TKD & Multiple Attackers (In reference to a quote by Exile)

[foot2face]

Exile wrote this in another forum and it got me thinking.

My impression is that none of the traditional MAs, much less the martial sports derived from those arts, were intended to provide combat techniques specifically designed to handle multiple attackers. But that point may have become somewhat clouded by the use of choreographed demos showing these technique sets being used impressively against multiple (sometimes even armed multiple) attackers. A lot of people who should know better, I sometimes think, confuse the showmanship that various arts use to promote themselves with techniques that are effective against noncompliant attackers in real situations—techniques which are, typically, the heart of the forms/drills making up the core curriculum of the TMAs.

I studied KKW TKD and part of the teachings included lessons on using our skills against multiple attackers. When I promoted to BB I had to spar against 2 attackers at once. It was my understanding that the KKW required facing multiple opponents for Dan promotions. Do they still require this? Do other styles of TKD have similar requirements?

 

[FearlessFreep]

In my last Hapkido class we worked on both tactics and techniques for addressing multiple opponents, and they weren't for demo purposes. A lot had to do with identifying threats and positioning. However a lot of the techniques themselves are found in Taekwondo as well because of the ranging they provide.

 

[terryl965]

I believe alot of folks get the Kukkiwon and the WTF mixed up alot, KKW is still up against multiple atttacker and the WTF is just about sport TKD so they are not one and the same but alot of people put them in the same catagory.

 

[exile]

The question is always, are the SD techs specifically designed to enable you to face multiple attackers coming in at you, no-rules, and with the intent to leave you brain-dead, with every damaging attack the experienced street thug and bar brawler is going to use on you, and working in tandem, one to keep you busy, one to get round you from the back? Or are they specifically geared to a one-on-one street combat situation. And so far as the various testing protocols at the KKW are concerned, are you, in contrast, facing multiple opponents under sparring-type conventions, in effect working separately? It makes a big difference. I'm not saying that you cannot train the effective TMA techs against more than one attacker, but rather that the techs themselves, as evidenced in the forms, are devoted to self-defense methods against a single unconstrained attacker, where you are not having to deal with the possiblity of a tackle or choke hold from the rear while engaged at close quarters with an assailant in front of you. The techniques are geared, IOW, for one-on-one assault/defense situations. They can certainly be adapted, up to a point—but three assailants? That's a major stretch, I think. Even with two, I'd be very hesitant to use some of the continuations that I'd certainly favor if only one were involved. With two guys working as a team, you can't afford to let one of them out of your field of vision even very briefly, or occupy yourself with one of the attackers to the degree that the tech sets of the karate-based MAs encourage you to do.

If you look at the original context of the discussion, the issue was whether there were particular MAs which involved specific multiple-opponent techniques as components of their technical repertoire and basic syllabus. That was where the issue came up, in particular in connection with The Master's post here. In particular:

Arts that teach methods to divide, to stagger, to pace out attackers can give you the preparation needed.

I am unaware of any part of standard TKD (or other karate-based) curricula that incorporate the particular kinds of methods TM is referring to here. Hence my response...

 

[tellner]

I'm actually aware of a number of TMA that specifically and explicitly address fighting more than one opponent at a time. None of them is particularly common today.

 

[Last Fearner]

When I promoted to BB I had to spar against 2 attackers at once. It was my understanding that the KKW required facing multiple opponents for Dan promotions. Do they still require this? Do other styles of TKD have similar requirements?

[note to foot2face: my response is my opinion, and my opinion only, and designed to help you reach the answer that you seem to be seeking]

Yes, absolutely!! I am not specifically replying to the Kukkiwon testing requirements, and I don't personally believe in the concept of different "styles of TKD." Students and instructors have been interpreting, re-interpreting, and misinterpreting TKD for decades, but TKD is what it is, and it is the individual's experience, and perception of TKD that creates the illusion of different "styles."

Multiple attackers has always been an integral part of Taekwondo, and Korean Martial Art before the term Taekwondo was applied to it. Students of TKD should learn how to defend against multiple attackers, and most do, although some do it less often, and with less proficiency. For some schools, multiple attackers is barely addressed until Black Belt, but other schools do introduce it early on.

I have talked with many individuals over the years who trained in TKD for 1 to 5 years, and said, "Taekwondo does not teach defense against multiple attackers because I never saw it." Well, in most cases it was because they quit at red belt, or 1st Dan, and their instructor did not teach it to lower ranks. In other cases, the instructor did not teach it at all, either because they intentionally removed it for some reason of their own, or some instructor before them did and they never learned it.

Is Taekwondo technically designed to address multiple attackers successfully in real-life self defense? Absolutely! I learned it. I was tested on it (not just multiple sparring, but multiple attackers doing anything), I have used Taekwondo successfully against multiple attackers in real-life situations, and I have known others who have done the same. Since Taekwondo is not actually Karate based, but a culmination of techniques, including striking with the hands and feet, as they did in old Korea, as well as throwing and grappling, anything goes when it is all put together.

