Multiple Attackers

[FearlessFreep]

I just past my belt test and have gotten the new curriculum. Since the subject of multiple attackers come up occasionally I thought I would share a bit. The next belt curriculum does involves techniques to counter multiple attackers (front-back, side-side, and off-angle) As part of this is tactics and strategy for addressing multiple attackers (how to move and how to position)

I don't knwow if it's part of traditional Hapkido, but our interpretation of it definitely deals with the multiple attacker scenario.

Anyway, just bringing it up since the question comes up here every now and then

 

[Kacey]

We have students spar multiple attackers at BB tests - 2 on 1 for II Dan, 3 on 1 for III Dan, and 4 on 1 for IV Dan... and having done all of them, I'll just say it's a lot more fun to be in the 2, 3 or 4 than the 1 - but the key (for me at least) is to avoid being caught in the middle and/or corners, and, whenever possible, get them in each others' way. We also do 2+ on 1 in step sparring every so often (not as a testing requirement) so that people can get a better understanding of techniques intended for multiple attackers.

 

[still learning]

Hello, In Real life...most times they will not come one at a time. They will rush you from all sides.

Best to find an escape and run for it.

If I had two or three of us? ...do you think we would be foolish to come at you one at a time? ...No way...we will hit you and rush you one time.

Don't let the movies fool you...most groups do not fight that way (sometimes maybe?)

If you attack one guy...we will be on your back before you finish the block or strike. Plus the group guys can rest as individuals...you will not be able to get a rest.

Just try have a couple guys rush you one time! See the results?

I don't mean to put your multiple attacks down. Just wanted you to know NOT all attacks by groups will be one on one. (Best to find an escape and run for it).

Just my thoughts on this, we do practice this too...but when everyone comes at once? ....that it...your done for! .......Aloha

 

[FearlessFreep]

Hello, In Real life...most times they will not come one at a time. They will rush you from all sides.

I'm just starting this out so I'm still pretty new at the tactics being taught, but they do not assume 'one at a time' attacks

Best to find an escape and run for it.

That's one of the tactics

 

[MJS]

I just past my belt test and have gotten the new curriculum. Since the subject of multiple attackers come up occasionally I thought I would share a bit. The next belt curriculum does involves techniques to counter multiple attackers (front-back, side-side, and off-angle) As part of this is tactics and strategy for addressing multiple attackers (how to move and how to position)

I don't knwow if it's part of traditional Hapkido, but our interpretation of it definitely deals with the multiple attacker scenario.

Anyway, just bringing it up since the question comes up here every now and then

Good topic!

Just last week, I was going thru some mult. attacker techs. with my instructor. He said to me, "Don't let anyone kid you. This isn't how it goes down for real." and I agree 100% with him. Like any technique, I like to look at them as a base, or something to give you an idea to build off of.

Mike

 

[FearlessFreep]

Like any technique, I like to look at them as a base, or something to give you an idea to build off of.

My instructor calls them "patterns", ideas of things but not really what will happen, not in multiple-attackers, but in general. We were working drills to get out of particular mechanics and just react. It was a lot of fun but pretty enlightening when your partner shoves you for real and sometimes you catch it and redirect it and counter...and sometimes you don't have you have to flow to something else you hand't thought of

 

[tellner]

There are martial arts systems which specifically address fighting more than one person. Most don't or do it very badly.

 

[14 Kempo]

As with what Kacey pointed out, get them in each others way.

My thoughts ...

The basics, stay out of the middle, keep all of them within your vision, throw them to the ground at the feet of the others as an obstacle. Understand that if you are attacked by multiple people, chances are you will lose, The best way to win, is to not be there. If running is an option, don't be proud. If running is not an option, let them know they were in a fight.

I see it as two schools of thought: one, take out the weakest person, hard and fast; and two, take out the tough guy, hard and fast. First, how do you determine who is the tough guy of a group, usually it is the one standing quietly in the background? He is the confident one. Mouthy individuals are usually that way because they need to prove thier manhood.

Anyway, what choice is best. That is up to the individual. I choose to go with the second choice, take out the tough guy. Endurance is going to be a huge factor in any fight, let alone in a multiple attacker scenario. I say take the tough guy out while you have the most energy, speed and strength. Taking out the tough guy of the group hard and fast, may cause the others to back off, knowing that it was thier tough buddy that you took out. On the other hand, if you take out the weak guy, the tough one may think he needs to stand up for his friend, now you're a bit more tired and a touch slower ... just a thought ... a multiple attack situation is nothing to mess around with, it is usually only in the movies that the single fighter wins.

