Multiple attackers - how it really is

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/03/07 12:00 PM

Quote:

I wasn't trying to say someone stood anywhere close to a good chance of winning, I am just saying it is a realistic scenario to train for. So don't try to turn me into some sort of hypocrite.

Didn't call you a hypocrite. But I don't see how you figure a 3-on-1 is more "realistic" than 10-on-1 or 40-on-1. JMHO

Posted by: jpoor

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/03/07 12:15 PM

Well, 3 on 1 vs 10 on 1 is 70% different. Let's face it, no multiple attacker scenario is a good one, but I'd rather face 3 attackers than 10 (or even 4 for that matter). It's easier to create an opportunity for escape with 3 people to worry about than it is with 40. That's just reality. Still, the best odds as far as I'm concerned are 0 against me.

Posted by: JMWcorwin

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/03/07 01:01 PM

In a 3 on 1 scenario you're far more likely to have one or two run off if you break the first guy in half than in a 10 on one or something along those lines. If you face 3, kill one, now it's only two on one. (hopefully they're concerned that you're holding their friend's eye in your hands

)

Still hard, but definately more doable. Anytime you face multiples you're always in a bad spot. But there are measurable differences IMHO.

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/03/07 03:32 PM

I have been in this situation and it really depends on who is in the crowd.

In the movie tombstone, Wyatt Earp said when surrounded, "you boys might get me in a rush but not before I carve a canoe out of ike's head" (or something like that)

The point is a surprise viscious attack on someone, including a big goofy Kiai and whatever other noises you want to make, will go a long way in taking the fight out of a mob.

Mobs want to beat someone down, not risk being the first one in and getting a knee stomped or a throat punched.

Of course truly tough guys might not bothered by this, but the truth is most people are more mouth then ass.

If you can show you mean to hurt the first person you get to, you'd be surprised how fast no one volenteers.

In the case of the video, these guys knew him, and if he tried what I said they would have probably killed him. But I doubt most people will find themselves in his situation.

My personal experience was with a bunch of college kids just looking for trouble. I won't go into details, and I didn't do anything that any decent MA couldn't have done. But I only had to hit one guy and the other 6 took off.

In training we used to call it Big fish Little fish.

So my point is, sure I agree 1 person is not going to beat 3 or more roughly equally matched people, even 3 commited people. But in most cases if you are a decent MA, they won't be equals and most likely can be beaten mentally and physically.

Posted by: JMWcorwin

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/03/07 03:58 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I know the video was not the type of scenario we're talking about now. These were all gang members disciplining another gang member. He's not gonna stop them from doing that. If he tried it would probably be the end of him. In his case I say, "Take ur medicine son."
Everything there was precipitated by his own actions: first, joining the gang, then doing whatever he wasn't supposed to do by their rules.

Posted by: MastaFighta

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/03/07 03:59 PM

I remember my instructor having us spar 1 on 2, sometimes 1 on 3. Man, that was tough. Two or more guys attacking you at the same time confuses the heck out of you and keeps you mentally off balance. When I managed to make one guy step back, the other one is a second or two away from connecting a punch to my head.

Quote:

The Roman soldiers when out numbered would run,then turn to fight the attacker nearest to them(give them a few good shots)then run and repeat the same tactic.I hope I'm never in a mutiple attacker situation but if it occurs do you guys think a statergy like the romans would work

It worked for the Romans because they had more than one soldier on their side executing this tactic as opposed to you doing it by yourself. Not to mention the Romans didn't just randomly decide to turn around and attack, they made sure they had the high ground, so to speak. Not to mention this tactic didn't work 100% of the time.

Anyway, I remember reading that if you find yourself in a multiple attacker situation that you should find something you can use as a weapon. Whether it's the keys in your pocket or the shoes on your feet, anything to help you gain a slight advantage can better your chances of getting out alive. While it's true that in a gang situation, using a improvised weapon can provoke them to use weapons of their own. However, you're not using your keys or shoes to stand there and fight but to fight your way out of the circle.