However, focusing just on the elements of striking (although one should not limit one's self to this in training or in real-life application), there is the fact that Taekwondo's many hand strikes, elbows, knees, and various kicks of all angles, trajectories and target levels are specifically designed to, and do work very well against multiple attackers. In training, the beginner student learns individual techniques. In fact, each technique is broken down into parts, which are learned individually, then put back together to make a proper block or strike. If it ended at that, there would be no connection to practical application.

Students do not typically jump from first-day beginners to experts at self defense, fighting off multiple attackers after only a few lessons of the basics movements of Taekwondo. They are brought gradually up the ladder of skill advancement step-by-step. Techniques are rehearsed and practiced in forms which strengthen the body, improves the endurance, develops the focus and balance, and challenges the brain to function equally and alternately in the left and right hemispheres while creating a memory notch for reflexive reactions.

However, form practice is not the end. Students target their techniques on pads, bags, and boards for focus, speed, accuracy, control and eventually power. From there, they are paired with a partner in one-step sparring. This too is only but a single phase in the overall process, for 2-step, 3-step, and creative/impromptu step-sparring develop and enhance skills further. During the advanced stages, Hoshinsul defensive tactics, Hapkido coordination, and Yudo grappling should be taught to prepare for close encounters. Here is where multiple attackers are often introduced, but this is but a fraction of the complete training.

Taekwondo striking of the hands and feet with blinding speed, stunning accuracy, and devastating power is pushed to the extreme in one-on-one drills with a live partner. Free-sparring is but one of these drills. As a student's skills become more and more proficient, it is up to each instructor when it is appropriate to begin striking multiple targets (hand targets, bags, board breaks, and eventually live, moving targets).

In time, with proper instruction, a Taekwondo Black Belt will be sharp and alert, able to see and hear opponents from all directions. He or she will be able to move strategically to position themselves, and their attackers in the optimum path of alignment. The trained Black Belt will be able to strike, with hands and feet, any opponent approaching from any direction, regardless of the number of opponents, the skill level of the opponent, or the tactical strategies of one or more opponents, individually or in coordinated attacks. Of course, this must be taught to the advanced student or Black Belt by a knowledgeable master, and practiced on live targets (padded for safety and realism) who attack with any method. Occasionally, the defender will be struck, grabbed, thrown, or even tackled to the ground. The price that an attacker should pay for such an aggressive maneuver (in a real-life encounter, that is) should be a broken bone - - or worse, but it is necessary to train what to do under all circumstances.

Yes, the Taekwondo that I know is intentionally, and specifically designed for dealing with multiple attackers as well as one-on-one. The trick is, not to get locked up in the basics of one-on-one training, and never go to the next level, but likewise, don't be so foolish as to think that multiple attackers is the ultimate goal, so you should jump right into that from early on without getting the building blocks in place to support that advanced training! So, be sure your instructor possesses this knowledge of how to apply Taekwondo at the advanced level, that you are ready to acquire it, and then ask when you will be learning each phase of its development. Then train very hard on it very often!!! However, don't forget regular review of those basic building blocks, because once you get to the top of the ladder, you still need the bottom rungs to help support you where you are.

I hope this helps you, foot2face! :asian:

Respectfully,
Chief Master Eisenhart

 

[K31]

We trained just last week in a drill to simulate fighting multiple attackers.

I a course I took in college, which was basically an overview of several martial arts, for our final exam, we had to defend against 4 attackers.

I was observing a Shorin Ryu class about a month ago and they were practicing in 3's, two attacking the other student.

 

[YoungMan]

We used to not only practice free fighting against multiple attackers, but do it for black belt testing. This was not done every time, mind you, but some black belt testings included 2-3 on one free fighting. I think it depended on who the testee was.
This is actually something I would like to bring up with other masters in our organization: why do we no longer teach multiple attacker free fighting?

 

[foot2face]

I believe alot of folks get the Kukkiwon and the WTF mixed up alot, KKW is still up against multiple atttacker and the WTF is just about sport TKD so they are not one and the same but alot of people put them in the same catagory.

This is a problem that has plagued me for many years. In the TKD world people often mix them up but in the greater MA community most don’t even know what the KKW is. I try to explain that I’m a KKW TKDist and they usually reply “cookie what?”. I often have to say WTF so they can get a general idea, but then they think I’m just a sport practitioner not a MAist.

And so far as the various testing protocols at the KKW are concerned, are you, in contrast, facing multiple opponents under sparring-type conventions, in effect working separately? It makes a big difference.