 

[LawDog]

You should turn their strenght into their weakness. Their strength is a unified group approach. It will take to much time to take one out, his friends will get to you while you are trying to do this.
When attacked by a group your defense should be done with a short sudden attack, one that will divide by distancing them from each other, making their attack less unified. If you can keep them apart you might stand a chance. If they close and unify you will lose.
This division can be done prior to a physical confrontation with use of good verbal skills. You can even use your surroundings, much like a chess board. You can move so that physical objects can get between the individual members of the group, seperating them.
14 Kempo, I like your first option.

 

[Bigshadow]

Hello, In Real life...most times they will not come one at a time. They will rush you from all sides.

Someone nearly always get to you first. It is nearly impossible for multiple attackers to have such good timing as to arrive at the exact moment as all of their comrades. Then, if weapons are involved, the delay may eve be bigger as they don't want to die at their own comrades hands (unless of course they are suicidal).

I believe people misinterpret the one at a time demonstrations as mean that the participants actually believe people will attack one at a time. IMO the demonstration is an exageration of timing (for Demonstration purposes).

 

[kidswarrior]

As with what Kacey pointed out, get them in each others way.

Excellent way to buy time to do damage to one or two more while the rest are trying to get around their friends.

My thoughts ...

The basics, stay out of the middle, keep all of them within your vision, throw them to the ground at the feet of the others as an obstacle. Understand that if you are attacked by multiple people, chances are you will lose, The best way to win, is to not be there. If running is an option, don't be proud. If running is not an option, let them know they were in a fight.

Had an old grand master who always said, Losing is not an option (and he could back it up). I'm not in his league, but it's a good standard.

I see it as two schools of thought: one, take out the weakest person, hard and fast; and two, take out the tough guy, hard and fast. First, how do you determine who is the tough guy of a group, usually it is the one standing quietly in the background? He is the confident one. Mouthy individuals are usually that way because they need to prove thier manhood.

Anyway, what choice is best. That is up to the individual. I choose to go with the second choice, take out the tough guy. Endurance is going to be a huge factor in any fight, let alone in a multiple attacker scenario. I say take the tough guy out while you have the most energy, speed and strength. Taking out the tough guy of the group hard and fast, may cause the others to back off, knowing that it was thier tough buddy that you took out. On the other hand, if you take out the weak guy, the tough one may think he needs to stand up for his friend, now you're a bit more tired and a touch slower ... just a thought ... a multiple attack situation is nothing to mess around with, it is usually only in the movies that the single fighter wins.

Can only speak from my few experiences here. In a group like this, there is always a leader, maybe a secondary leader, and followers. If the true leader can be made to look weak (taken down) fast, the secondary 'leader' may hesitate, and when he's neutralized (by inaction or through my action) the followers will probably take off--no fun anymore. Much better odds now. :ultracool Like all bullies, they don't want an opponent, they want a victim. If I can prove to be a tough opponent instead of a victim--even give off vibes that they are going to have a real fight on thier hands, they may just go elsewhere.

 

[charyuop]

I thought that Hapkido, being a close relative of Aikido, would have more practice with multiple attackers, but I might be wrong.

Randori, fighting Vs multiple attackers, is something that in Aikido is often practiced...even tho I haven't yet coz I am still a beginner. The best number I think is 3 Vs 1, with more opponent becomes too easy to make them go in one another's way.

I have seen many videos of randori and I agree that they are far away from reality. Not because the techniques won't work, but because in my opinion they are practiced wrong. In 90% of the video you see the attacked person is always waiting for the attack to counter attack.
If you have the chance have a look at some of Seagul Sensei Randori. In my opinion he is the closest to reality as per attitude of the victim of multiple attackers. He never stays still in one position. He never wait for the attack to reach him, but he almost always enters inside of the attack to anticipate it. He never moves in a single direction, but it is a continuos 360º moving around the fight scene. Sometimes it seems that the attackers have even problems to decide where to actually punch coz he is never in the same position.

Now, it might still be far away from a real Multiple Attackers fight, above all if the attackers are well trained (I have always said that you have only 2 hands and 2 feet, you can't do miracles), but in my opinion that is the way to move if there is no way to run away.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

This is taken from an article by Darren Laur on the subject of fighting multiple opponents. I figure it nicely covers most of the topic.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighting Multiple Opponents:

Often I have heard many people state that fighting multiple opponents cannot be done. Although fighting more than one opponent is less desirable than fighting one, it is a fact that if you don’t believe you can win against multiple opponents, you can’t.

Understanding that the mind guides the body, when dealing with multiple assailants we must selectively change our mindset. When fighting multiples, people will normally adopt one of the following attitudes:

• I can’t win against these odds (loosing mindset)
• I may lose, but I’ll take as many as I can with me (this is still a loosing mindset)
• I am going to win this thing ( this is your goal)

Again, the first rule in fighting multiple opponents is; “IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CAN WIN AGAINST MULTIPLE OPPONENTS, YOU CAN’T”

Phil Messina, founder of Modern Warrior and who I have trained with, has shared the following story to illustrate the topic of multiple opponents:

“ A great warrior was once asked, what would you do id one day you ran across three warriors equal to you in all respects except one. The first was faster than you, The second was stronger than you. And the third was more durable than you. If you had to fight each of them, which would you choose first? Without hesitation the great warrior responded: I would simply fight all three at once. When asked why, he responded; I have practiced fighting against the WOLF PACK, but I doubt they have practiced fighting as the wolf Pack”


The point of the above noted illustration is, multiples rarely train to work together and most often work against each other:

• They get in each others way
• Have a tendency to neutralize each others attacks

In a multiple opponent situation do you have to physically defeat each and every attacker? NO you do not! You must PSYCHOLOGICALLY destroy the wolf pack. You must physically defeat the threat as it becomes available, some will retreat, some will scatter. Some don’t really want to be there and will look for an excuse to get out.

First step if fighting multiples, “AWARENESS”

• Positioning relative to each other (movement in conjunction, setting up)
• Attackers glancing at each other (silent communication, waiting for attack cue)
• Word(s) that don’t make sense ( to confuse, may be attack signal)
• Unusual body language (inconsistent with conversation, assailant may do something-remove hat, wipe hair back, drop something-usually attack cue)
• Secondary subject distraction (may attempt to divert attention to other assailant(s) in order to attack)

Second Step in fighting multiples “IDENTIFY GROUP MENTAILITY”

· Who is the strong link, this is your greatest threat. This person may be identifiable by virtue of position or leadership role
· Who is the weak link, this is your weakest/least threat. This person may be identified by distance or in a protected position
· Remember that the above two are dynamic, and we have the ability to effect change on these


GENERAL STRATEGY WHEN FIGHTING MULTIPLES:

• Psychological battle is as important as physical battle
• If possible identify the leader and take him out of the fight quickly and decisively. This will create a new leader, by destroying the old one- see if anyone else wants to assume the role
• If you can’t take out the leader right away, take away his leadership role by showing the rest of the group that he can not protect them. Make the strong link psychologically ineffective- keep him at bay will defeating others
• Create a weak link by injuring an attacker but leaving him standing so that he may be used against the group later on
• Create a psychologically devastating and overwhelming visible injury to those you attack to disempower the group
• The use of real or improvised weapons should be used
• The first few seconds are critical in establishing psychological control
• CONTINUED MOVEMENT is a must. If you remain stationary the pack will triangulate
• Don’t be predictable move and strike erratically and viciously to the vision, wind and limbs of opponents using gross motor skills. Strike the person you are not looking at

Use the principal of S.C.A.R. (Screening, Cracking, And Re-directing) to your advantage:

SCREENING:

Use your attackers against each other. Cause them to get in each other’s way. Cause them to provide protection for you by being obstacles to others effectively attacking you (shield yourself from blows and attacks from others)

CRACKING:

When tactically feasible, move between your attackers, striking as you do so. This tactic will allow you to move into a more desirable position for attack while forcing your opponents to adjust to you. Position is often more important than distance. You want to be as efficient and productive as possible while forcing your attackers into less desirable positions

RE-DIRECTING:

Use your attackers momentum and direction against them. You do not have to make devastating hits with each engagement. Instead, re-direct your attackers into less desirable and or damaging positions such as walls, tables, chairs, each other. Let inanimate objects cause damage to them or let them cause damage to each other

Remember that while using the principals of SCAR, you want to be causing physical and psychological damage at the same time.

