One vs. Infinity - How does your style address this?

[Fu_Bag]

Hi All,

Just thought it'd be interesting to see if there are any similarities among styles with regards to the "One vs. Infinity" idea. There's a lot of buzz right now about "aliveness", "larping", "reality" and so on so I thought I'd see if there was any common ground for people to meet on instead of the obvious alternative. Personally, if I knew I'd be going up against a very large, yet unknown, quantity of people who wanted to kill me, I'd want to be trained in using the least amount of energy possible for the maximum effect, among other things. What are your takes on this?

Respects,

Fu Bag

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Pretty much the same here. I used to have an instructor that drilled that into our heads. He also stressed taking the offensive in a multi-attacker situation. "You can only defend against one man, but you can attack as many as you'd like." was damn near his catch phrase.

Jeff

 

[Fu_Bag]

.......... "You can only defend against one man, but you can attack as many as you'd like."

Jeff,

That's awesome!! LOL That's a great take on that. I was just reading through the "Secrets of the Samurai" book and a similar type of thinking is stressed repeatedly in the descriptions of the sword techniques. Strategy like that is very important. It's definitely about being committed to surviving and escaping alive. Thanks for the reply.

Fu Bag

 

[Fu_Bag]

Oh yeah, not sure how many people will find this interesting but it certainly falls under the "reality based training" heading.... I think I remember reading something online about the proper way to use dead, or dying, bad guys to your advantage whilst on the battlefield. Is this common military training? How real is that?!!! Bet you don't see that on Pay Per View fights very often!!

Fu Bag

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Eh, they can be used as cover in a pinch. Not very good at stopping AP rounds though.

Jeff

 

[Rich Parsons]

Hi All,

Just thought it'd be interesting to see if there are any similarities among styles with regards to the "One vs. Infinity" idea. There's a lot of buzz right now about "aliveness", "larping", "reality" and so on so I thought I'd see if there was any common ground for people to meet on instead of the obvious alternative. Personally, if I knew I'd be going up against a very large, yet unknown, quantity of people who wanted to kill me, I'd want to be trained in using the least amount of energy possible for the maximum effect, among other things. What are your takes on this?

Respects,

Fu Bag

If one on one then you know where to apply your techniques.

If two on one then you put one between you and the other.

If three on one then you take one and control them to be thrown into another one to slow two down, while you then go for the third.

Or then you take one and permanently damage him/her as fast as possible. Break a knee, jab an eye, and keep moving on towards to others,

in either case you always have a plan for getting into a place to escape.

If four on one, then things change. Most do not train for these tactics and they will get in each others ways, and you will most likely not have to deal with the rest until one ties you up or takes you to the ground.

I am of the mind set that at this point, taking someone and placing their head into an interferrence fit with a wall, and or stepping on a knee and not caring about the results, stepping on a foot to plant and then kncok the guy over into the one behind him, but cause as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. This makes the rest think twice about engaging you.

As to guns, there are techniques but, I prefer just to hand them my wallet or open the cash register and let them leave as fast as possible.

 

[Blindside]

Personally, if I knew I'd be going up against a very large, yet unknown, quantity of people who wanted to kill me, I'd want to be trained in using the least amount of energy possible for the maximum effect, among other things. What are your takes on this?

Yes, I agree, it is called a trigger finger, combined with a defensible position.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Unfortunately, there are many places here in the good old land of the "free" that'll charge you with a felony if you are prepared to use that method.

Luckily, I'm not in one of them.

Jeff

 

[jks9199]

Sufficient numbers can always overwhelm a single person. Two people, practiced and working in coordination, can typically contain and control one person without a problem, no matter how many fancy tricks the guy tries to use. If the larger group is not coordinated, they'll typically end up working at cross purposes -- but even that ends up being less helpful once you get above 4 or 5 people. With coordinated efforts, 4 people are enough to contain and control almost anyone.

If you're on the bad side of the numbers equation, and you must fight -- you need to do something to even the odds. Maybe that's grabbing a weapon, up to and including guns, or maybe that's finding a good way out, and running like hell.

 

[Rook]

The big things for fighting multiples is going to be the ability to take a hit, strong endurance to keep going, and good balance/takedown defense to stay on your feet and prevent being stomped.

Why these three things uber alles?

Well, getting struck is inevitable in a multiple situation... you may be able to overwhelm one opponent with strikes or evade the strikes of two people or so, but beyond that, you will have to accept the reality that you are about to get hit alot. Whether or not those hits have impact is another matter which is contingent on the quality of your opponents and your ability to take hits.

Why endurance? You may be able to take out one attacker without breaking a sweat (although with adrenelin and such factored in, it is alot rarer that might be suspected). With multiple attackers, you have to stick and move... strike and evade someone else. It probably won't be over in a short burst unless you get taken down and stomped. Otherwise, you have to keep moving and keep hiting. Only about 5 people can try to hit you at once... if there are more than that, you are in real trouble since some will be coming at you fresh when others are dispensed with.

Good takedown defense/ balance is often overlooked. However, the worst place to be against multiples is underfoot... if you fall, you may never get up with all the feet coming down on top of you. It is critical that you don't go down if you can help it. With lots of people, even if they are trained or semi-trained for a standup fight, they will jostle into you if 3 or more just by hustling for space... if they try to push you or worse try to have someone take you down it is worse still. You will need the skills to stay standing.

Now, for sake of arguement, I have assumed that escape is not immediately possible. If an avenue for escape opens up, you should take it and run for it. If you don't have to fight, don't.

 

[tradrockrat]

Sufficient numbers can always overwhelm a single person. Two people, practiced and working in coordination, can typically contain and control one person without a problem, no matter how many fancy tricks the guy tries to use. If the larger group is not coordinated, they'll typically end up working at cross purposes -- but even that ends up being less helpful once you get above 4 or 5 people. With coordinated efforts, 4 people are enough to contain and control almost anyone.

If you're on the bad side of the numbers equation, and you must fight -- you need to do something to even the odds. Maybe that's grabbing a weapon, up to and including guns, or maybe that's finding a good way out, and running like hell.

OK- bear with me here because I actually agree with you, but... (isn't there always a but?)

There was a period of time in the mid 90's when I trained REALLY hard on one on many or two on many fights. There was one guy I trained with (a japanese jiu jitsu guy) who could literally throw three guys around like rag dolls almost at whim. He was incredible. However, he was also 6' 4" and built like a grizzly bear. The only way to get him was to rush him all at once and hang on for dear life to a limb or appendage to slow him down (real fancy, huh?)

Overall, we found that eventually a coordinated atack left one with little option other than getting an *** woopin' if you weren't smart enough to fight a retreating battle and look for an escape ASAP.

Typically, even begining students could take us down if we didn't use them against each other. In a matter of hours they were sophisticated enough to get us down consistently.

Oh yeah - if anyone EVER tells you that you can fight off multiple attackers from the ground... yeah, right...
:bs:

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Oh yeah - if anyone EVER tells you that you can fight off multiple attackers from the ground... yeah, right

Can't argue with that.

Jeff

 

[jks9199]

OK- bear with me here because I actually agree with you, but... (isn't there always a but?)

There was a period of time in the mid 90's when I trained REALLY hard on one on many or two on many fights. There was one guy I trained with (a japanese jiu jitsu guy) who could literally throw three guys around like rag dolls almost at whim. He was incredible. However, he was also 6' 4" and built like a grizzly bear. The only way to get him was to rush him all at once and hang on for dear life to a limb or appendage to slow him down (real fancy, huh?)

Ever seen a "pig pile?" That's exactly what's going on; if cops get someone who's so much trouble that one or two guys can't control him -- then we just bury him under enough bodies that he can't do anything, and work to get him cuffed. Jail extraction teams have this down to a science; they don't have room for 10 guys, and seldom need more than 5.

More skill definitely means you have a better chance to handle several people -- but numbers will win out eventually.