No, it’s 2 on 1. They either stand in front of you or one in front and one behind and when the master says go they both attack. This was the way it was done at my school and I know it was done similarly at least in a few other KKW TKD dojangs. As for rules, at my school there weren’t that many, no eye gouges or direct shots to the neck, spine, groin and knees, other than that, do what you want. I wouldn’t be surprised though, if other KKW TKD schools restricted face punched and low kicks. I’m not entirely sure, don’t quote me on this, but I think at 3rd or 4th Dan it might even be 3 on 1.

Multiple attackers has always been an integral part of Taekwondo, and Korean Martial Art before the term Taekwondo was applied to it. Students of TKD should learn how to defend against multiple attackers, and most do, although some do it less often, and with less proficiency. For some schools, multiple attackers is barely addressed until Black Belt, but other schools do introduce it early on.
I have talked with many individuals over the years who trained in TKD for 1 to 5 years, and said, "Taekwondo does not teach defense against multiple attackers because I never saw it." Well, in most cases it was because they quit at red belt, or 1st Dan, and their instructor did not teach it to lower ranks. In other cases, the instructor did not teach it at all, either because they intentionally removed it for some reason of their own, or some instructor before them did and they never learned it.
Is Taekwondo technically designed to address multiple attackers successfully in real-life self defense? Absolutely! I learned it. I was tested on it (not just multiple sparring, but multiple attackers doing anything),,,

Thanks for your post. This understanding is similar to my own.

Exile and I both share an affinity for practical SD oriented TKD, however our philosophies and methods tend to be on opposite ends of the spectrum. We’ve often disagreed on what we believe TKD to be. I must admit our earlier encounters were a bit contentious but later discussions have become quite enjoyable. When I read his post in an other forum I wanted to bring it here and include it in our ongoing conversation regarding the evolution of TKD and our differing understandings. I appreciate those who have commented in this thread and would like to thank you for your contribution.
Be Well - F2F

 

[exile]

Since Taekwondo is not actually Karate
based, but a culmination of techniques, including striking with the hands and feet, as they did in old Korea, as well as throwing and grappling, anything goes when it is all put together.

Well, one of the less pleasant aspects of reality is that frequent repetition of one's cherished beliefs, in the face of abundant contradiction, doesn't generally make those beliefs true; nor does it succeed in dispelling the contradictory evidence. I sometimes wish it were otherwise, but it doesn't seem to work that way, and certainly not on this particular issue.

The irrelevance of almost all aspects of what was done in 'old Korea' to contemporary Korean MAs is abundantly documented in a list of historical studies that keeps getting longer as scholarly investigation proceeds, with so far not a single bit of challenge from any carefully reviewed piece of historical research, though the issue has arisen many times. I have yet to encounter a single citation or evidence of documentation, in any MartialTalk thread or elsewhere, that suggests anything other than the basis of TKD firmly and squarely in theOkinawan/Japanese combat arts grouped together under the name karate, certainly none offered by anyone making claims along the lines I've quoted above, although there have been a number of discussions in MT threads devoted to just this point. I've provided my sources and their sources in detail, and have yet to be provided with a single actual piece of what a MA historian would regard as evidence on behalf of the above claim. Please note, f2f, I have no wish to derail this thread at all, but I do think the historical issue has to be revisited in light of the above, for two reasons:

• first, because repeated recycling of MA folklore as fact, with no apparent awareness of just how large the burden of proof now is on such claims, reflects rather poorly on the overall credibility of those making such claim; and
  
  
• second, because to the extent that the technical core of the KMAs can indeed be (and has been) shown to arise from O/J karate, and to the extent that the technical core of karate are the kata (just as the borrowed and remixed sequences in the kata are the basis of TKD hyungs), to that extent facts about the fighting strategy built into the kata are relevant to the subject of this thread (taking into account the original context of my comments cited in the OP): is combat against multiple opponents a core element of the technique set of the karate based arts—something that their creators intended to train you for?

