to instil a range of tactics and strategies, and that drill goes directly against what we believe is essential for surviving such an encounter (escape as your primary goal).

I agree. I was saying if you are attacked by multiple attackers and if someone gets you on the ground, then the training style with more experience on the ground is more likely to be comfortable while on the ground, until you can get back up. In other words, compared with someone who focuses on standup, you're choking one guy out while getting the snot kicked out of you instead of getting choked out while getting the snot kicked out of you.

I don't know much about Systema, to be honest.

No, I don't think I'd agree with that. If you are attacked by multiple opponents, and someone gets you on the ground, and you try to engage from there, rather than cover/protect yourself and get up, you're in real trouble. If you think, well, I'm good on the ground, I can handle myself from here, you're in trouble. Choking one opponent out while three others kick you in the head isn't a "win" to my mind... not attempting to choke anyone out, disengaging, getting back to your feet, that is closer.

There are several approaches to handling multiple attackers, 2 on one and 3 on one sparring is common, 2 on one sparring is usually part of the black belt test such as shown in the video below:

One of the main objectives is to use one attacker as a barrier to the others to make it easier and to stay mobile. There are 2 person grabs and we are always mindful of a possible second attacker when learning the defence against holds from a single person, how to determine who the biggest threat is and eliminate them first and the selection of vulnerable targets and use of effective and efficient (better to only have to hit someone once to take them out than to have to hit them 20 times) techniques.

It look like a tournament point sparring that had little to do with a real fight.

Looks can be deceiving, especially when you don't know what you are looking at.

Er... no. Sorry. I'm with Tony here. Nothing to do with a real fight, nor anything to do with realistic violence, tactics that could help, strategic action, or anything else. And I'm saying that with Rhee TaeKwonDo being part of my background (the same system in the clip), so I'm pretty aware of what I was looking at. Hell, I remember doing the same thing... and it's practical application is limited to say the least.

Only part I would disagree on is to attack first. It is 2 or more people so I will become a counter fighter. They give me a limb I will sweep, block, maintain distance, circle, and strike a vital area to help me win. If I attack first I am giving them the chance to take my weakness. No I only want to exploit their weakness. Counter fighter is the way to go.

And, sorry Tony, but here I'm going to disagree with you. If this is your strategic approach, you're going to be overwhelmed and smashed pretty badly. You can try it, but this tactic really only works in the movies, where the choreographer keeps the bad guys only attacking one at a time... counter-fighting is the way to go to the hospital.

 

[lklawson]

In TKD, one of the reasons stated for chambering the punch the way we do is that your elbow goes back, which allows you to strike a target behind you with that arm.

That doesn't make sense. Why on earth would you do that every time? Rear-elbows are for when there's a target to hit and is wasted energy and dramatic telegraphing of technique if there isn't.

It seems likely that there is another reason.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk