Multiple Attackers

Folks talk a lot about their art equipping them to successfully handle multiple attackers. Is this realistic, or just something that works great with the buddies in the dojo or as a way of explaining kata?

As a case for multiple attacker theory I have seen the argument presented that the ancient warriors on the ancient battlefields had to "endure 12 plus hours of fending off multiple armed foes coming at them from 8 different directions at once". I am sorry, but I simply do not put any stock into this nonsense.

While there is little doubt that war and warriors have existed throughout history, I call into question the veracity of these mythological tales of martial supermen of yore. The sub culture of martial arts (all styles) is swirling with anecdotal pseudo historical mythology that is meant to present and shroud the culture and the styles with a grand mysticism and to many, especially the more adolescent and movie going / comic book reading culture, ultimately makes the culture and the arts more appealing. It comes very close to rivaling religious beliefs and can become quite "cultish" in certain circles as many followers of certain styles put a lot of faith in these pseudo historical myths. Sadly, most of it has been proven to be just that... myth.

All cultures and styles have their own MA mythology and mythological characters performing superhuman feats of strength and skill on the battlefields of yore including more prominently the Asian systems like the Chinese and Japanese. Even the oldest martial art known, wrestling, has a lot of mythology surrounding it within the Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman texts.

For those of us seeking true skills, how do we separate fact from fiction? How do we know what to invest our time in? Do we look around us and witness the ever growing pool of knowledge and practicality and draw our answers from that and in turn spend our valuable time and effort cultivating real, practical skills? Or do we simply put our faith in ancient mythology and waste our time trying to mimic these fictional heroes of the past by developing the skills they had that allowed them to slay fire breathing dragons defeat hundreds of armed multiple attackers over hours of greuling battle?

Peace-
Cam

__________________
Rock On!
Cam
"Raise up your mind....."

Man Cam yer such a killjoy!!!!
as far as training for multiple attackers we do it like training for anthing else we fight multiple people sometimes 2 on 1 sometimes its a group fight our sifu jsut says figth and everyone goes at it no teams no nothing sometimes people pair off some jsut run around hitting people. we also do drills where we have basically have two teams sometimes even numbers sometimes not, sometimes your team starts in the middle with the others surounding sometimes vice versa.
the stories about the war time legends some bodie made it out alive, and i like cool stories.

__________________
"Holy bat farts"
"Just remember there's many kinds of toughness in this world and not all of them involve kicking in someone's teeth to prove a point." SammyGirl Fan Club

“	Man Cam yer such a killjoy!!!!	”

LOL!!!
Well, I never said I thought multiple training was useless. It can be fun and it can also give someone a taste of reality. It can also go a long way toward helping people think and perform under stress (depending on how much of it they do).
I will say these things, though...

1.) I do not believe that there is any single art that will better prepare anyone for a multiple attacker scenario any better than any other art.

2.) Of course there are instances of people being successful against multiple attackers but most often in these instances it cannot be attributed to the skill of the single attackee as much as the blatant incompetence of the multiple attackers.

3.) If you can't defeat a single unarmed person (grappler) then there is no way you will defeat more than 1 at a time. Granted, the skill level of all involved is always a factor.

4.) We do know, for a fact, that most arts that fancy themselves "multiple opponent" arts have inferior skill sets as opposed to MMA fighters. This has been proven time and time again as they fell short to MMA fighters. The primary objective of these guys would be first to seek a more effective skill set as to be able to defeat a single attacker first, then later try to translate that into multiple attacker scenarios. Because of this I feel that most MMA fighters would fare better in a multiple attacker scenario than most of the people who train specifically for those scenarios. They tend to have a slightly fantasized view of reality and their skills are not usually very applicable in the real world. The MMA fighters are more in touch with the realities of a fight becasuse they are in there hitting and getting hit on a regular basis and their skills are more readily applicable.

“	the stories about the war time legends some bodie made it out alive, and i like cool stories.	”

Yeah, but the guy who made it out alive was probably hiding in a fox hole... not because he defeated a hundred men empty handed...LOL!!!!!

Peace-
Cam

__________________
Rock On!
Cam
"Raise up your mind....."

Given that many martial arts were developed for use on the battlefield,the possibility that a soldier(the practitioner of the art) could be outnumbered was taken into account,so techniques and tactics were devised for use against multiple attackers and other worst case scenarios.
Martial arts that specialize in weapons use are an example.
Most self defense classes teach students to be aware of their surroundings and keep in mind that many attackers are accompanied by heir buddies for backup.
No one really expects to overpower dozens of well-armed assailants in a single confrontation,but having a means of defending against at least two attackers at the same time with a means of escape is attainable.
Many styles were developed with just that in mind.

__________________
To love Benevolence without loving Learning leads to foolishness.
To love Sincerity without loving Learning will bring conflict.
To love Wisdom without loving Learning will lead to vagaries.
To love Forthrightness without loving Learning will make one rash.
To love Strength without loving Learning will make one wild.
To love Courage without loving Learning will invite disaster.
-Confucius

I think it's broadly impractical. I know people who have been successful- I myself have had an encounter with several assailants where I was victorious, but generally, I'd say it's hard enough to fight one person, let alone several!

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

It's possible if you are far superior to them, bodily, and tactically, and you need a quick fight stopper. Dariusz Michalczewski used to fight here several turks at once a few times, he just knocked them out one after the other with a single punch, or two. If you look at door scraps, they often look completely silly. A good fighter should handle that quickly.