So far as the historical issue is concerned, I've provided my references on this point repeatedly in the past; they're listed here and here. As Henning in his 2000 JAMA article points out, the earliest actual documentation for empty-hand techniques in Korean is the Muye Dobu Ton Ji, a compendium of 'classical Korean martial arts', as it's often described, which Stan Henning and Manuel Adrogués have shown to be a literal translation of a Chinese martial arts manual written twoand a half centuries earlier by a Chinese general, The New Manual of Effective Discipline. Adrogués has shown that the techniques depicted appear to be very close, or identical, to Long Fist chuan fa, and correspondingly very different in character from almost anything in the technique set of modern Shotokan/TKD/TSD, beyond the parallels imposed by having two arms and legs and trying to damage an attacker similarly equipped. The much-invoked taekkyon turns out to have offer virtually no basis in historically attested fact for the claims that it contributed high/complex kicks to the modern TKD repretoire; see mycitation of some of the relevant history from Capener's study here, and note the correction in Henning's article to claims about 'taekkyon' citing ancient sources which turn out to represent a misreading of the characters in these texts, where the actual word in question is takkyon push shoulders, apparently a generic term for unbalancing technique (Marc Tedeschi's massive Taekwondo offers similar conclusions, though he still mistakes the word in question). So far as I can tell, the chief source for the idea of TKD as having any origins in 'old Korea', whatever that means, is the writings of General Choi, about whom his contemporary Gm. Kim Pyung-Soo comments, in the January issue of Black Belt, that 'in the early days he was teaching the same karate forms as the other kwans, such as Pyung Ahn,Bassai Tae, Kon Sang Kun, etc. Then in the late 1950’s he came up with a story about martial arts links to Korguryo dynasty, Silla Dynasty,2000 years of tradition, etc.' (my emphasis) As Burdick documents in his 2000 JAMA article, during the early phases of the Japanese occupation of Korea starting in the late 19thc., the only martial art that Koreans were permitted to study was the Japanese fighting system jiujutsu, andthis too was suppressed later on as Japanese militarism found it expedient to eliminate combat skills in the indigenous population of occupied territory regardless of the origin of those skills. All of this documentated history, much of it peer-reviewed, constitutes the burden of proof that claims about the basis of TKD in 'old Korea' have to face, and have failed to face so far.

So far as the grappling aspect goes—sure. The ancestral Okinawan sources of TKD had a heavy component of grappling, the result, as Abernethy has noted, of the influence of Minamoto era bujutsu (which some sources have claimed to be related to Daito-ryu Aikijutsu, a still controversial claim, I know). And throws, locks and controlling moves were a common part of the training of Japanese MA practitioners in the 20s and later on, due to the exposure many of them had had to jiujutsu. So yes, there was a lot of vertical grappling technique built into the TKD technique set, and no, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that any of it came from 'old Korea'. Note Gm. Kim's remark that

Yes, today the truth is coming out. Still some people try to make up some mysterious stories—claim their art is 2000 years old or from a monk in the mountains or something. But, if people are educated about history and lineage, they cannot be fooled. I believe Korea, like many other countries, had some type of martial arts being practiced before the 20th century. But after the Japanese occupation of Korea(1909-1945), indigenous martial arts were gone and influences from other places (Japan, Okinawa, China) were being taught.

This is the same as if someone's father is a farmer, but tells everyone his father is a doctor. You should show respect for your father and let people know who he is, not make up some strange story. The same is for martial arts lineage. Your direct instructor is your martial arts father; his teacher is your grandfather, etc. This is your family line in the martial arts. It doesn't matter where the art comes from. Martial art belongs to the people that practice and preserve it, not to “this country" or "that country".​

And this from one of the pioneers of TKD in Korea. So much for the bitter old ghost of hack nationalist revisionism, eh?

So the huge weight of evidence is that, as Gm. Kim says, during the Kwan era, when TKD began to develop into a Korean flavor of karate on the basis of its Okinawan/Japanese sources, the content of MA instruction was based on the classic Okinawan kata as rearranged and modified, in some cases, by Funakoshi and other Shotokan instructors. Early on, as both Iain Abernethy and Bill Burgar have pointed out, a single kata might be regarded as constituting an entire 'style', or combat system or martial art, on its own. Was this technical core of karate aimed at handling multiple attackers? Take a look at the following comments by Lawrence Kane and Chris Wilder, Goju-ryu instructors, in their pioneering work on practical combat applications of kata (Kane's input is especially important because his specialization is in crowd-violence control, especially in large sports arenas, so situations in which multiple attackers are involved is something he has a particular professional interest in):

Rule 3 of Kata Interpretation: There is Only One Enemy at a Time

...The origin of kata... was in two-man tandem sparring. Consequently the bunkai are also one-on-one. The dancelike direction shifts [along the embusen line in kata---exile] were created to keep the movement concise, not imply multiple attackers....

In reality, from a street-fighting point of view, it is pretty much impossible to make a kata that is designed to fight against multiple attackers at once. One person cannot simultaneously execute many different techniques against multiple opponents except in well-choreographed movie stunts. The vast majority of kata techniques are designed to deal with a single attacker who is directly in front of the attacker. Although there are certain movements where the imaginary enemy strikes from behind, there is always only one opponentat a time.
​

(The Way of Kata, YMAA, 2005: pp.113–114) Are K&W denying that there are ways of applying the techs they extract from kata to multiple attack situations? Not at all! Notice their followup comments on the problem:

Dealing with multiple attackers is very challenging.... if one is forced to fight, he or she can realistically only engage one opponent at a time... Defense against a large group is generally handled by strategically engaging one person at a time in a manner that confounds the others' ability to reach you.

Your response is a form of triage, striking for the greatest impact or taking on the most dangerous threat first...Defeat one adversary at a time. Employ applications from your kata to strike vital areas, spending the absolute minimum amount possible time dealing with each attacker. Do not ever let your enemies surround you, entangle you or drive you to the ground.
​

(pp.114–116). The point is that you have to use techs from the kata to give yourself an opening to escape, but as they note repeatedly throughout their book, the sub-sequences of kata are intended to finish off a lone attacker so that he won't get up again, at least in time to resume the fight; and to do that, you work on him until he's down for the count. The living technique handbook that are kata, or hyungs, or any other formal MA pattern, are not designed for, and do not teach, multiple-attack defense strategies, where as the authors note, you cannot afford to spend anything like the amount of time the katas want you to in order to a thorough job on one attacker to whom you can devote your full attention—you have to deal with the nearest attacker, keep the others away from you, and look out for the quickest possible exit—and to get all that, you have to add on strategies and training that is supplementary to, and not part of the core technique set, of karate or other karate-based TMAs.

My original comment, which f2f quotes, is that `my impression is that none of the traditional MAs, much less the martial sports derived from those arts, were intended to provide combat techniques specifically designed to handle multiple attackers.' So far as I can see, the properties of kata, and their derivative Korean patterns that Kane & Wilder discuss in connection with multiple attackers, are consistent with this impression. As for the supposed mysterious techniques that are only taught to very advanced dan ranks, I'm afraid the facts involved in the historical discussion alluded to earlier give me, and any other appropriately skeptical reader who'd like to see some evidence, little reason to extend the benefit of any doubt to such statements. But if there's someone out there who actually has some explicit information about just how the content of the TMAs, and their intended training methods, were designed to defend you against four really pissed-off regulars in a West Yellowstone biker bar you wandered into by mistake, well then by all means let's talk about that, eh? One of the problems with this sort of discussion is that it often never quite gets down to concrete details, and we're left challenging generalities with other generalities. Maybe if the discussion were more specific, involving real scenarios (and bearing in mind, please, that the issue is what the TMAs, as reflected in their methods, were intended to train you to handle), we could get more of a grip on f2f's query?

Exile and I both share an affinity for practical SD oriented TKD, however our philosophies and methods tend to be on opposite ends of the spectrum. We've often disagreed on what we believe TKD to be. I must admit our earlier encounters were a bit contentious but later discussions have become quite enjoyable. When I read his post in another forum I wanted to bring it here and include it in our ongoing conversation regarding the evolution of TKD and our differing understandings.

I'm happy to read this, and can say the same thing in return, f2f, and appreciate your using my previous comment as a springboard for this very interesting and fruitful new topic.

 

[tellner]

`my impression is that none of the traditional MAs, much less the martial sports derived from those arts, were intended to provide combat techniques specificallydesigned to handle multiple attackers.' So far as I can see, the properties of kata and their derivative Korean patterns that Kane & Wilder discuss in connection with multiple attackers, are consistent with this impression. As for the supposed mysterious techniques that are only taught to very advanced dan ranks, I'm afraid the facts involved in the historical discussion alluded to earlier give me little reason to extend the benefit of any doubt to such statements. But if someone who actually has some explicit information about just how the content of the TMAs, and their intended training methods, weredesigned to defend you against four really pissed-off regulars in a West Yellowstone biker bar you wandered into by mistake, by all means let's talk about that, eh?

An excellent post as usual. If you're talking about traditional Korean martial arts - whatever traditional means - I can't help you. But if you mean TMA in general I've seen ones that explicitly teach how to handle multiple opponents starting well before advanced instructor levels. The little bit of real old Japanese Koryu martial arts I've been seen addresses it. It was part of a soldier's life in those days. It's a common feature of Indonesian and Malaysian Silat training.

As mentioned above, none of these is particularly common or popular.

 

[tellner]

I thought I should follow up that last post with a few general signs of MA (new and old) that effectively address fighting multiple attackers:

1. The eyes deal with stuff that's far away. The body is used for things that are close up.
2. Constant movement. Of course, more advanced practitioners move less.
3. Lack of a set plan. In a fight with one person you can't think more than three moves ahead. If there is half a dozen it's even more so.
4. Comfort with chaos and distractions. One martial art that is famous for its real-world record with these things calls itself "The Art of the Sudden Storm" and stresses that you have to be the (moving) center of that storm. ADD as a martial arts regimen? :wink2:
5. Lots of use of redirection and screening of the other people
6. Comfort with changing levels from standing to the ground and back again quickly and fluidly with the ability to cause damage in each position
7. Quick changes of direction and unpredictable movement
8. A lot of time spent on opponents who are not in front of or facing you. Almost nobody teaches this, and I don't mean "We take a sideways stance, too!" I mean that most MA are predicated on the other guy being inside a narrow, well-defined arc for which your system is optimized. The ones who deal with striking at odd angles with any tool are most likely to have effective answers to the question of "How do I fight more than one at a time?"
9. A soft focus with the eyes that emphasizes peripheral vision and de-emphasizes the hard focus of the fovea.
10. An ability to cause damage with every movement but less emphasis on the big fight-ending kill shot.
11. Detachment and relaxation.
12. Arms and legs act as feelers.
13. Fighting six people at once rather than fighting one person six times
14. Serious aerobic and anaerobic fitness. Fighting more than one person at a time is damned hard work, almost as strenuous as straight-up grappling.