Either that or carry something like mace or pepper spray with you. While it won't do a whole lot of damage, it'll buy you time to escape.

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/03/07 04:07 PM

Quote:

in a multiple attacker situation that you should find something you can use as a weapon.

I would not agree with that, any weapon you pull out will end up being used on you if you didn't win outright.

Unless it's a gun, then make sure you empty the clip...

Truth is your brains and body are your best weapons in this scenario, almost every time.

Posted by: shadowkahn

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/04/07 12:56 PM

Quote:

Lol, Ive always been told if in that situation to try and grab someones ankle and roll, taking them down and breaking their ankle. The supposedly it would scare all the toehr attackers away. Realistically, would that work?

O_o

Erm. No. It wouldn't. But it would end the fight faster, because you'd be on the ground in the beginning, so they wouldn't have to wait as long to kick you to death.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/04/07 01:19 PM

I believe he meant if they already had you on the ground, and were kicking you.

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/04/07 01:41 PM

YES JOHN THATS HOW IT IS
just because I train MA doesnt mean I'll win in the street..average Joes are tough and can easily stomp out a crap load of Martial artists one on one

Now imagine a 3 on 1 situation. Most of the time you'll just lose...actually probably just about all of the times
But one thing that a friend did tell me once.
He said if you're about to get you @$$ kicked anyway by a buncha guys, you might as well take someone with you. He said spot the weakest looking guy or just a random guy and just beat the, hows it go?, buffalo turd out of him while you get yourself stomped into the pavement. Next time that one dude will be scared, hahaha

Variations of Aikido randori sounds like good training
but still, I'll probably get myself owned against multiple opponents.

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/04/07 02:09 PM

Quote:

Now imagine a 3 on 1 situation. Most of the time you'll just lose...actually probably just about all of the times

If you believe this, why train? It makes me wonder who you have been exposed too in your training.

I don't mean this in the wrong way but 3 average Joe's, no weapons, doesn't worry me too much.

3 hardened street fighters, a bit more of a challenge I grant you, but I still think my odds are pretty good.

I didn't study all these years to learn what a teenager could learn on the street in a few fights.

Sometimes I think people believe MA is boxing and wrestling in funny pajamas, well it's not, there is alot more to it and when you take all this knowledge and skill and learn to own it and be able to apply it, you give yourself a signifigant advantage over the "average Joe's" of the world.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/04/07 02:58 PM

Quote:

Well, 3 on 1 vs 10 on 1 is 70% different. Let's face it, no multiple attacker scenario is a good one, but I'd rather face 3 attackers than 10 (or even 4 for that matter).

I hear ya! It probably would be easier to escape from 3 than from 10 who may have you circled.

Regardless, lets all understand from the get-go that three may be 70% less than 10, but you're STILL going to take a one hundred percent ass-beating if you DON'T escape. Unless they are three truly incompetent individuals of course. That's not who *I* train for.

-John

Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 05:29 AM

Definitely feel confident in your abilities but just dont let it blind you
like the many black belts who feel they are on top of the world only to get their teeth knocked out by the school bully

Like MastaFighta said, the only to get good at these kinds of things is to fight and many variables come into play when talking about street fighting.

I mean a 3 on 1 fight theres a big chance that you will get beat down if you dont move quick and get out of there but if you're good enough theres the slim chance that you can Bruce Lee the suckers to death.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 08:26 AM

Quote:

If you believe this, why train? It makes me wonder who you have been exposed too in your training.

Maybe he was exposed to the TRUTH? Kimo; what does the term, "average Joe" mean to you? Define an average Joe.

Quote:

I don't mean this in the wrong way but 3 average Joe's, no weapons, doesn't worry me too much.

That's unfortunate. Three guys would definitely get MY attention. I believe you completely underestimate human beings.

Quote:

3 hardened street fighters, a bit more of a challenge I grant you, but I still think my odds are pretty good.

Kimo, there is no other way to say this bro but, you're in LA-LA Land if you really believe this.

Quote:

I didn't study all these years to learn what a teenager could learn on the street in a few fights.

I don't believe that a teenager is going to learn SQUAT in a "few fights".

Quote:

Sometimes I think people believe MA is boxing and wrestling in funny pajamas, well it's not, there is alot more to it

Yes Kimo, its about "secret moves" isn't it? DEADLY secret moves that we see guys pull off in the movies all the time. I know.

Quote:

and when you take all this knowledge and skill and learn to own it and be able to apply it, you give yourself a signifigant advantage over the "average Joe's" of the world.

A slight advantage is more like it. ANYONE can get their ass kicked.

-John

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 12:48 PM

Quote:

Maybe he was exposed to the TRUTH? Kimo; what does the term, "average Joe" mean to you? Define an average Joe.

A guy any guy roughly your size and weight.

Quote:

That's unfortunate. Three guys would definitely get MY attention. I believe you completely underestimate human beings.

And I think you and others on here over estimate them...more on this later.

Quote:

3 hardened street fighters, a bit more of a challenge I grant you, but I still think my odds are pretty good.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimo, there is no other way to say this bro but, you're in LA-LA Land if you really believe this.

Actually I think you guys are in La La land. 2 guys in t-shirts and shorts squaring off in "full contact" sparring is La LA land, it doesn't go down that way and it leaves out all the other facets to self defense.

Quote:

Sometimes I think people believe MA is boxing and wrestling in funny pajamas, well it's not, there is a lot more to it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Kimo, its about "secret moves" isn't it? DEADLY secret moves that we see guys pull off in the movies all the time. I know

This is probably the most disturbing of all the posts, this is a complete dismissal of TMA training, mocking it as if it were useless...I think it shows a profound lack of understanding of what Martial Arts really is.

Let me use Royce Gracie as an example, why did he win all those early UFC matches? He simply knew something the other fighters did not, his "secret moves" left them lost and defenseless. The first line is many Karate Dojo's motto....Karate is my secret....etc.

Again more on this later.

Quote:

A slight advantage is more like it. ANYONE can get their ass kicked.

Really, just a slight advantage? How would you fair against yourself, prior to any training? Sure anyone can lose at any time, and I can shoot a hole in one, but the concept that training and developing a skill only gives you a slight edge just makes no sense, it doesn't apply to any other physical activity why should it apply here?

OK so lets chat about a few things.

First the idea that every guy out there can fight is simply not true, for every Kimbo Slice there are 10 big mouth small D*** idiots, sure you need to assume the worst when sizing up any opponent but I have real life experience both in fights and as a bouncer, most guys are not much of a challenge for what I consider a Black Belt level fighter.

Look at your instructor (or yourself) if you don't think he can beat the snot out of most of the guys walking down the street, then go find a new instructor. This does not mean he is unbeatable by all mankind and defeat 100 men and not spill his coffee, but seriously if you think a random person can drop him with a haymaker, you are training with the wrong guy.

Fighting and Karate, what is Karate fighting really like? Is it 2 guys squaring off like sparring? No that's brawling and while Karate might prepare to deal with that scenario, it's really only a small part of the training. Karate is my secret...that is a very telling line, because a big part of Karate and why it works is surprise.

All of those "dead" drills are done that way because for the most part you should be doing them against a surprised and unprepared opponent. In self defense if you allow you opponent to prepare and get into a fighting stance, you have already screwed up big time. Example-gun defense....why can it work? Well a big reason is the guy with the gun does not realize you are going to try and take it away, by the time he does it's already gone. If he said "hey try and take my gun Karate man!" odds are the technique would not work, or not work as well.

So lets address the topic of the thread, how do you deal with multiple attackers? One scenario might be as they approach but before they have elevated the fight you attack, maybe you stomp the ankle, elbow the head rake the face, crane the neck and drop him at your feet. Would he be prepared to defend such an attack? Would he be prepared the multiple points of contact, the hip motion, locking in, indexing and leverage you used to apply the attack? The odds are no. Human reaction is not fast enough to block an attack already in range if you know how to launch said attack.

What would the next guys do? Well they would be processing, it takes time for the body to ramp from threat to action, they would have to process your attack, escalate themselves to fight mode or action mode, and react. Plus they must deal with their surprise and fear reactions, resolve those before they could respond. During that time you can launch a second attack, maybe reverse punch to the nose, or even better a step through side kick. Most average Joe's have no idea how to defend a kick and all people freeze or slow down when confused.

Ok before I write a Jackie Chan movie scene let me make a few points. Surprise and confusion are all part of Karate Technique, how does a slow man beat a fast man? How does one beat many? Confuse them, make them think and while they are trying to figure out what is going on, you take them out.

Karate is not meant to be fair, if you get yourself into a situation where your opponent is ready, you have gotten yourself into a brawl. Sure Karate will help you and I still expect you would have a significant advantage, but now you are fighting on their terms, on an even playing field.

So what might happen against say some special forces guys? Well first they probably would not let you close enough to launch an attack, odds are if you did the other guys would react far quicker then average people might because they are...trained killers...the only real hope you have is they are so confident they drop their guard long enough for you to exploit the opening and get away. But that is unlikley so don't get into fights with multiple special forces guys...words to live by.

I make that point to acknowledge that you never know who you might be up against and while confidence is good, arrogance can get you killed.

Sorry if this post is a bit rambling but hopefully I have been clear enough to make my points while being edgy enough to [censored] off a few people so we can have nice lively thread.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 01:37 PM

Quote:

....
And I think you and others on here over estimate them...more on this later.

Kimo brother, what's the safe bet here; under or over estimating someone? Personally, I prefer to respect my opponents, regardless of who they may be. I don't really consider that over-estimating someone. I just think of it as giving them the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise. Can't see any harm really in doing that.

Quote:

Actually I think you guys are in La La land. 2 guys in t-shirts and shorts squaring off in "full contact" sparring is La LA land, it doesn't go down that way and it leaves out all the other facets to self defense.

Fair enough. Problem is, that's what I wear most of the time, year round. So how does that put me in la la land? I also put the gi on and supplement my training in that regard. Again?? Me? La la land? I don't quite understand your logic.

Quote:

This is probably the most disturbing of all the posts, this is a complete dismissal of TMA training, mocking it as if it were useless...I think it shows a profound lack of understanding of what Martial Arts really is.

I don't dismiss as much as you may think I do. You may have a misconception of me. I have never sworn off foul tactics or anything else really. Of course I've said as much only a million times here, but people tend to be selective observations about the things I write about. I see the whole picture. I just don't believe in staking my training around dead methods.

Quote:

Let me use Royce Gracie as an example, why did he win all those early UFC matches? He simply knew something the other fighters did not, his "secret moves" left them lost and defenseless. The first line is many Karate Dojo's motto....Karate is my secret....etc.

It's 2007 bro. There ARE no secrets. Not anymore. Not with high speed internet, youtube, SpikeTV and 24 hour network news. There are really no secrets anymore. This wasn't exactly the case back in '93.

Quote:

Really, just a slight advantage? How would you fair against yourself, prior to any training?

That would depend on a lot of factors. How I might fair against myself prior to training is ONE thing. Fairing against an untrained 23 year old lacrosse or rugby player with something to fight for is another. I just don't discount ANYONE. How that's remarkable to you, is amazing to me.

Quote:

Sure anyone can lose at any time, and I can shoot a hole in one, but the concept that training and developing a skill only gives you a slight edge just makes no sense, it doesn't apply to any other physical activity why should it apply here?

We're not talking about golf. We're not talking about any other sport. We're talking about fighting. Sometimes raw power, focused emotion (will) and heart can make the average person do some really above average things. You can NEVER rule out a person's spirit or intestinal fortitude and heart. That's completely absurd to think otherwise.

That said, I am NOT saying that the slight edge isn't enough of an edge. But fighting isn't really rocket science in the way that so many of people here apparently think it IS. I don't take that view. That's my prerogative. You're welcome to disagree.