On the battle field, it's a difficult thing. Trained fighters cornering you is impossible to overcome if you don't have any support, ranged weapons, advantageous position, hide, unless they are simply not skilled. A long weapon like a spear can triumph over a small amount of foot soldiers who aren't trained enough to encircle such a fighter, say, five, because it's a long thin weapon that can kill soldiers on one thrust, and is quick to wield.

Very well trained fighters trained in weapon styles could easily defeat larger packs of untrained fools who cannot do more than stab a dead body. That's why such fights were fought in formations, to overcome the individual weakness. If someone is cornered, and they take time, you must have some good running training. Another thing is a rider against foot soldiers, again, if they aren't fighting tactically and can't take a rider off his horse, they can be killed without big problems. Historical armies like the cartagian often had well trained special units that would mow down larger packs of opponents, because they didn't know what they do, but once they learned how to fight them, it was a different story.

__________________
"Fawning, but proud!" - (at least sometimes, in rare cases)
"Killing them all didn't make it any better..." - "Are you a freak or something ???" - Max Payne
"Theft is a crime, even in Iraq." - Me.

If you are fighting 2 people and they have the same skill level as you then the odds are against you, but if you have practiced fighting against more than one person, and have found ways to take adcantages of the different scenario that is it from fighting one person, then you improve your odds. I dont mean you can guarantee victory, but you can improve your chances.

The same as if you are fighting someone who is bigger, stronger, and faster that you, it would be difficult with no training, so we train to improve our odds.

As far as the ancient battlefield, im sure they didnt train just to fight one person did they? Sure they quite possible wouldnt survive, but they wouldnt think training against multiple people was futile would they

“	Originally Posted By: Lugaldamhara 4.) We do know, for a fact, that most arts that fancy themselves "multiple opponent" arts have inferior skill sets as opposed to MMA fighters. This has been proven time and time again as they fell short to MMA fighters. The primary objective of these guys would be first to seek a more effective skill set as to be able to defeat a single attacker first, then later try to translate that into multiple attacker scenarios. Because of this I feel that most MMA fighters would fare better in a multiple attacker scenario than most of the people who train specifically for those scenarios. They tend to have a slightly fantasized view of reality and their skills are not usually very applicable in the real world. The MMA fighters are more in touch with the realities of a fight becasuse they are in there hitting and getting hit on a regular basis and their skills are more readily applicable.	”

Systems/arts/mma/tma aside, do you not think that an MMA fighter who had practiced fighting 2 people would be better at it than an MMA fighter who hadnt?

Could an admin add a poll to this topic?

Like: "Is training to fight multiple opponents worthwhile?"

There is a well known story of Bas Rutten beating up 4 bouncers in sweden. Most bouncers are trained in some of martial art, but with Bas being so highly skilled he destroyed them all.

Can't learn to fight without fighting!!!

Just as an example of people who succesfully proven themselves against greater odds with multiple opponent training in the past century, consider Lam Sai Wing at the Lok Sin Theater, Gozo Shioda in Shanghai, Yong Sul Choi at the Korean factory (where Han Jae Ji first met him). There are others, but I think these case studies might be a good place to start

__________________
"When you see a good move wait - look for a better one."
- Emanuel Lasker

"Is training to fight multiple opponents worthwhile?"

“	Originally Posted By: djstatika Could an admin add a poll to this topic? Like: "Is training to fight multiple opponents worthwhile?"	”

Your wish is our command!

__________________
Faith itself, compelled by the Holy Spirit, possesses an inner dynamism that necessitates deeper understanding. ~Thomas Weinandy O.F.M.

Ah.... the multiple attacker thread.

Like I mentioned in another thread, if you look at the principles, then you can truly see if they make legit claims or not.

If people's ideas of multiple training is being surrounded by 8 people, but calling out numbers for the attack..... my guess is that they cannot deal with actual multiple attackers.

If a style contains standards strikes, or simply just linear strikes....... I'm sorry, but they can't deal with anything past one person. Although there has been instances where someone has defended themselves against multiple attackers.... I'll go out on the limb and call them lucky.

Now let's look at the way a multiple attack happens... if you are surrounded, what is the one principle that will work for your assailants?






Anyone? Anyone?



Ah yes, angle.... but most of you guys already knew that..... right? So how does one deal with this first principle during said altercation?

__________________
It's all about the nitty gritty.......

trainings is never the real thing.
99.9 person here has never been in a real fight - no build up, no psych up - just escalate within 5-10 sec.

Yes, there are some arts that train "multiple" attacks better than others. Mostly from their selected choice of arsenal or rademark techniques or principles.

The advantage of training for multiple opponet are quite a few. Depending on the pregression of that training and the intensity.

1. for the mind, one gets used to not being "locked" in with ne person as in a sparrring or tornament situation. You learn to be more aware of your surroundings, the people aroun,the space, in other words - it's being awre everywhere.
2. you learn to deal with one person and when you spin around, you don't get too disoriented. There is no disengaement of the mind. There is a cont. engagement. Learning to position yourself to a higher level. Using angels etc.
3. as you escalatee, when you are engaged with one, and gets hit or struck from behind, you learn to not freeze up and go "what the @#$%"


Most of these skills are transferrable to the normal world. multi-tasking - effectvely without going into shock. Learning to prioritize between urgent and important - what is going to hurt you and what might kill you. You develope a broader sense of awareness.

BUt other than that - it's just fun.

If I were to train to kill like some of you guys here - I would be carrying a poisoned tipped knife or a sawned off shot gun. SO I train for fun only - and health - and develope my chi

Hahahahaha

__________________
May the force be with y'all.