Now that I think of it, old-school Capoeira does a fine job of fighting more than one person at a time. Insofar as Aikido teaches fighting aikidoka practice a lot against more than one opponent and are probably better trained to deal with it than most.

 

[terryl965]

I thought I should follow up that last post with a few general signs of MA (new and old) that effectively address fighting multiple attackers:

1. The eyes deal with stuff that's far away. The body is used for things that are close up.
2. Constant movement. Of course, more advanced practitioners move less.
3. Lack of a set plan. In a fight with one person you can't think more than three moves ahead. If there is half a dozen it's even more so.
4. Comfort with chaos and distractions. One martial art that is famous for its real-world record with these things calls itself "The Art of the Sudden Storm" and stresses that you have to be the (moving) center of that storm. ADD as a martial arts regimen? :wink2:
5. Lots of use of redirection and screening of the other people
6. Comfort with changing levels from standing to the ground and back again quickly and fluidly with the ability to cause damage in each position
7. Quick changes of direction and unpredictable movement
8. A lot of time spent on opponents who are not in front of or facing you. Almost nobody teaches this, and I don't mean "We take a sideways stance, too!" I mean that most MA are predicated on the other guy being inside a narrow, well-defined arc for which your system is optimized. The ones who deal with striking at odd angles with any tool are most likely to have effective answers to the question of "How do I fight more than one at a time?"
9. A soft focus with the eyes that emphasizes peripheral vision and de-emphasizes the hard focus of the fovea.
10. An ability to cause damage with every movement but less emphasis on the big fight-ending kill shot.
11. Detachment and relaxation.
12. Arms and legs act as feelers.
13. Fighting six people at once rather than fighting one person six times
14. Serious aerobic and anaerobic fitness. Fighting more than one person at a time is damned hard work, almost as strenuous as straight-up grappling.

Now that I think of it, old-school Capoeira does a fine job of fighting more than one person at a time. Insofar as Aikido teaches fighting aikidoka practice a lot against more than one opponent and are probably better trained to deal with it than most.

Nice post could not rep you but I owe you when I can.

 

[exile]

I thought I should follow up that last post with a few general signs of MA (new and old) that effectively address fighting multiple attackers:

1. The eyes deal with stuff that's far away. The body is used for things that are close up.
2. Constant movement. Of course, more advanced practitioners move less.
3. Lack of a set plan. In a fight with one person you can't think more than three moves ahead. If there is half a dozen it's even more so.
4. Comfort with chaos and distractions. One martial art that is famous for its real-world record with these things calls itself "The Art of the Sudden Storm" and stresses that you have to be the (moving) center of that storm. ADD as a martial arts regimen? :wink2:
5. Lots of use of redirection and screening of the other people
6. Comfort with changing levels from standing to the ground and back again quickly and fluidly with the ability to cause damage in each position
7. Quick changes of direction and unpredictable movement
8. A lot of time spent on opponents who are not in front of or facing you. Almost nobody teaches this, and I don't mean "We take a sideways stance, too!" I mean that most MA are predicated on the other guy being inside a narrow, well-defined arc for which your system is optimized. The ones who deal with striking at odd angles with any tool are most likely to have effective answers to the question of "How do I fight more than one at a time?"
9. A soft focus with the eyes that emphasizes peripheral vision and de-emphasizes the hard focus of the fovea.
10. An ability to cause damage with every movement but less emphasis on the big fight-ending kill shot.
11. Detachment and relaxation.
12. Arms and legs act as feelers.
13. Fighting six people at once rather than fighting one person six times
14. Serious aerobic and anaerobic fitness. Fighting more than one person at a time is damned hard work, almost as strenuous as straight-up grappling.

See, to my way of thinking, any MA that actually builds strategy for fighting multiple attackers—not opponents, but genuine certified sociopaths—into its core curriculum will incorporate these desiderata you've enumerated (and maybe others) into that curriculum. Not as secret techniques available only to the elect, once you reach the requisite rank entitling you to the information along with the secret handshake, etc. :wink1: Conversely, when I look at the crystallized essence of the karate-based arts—the kata and their self-evident descendents—I just don't see something corresponding to your list. I see other, excellent, very desirable combat perspectives, but not the kind of package you've assembled here. That's why, I'd say, the kind of extensions to the 'home base' karate-rooted arts, from Okinawan Shorin-ryu to midwestern Song Moo Kwan TKD—'from Galway to Graceland'—that are necessary to allow you to fight six at once, as you say—are necessary: because that kind of focus on multiple attackers doesn't fit well with the prototype situation that the various developments of karate expect you to find yourself in when things go sideways. To my way of thinking, that prototype situation is exactly what the kata/hyungs are all about, and the Kane&Wilder observations I quoted earlier seem to me to be right on the money in this respect: the strategic principles and tactical implementation in the karate-based MA forms look like they were designed very specifically for one-on-one.