Remember that fighting multiple opponents is chaotic, and that you want to cause the chaos without becoming part of it. It is my opinion, that a multiple opponent confrontation is a “DEADLY FORCE” encounter. Why, it has been my experience as an LEO that those that fall victim to these swarmings end up seriously injured, or dead.

I have trained to fight the WOLF PACK, but I doubt the Wolf PACK has trained to fight cohesively against me. This is a tactical advantage that I can use to make a less desirable situation more desirable, thus giving me the “WIN” mindset and attitude.

Strength and Honor

Darren Laur

 

[Adept]

In my capacity as a bouncer, I see multiple attacker situations fairly frequently.

As a rule, the pros far outweight the cons. Multiple attackers simply do not get in each others way as often as many people say. Most of the time, you end up clinched with one while the others wail on you with anything to hand.

The only 'real-world' advice I can give is to stay on your feet, stay at arms length and stay moving.

 

[Bigshadow]

Most of the time, you end up clinched with one while the others wail on you with anything to hand.

As with anything, there is a point at which recovery is extremely difficult.

For example knife defense techniques don't help a whole lot once the knife is already buried in one's chest. It is a little too late at that point.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

 

[still learning]

In my capacity as a bouncer, I see multiple attacker situations fairly frequently.

As a rule, the pros far outweight the cons. Multiple attackers simply do not get in each others way as often as many people say. Most of the time, you end up clinched with one while the others wail on you with anything to hand.

The only 'real-world' advice I can give is to stay on your feet, stay at arms length and stay moving.

Hello, Thank-you for sharing what you have experience! The real world is where the FACTS are.

Most of us do train for multiple attackers, and when you realize you ain't got a chance most times....(Rule one: Find an ecsape and run...Rule two find a escape and run...Rule three...run etc.)

Thank-you and Aloha

 

[jdinca]

Our system has a few two attacker techniques. The last 40 techiques before BB are all 2-6 attacker scenarios.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Most of us to do practice multiple attack situtions, sometimes the group may have a knife/club/'s. Usually attack one at a time in practice.

BUT when we say to the group "go for it"....YOU have NO chance at all in most cases (unless you escape ).

Be wise....find a way to escape and RUN for it. BUT you can always get lucky that the group is NOT wise enough to fight as a group

The aveage person will not last more than a minute or two,in the Adrenline/fear response mode (heart pounding,blooding rushing) muscles tensioning, trying to survive against multiple attackers. The group will outlast you in most cases. The group member/members will have the time to find weapons to use against you, while you are being attack by others trying to defend yourself, you can get lucky an find a weapon too.

BE smart here....do not let your training fool you in a sense that your multiple attack training is effective? ...remember you are not going FULL contact and at FULL SPEED, you are in a safe environment.

On the streets.....? ...the feelings will be different, all alone, with the bads guys there for REAL. ...........Aloha ( multiple choices answers)

 

[tradrockrat]

I'm confused.

Am I to understand that all training for multiple attackers is a choreographed set of one at a time attacks? This is strange to me. I don't believe it.

We trained multiple attackers by sparing in a variety of physical settings. I have had my butt handed to me many times in these scenarios, but there are several times I did just fine. The problem is that as you train them, your opponents get more and more used to working together. Eventually, all strategies and techniques used to negate the advantages of groups fail to work as they are practiced enough to anticipate them and counter them. We used to train on bleachers to simulate stairwells, train in hallways, corners (that one sucked - just take your beating), 2 on 1, 3 on 1, and 4 on 1 attacks, and they never, EVER came one at a time.

The real lesson I learned was that a well practiced group will kick your butt, but an inexperienced group can be dealt with (hopefully by getting away)

My favorite strategy was to charge one of them to make sure you had a moment of one on one and try to get behind them.

Personally, the only time I had a real life two on one (me being the one) I came out just fine. By real life I mean I had no knowledge of these two guys and they had no knowledge of me. It was on the street at night and they jumped me to presumably mug me. So yeah - the facts show that it is possible to win a two on one - but you better train your butt off in a realistic sparring setting.

I'm willing to bet that several arts and schools do just that.

 

[jdinca]

I'm confused.

Am I to understand that all training for multiple attackers is a choreographed set of one at a time attacks? This is strange to me. I don't believe it.

That would certainly be a mistake, imo. Multiple attacker scenarios should deal with simultaneous attacks, as well as the situation where it's one on one and the rest jump in, not to mention a myriad of other scenarios.