And again—no, please don't tell me that I have to wait till seventh dan to get my secret decoder ring that suddenly makes the application to a biker gang on angel dust self-evident... :lol:

Now that I think of it, old-school Capoeira does a fine job of fighting more than one person at a time. Insofar as Aikido teaches fighting aikidoka practice a lot against more than one opponent and are probably better trained to deal with it than most.

Funny... I know nothing about Capoeira, but I've seen demos of aikido that I'm pretty sure were unscripted and I got that same sense that the art is designed around principles that are extendable without significant modification to attackers en bloc.

 

[foot2face]

Here is an interesting article that deals with facing multiple attackers. I should point out that it has several quotes from one of Exile's favorite experts, Geoff Thompson.

 

[exile]

Here is an interesting article that deals with facing multiple attackers. I should point out that it has several quotes from one of Exile's favorite experts, Geoff Thompson.

Excellent site, f2f... and I'll return the compliment: note the story about the TKDist:

I witnessed a highly-proficient Tae Kwon Do stylist knock down five opponents in a parking lot using classical TKD techniques. Three of the five opponents were dropped with head kicks! Many would say that these are impractical for self-defense, but they obviously worked well for this guy in this situation!

At least someone is giving TKD some respect here as a street-effective fighting system, for a change, eh?

 

[dancingalone]

I thought I should follow up that last post with a few general signs of MA (new and old) that effectively address fighting multiple attackers:

1. The eyes deal with stuff that's far away. The body is used for things that are close up.
2. Constant movement. Of course, more advanced practitioners move less.
3. Lack of a set plan. In a fight with one person you can't think more than three moves ahead. If there is half a dozen it's even more so.
4. Comfort with chaos and distractions. One martial art that is famous for its real-world record with these things calls itself "The Art of the Sudden Storm" and stresses that you have to be the (moving) center of that storm. ADD as a martial arts regimen? :wink2:
5. Lots of use of redirection and screening of the other people
6. Comfort with changing levels from standing to the ground and back again quickly and fluidly with the ability to cause damage in each position
7. Quick changes of direction and unpredictable movement
8. A lot of time spent on opponents who are not in front of or facing you. Almost nobody teaches this, and I don't mean "We take a sideways stance, too!" I mean that most MA are predicated on the other guy being inside a narrow, well-defined arc for which your system is optimized. The ones who deal with striking at odd angles with any tool are most likely to have effective answers to the question of "How do I fight more than one at a time?"
9. A soft focus with the eyes that emphasizes peripheral vision and de-emphasizes the hard focus of the fovea.
10. An ability to cause damage with every movement but less emphasis on the big fight-ending kill shot.
11. Detachment and relaxation.
12. Arms and legs act as feelers.
13. Fighting six people at once rather than fighting one person six times
14. Serious aerobic and anaerobic fitness. Fighting more than one person at a time is damned hard work, almost as strenuous as straight-up grappling.

Now that I think of it, old-school Capoeira does a fine job of fighting more than one person at a time. Insofar as Aikido teaches fighting aikidoka practice a lot against more than one opponent and are probably better trained to deal with it than most.

I was just about to make the same point about aikido being especially suited towards multiple combat. Looking at the list Tellner has provided, I can't say any TKD class I've ever attended addresses all or even most of them in a comprehensive fashion. And I'm a 2nd black in TKD. There's no question that other arts do a better job of teaching how to fight multiple opponents. There's no shame in admitting this is not one of TKD's strengths.

 

[exile]

I was just about to make the same point about aikido being especially suited towards multiple combat. Looking at the list Tellner has provided, I can't say any TKD class I've ever attended addresses all or even most of them in a comprehensive fashion. And I'm a 2nd black in TKD. There's no question that other arts do a better job of teaching how to fight multiple opponents. There's no shame in admitting this is not one of TKD's strengths.

I agree, d.a., and that admission would naturally lead to the introduction of additional—I don't know if 'techniques' is the right word, but certainly supplementary strategic principles that enable you to apply as much of your muscle-ingrained one-on-one skills as possible to the task of dealing with the far more complex situation involving multiple assailants. I mean... that's the rational way to procede, no? You try to adapt your strengths so that they help address your weaknesses, but something extra needs to be added to the core.

This was really all I had in mind in my original post. Certainly there was never any sense intended that you couldn't use TKD in a multiple-attack situation (f2f's previous link to that multiple-attack-strategy site makes that very clear), but you do need to add something on. What Tellner and Bob H. were talking about, by contrast, were certain styles of Oceanic MAs where the assumption is made from the getgo that you're going to need to deal with more than one attacker. And yes, I've always pictured this as one of Aikido's 'things' also...

 

[foot2face]

...I can't say any TKD class I've ever attended addresses all or even most of them in a comprehensive fashion. And I'm a 2nd black in TKD. There's no question that other arts do a better job of teaching how to fight multiple opponents. There's no shame in admitting this is not one of TKD's strengths.

What "style" of TKD do you practice? What Org. do you belong to? Dealing with multiple attackers was defiantly part of KKW TKD curriculum. It was a requisite for Dan promotions. I wouldn’t be surprised though, if schools that emphasize WTF style Olympic sparring abandon this. As they have with many of our style’s SD oriented aspects. I just wondered how other style and Organizations view this aspect of SD.

I agree, d.a., and that admission would naturally lead to the introduction of additional—I don't know if 'techniques' is the right word, but certainly supplementary strategic principles that enable you to apply as much of your muscle-ingrained one-on-one skills as possible to the task of dealing with the far more complex situation involving multiple assailants. I mean... that's the rational way to procede, no? You try to adapt your strengths so that they help address your weaknesses, but something extra needs to be added to the core.

Actually, this isn’t the case with my system, rather the opposite is true. Facing multiple attackers called for emphasizing the core of the system, putting greater impetus on our usual techniques and strategic principles. I describe before how I was taught to fight. The goal was to quickly incapacitate (knock unconscious) your adversary without taking damage. We attempted to accomplish this by combining very aggressive striking with movement, directing fast, powerful blows to vulnerable targets while relying on evasive footwork and angular positioning. When in a fight, I will always try to do as much damage as quickly as possible while seeking an advantageous position. This holds true when facing one or three adversaries, though be it much more of a necessity when there are multiple attackers. Coincidently, I was taught a similar approach when facing weapons, other than a few disarming techniques it was pretty much business as usual. If an attacker thrust a knife towards my belly I would side step, kick to the groin and follow up with a knock out blow to the head just as I would if it had been a punch to the gut. In this way my style kept things simple, an important factor for SD.

Certainly there was never any sense intended that you couldn't use TKD in a multiple-attack situation (f2f's previous link to that multiple-attack-strategy site makes that very clear)…

The site I linked to had good information but none of it was new to me, all of it was addressed in my studies. I was actually a little surprised about how familiar the things Geoff Thompson said, sounded. I guess it goes to show you real SD is more about mindset than skill set.

 

[exile]

Actually, this isn’t the case with my system, rather the opposite is true. Facing multiple attackers called for emphasizing the core of the system, putting greater impetus on our usual techniques and strategic principles. I describe before how I was taught to fight. The goal was to quickly incapacitate (knock unconscious) your adversary without taking damage. We attempted to accomplish this by combining very aggressive striking with movement, directing fast, powerful blows to vulnerable targets while relying on evasive footwork and angular positioning. When in a fight, I will always try to do as much damage as quickly as possible while seeking an advantageous position. This holds true when facing one or three adversaries, though be it much more of a necessity when there are multiple attackers. Coincidently, I was taught a similar approach when facing weapons, other than a few disarming techniques it was pretty much business as usual. If an attacker thrust a knife towards my belly I would side step, kick to the groin and follow up with a knock out blow to the head just as I would if it had been a punch to the gut. In this way my style kept things simple, an important factor for SD.

I think that you were very fortunate to wind up training in the dojang where you've studied, f2f. If more of them were like that, I think people in the MA world would have a very different view of TKD. It sounds to me as if your school has a very different business model, as the bean counters would say, from the standard dojang, and I'm not talking about McDojangs exclusively. Even very good TKD schools typically have to compromise a good deal on their martial content if they want to keep their core clientele, especially insofar as kids are involved. Sounds to me as if it's a labor of love for some devoted real-combat enthusiast who's happy to give up big profits to teach an effective fighting system the way s/he thinks it ought to be done...

The site I linked to had good information but none of it was new to me, all of it was addressed in my studies. I was actually a little surprised about how familiar the things Geoff Thompson said, sounded. I guess it goes to show you real SD is more about mindset than skill set.

For actual combat, probably the most important thing, especially with multiple attackers I'd imagine, is definitely a mindset thing: you cannot panic, you must stay attentive and alert. With the adrenal rush that comes from combat even under equal conditions, that's very tough without special dedicated training; when the odds are seriously against you, it's an order of magnitude or two harder.

Dealing with the adrenal shock aspect is probably the thing that's most missing from ordinary 'self-defense' training in MAs... all the skills in the world aren't going to help you if you freeze solid.