Quote:

First the idea that every guy out there can fight is simply not true, for every Kimbo Slice there are 10 big mouth small D*** idiots, sure you need to assume the worst when sizing up any opponent but I have real life experience both in fights and as a bouncer, most guys are not much of a challenge for what I consider a Black Belt level fighter.

Counter point. I've seen "black belt fighter" get their ASSES handed to them on a silver platter by an untrained individual who had more power and raw aggression. You point doesn't prove SQUAT!

Quote:

Look at your instructor (or yourself) if you don't think he can beat the snot out of most of the guys walking down the street, then go find a new instructor. This does not mean he is unbeatable by all mankind and defeat 100 men and not spill his coffee, but seriously if you think a random person can drop him with a haymaker, you are training with the wrong guy.

The problem is your use of the term "most guys". That's where I have the difference. I'm just not writing off "most guys" because of a variety of factors. One is that I don't KNOW "most guys". For that simple reason, I'm not going to underestimate them. Thats all I've ever stated. Nothing more and nothing less. You're digging for more here than I've given you reason to.

Quote:

All of those "dead" drills are done that way because for the most part you should be doing them against a surprised and unprepared opponent.

That's fine. Particularly if your martial art is predicated on having your opponents all surprised and unprepared. Thats great if you're into that. I'm just training worst case scenarios - not BEST case scenarios. That I suppose is the difference. Big deal, I can get a sucker punch in on someone unprepared, not let up, and beat them into the ground - maybe. That doesn't take a great deal of training to do (catching someone by surprise). But hey, that's a great tactic to be sure. Good luck and Godspeed with that.

Quote:

In self defense if you allow you opponent to prepare and get into a fighting stance, you have already screwed up big time.

I see that as putting the cart before the horse. If you're catching people by surprise, there's a good chance that you're not even being attacked. Or are you proscribing a preemptive attack on just anyone turning to you to ask for the time?

Couldn't it be possible that the people who might attack you catch YOU by surprise?

Why assume also that I would allow an opponent to square up with me and prepare? That's making an assumption about me when you don't even know me or how I train.

Another question, if your potential opponent isn't unprepared to attack you, doesn't that also mean that you can just disengage and leave the scene? Why attack in the first place? That's a rhetorical question really because I've not had to preemptively attack anyone. Maybe that's because my instincts for staying out of trouble in the first place are just too finely honed and your's may not be. Don't know. Just a guess.

Then again, if you're a bouncer and are just blasting everyone, wouldn't that get you fired from about every job you ever had along with having the PANTS sued off of you in this litigious era?

Quote:

Example-gun defense....why can it work? Well a big reason is the guy with the gun does not realize you are going to try and take it away, by the time he does it's already gone.

LA LA LAND brother. Can I have your plasma tv after you try this?

Quote:

So lets address the topic of the thread, how do you deal with multiple attackers? One scenario might be as they approach but before they have elevated the fight you attack, maybe you stomp the ankle, elbow the head rake the face, crane the neck and drop him at your feet. Would he be prepared to defend such an attack? Would he be prepared the multiple points of contact, the hip motion, locking in, indexing and leverage you used to apply the attack? The odds are no. Human reaction is not fast enough to block an attack already in range if you know how to launch said attack.

Your scenario is based on speculation and nothing more. I don't have the desire to play the "what if", pretend scenario or fantasy game with you. Get three individuals with MMA gloves on and have them attack you. What comes of that will be the truth of the matter.

All of this is again nothing but pretense and speculation. You can speculate and theorize until the frickin' COWS come home or you're blue in the face. You're still not telling me jack [censored].

-John

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 02:02 PM

While I come down more along JKogas' side of the fence in this thread, I give props to Kimo for giving me good perspective in some of his points. Good debate!

Posted by: Cord

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 02:07 PM

Quote:

it leaves out all the other facets to self defense.

Are you suggesting that TMA kata and bunkai incorporate de-escalation, fencing, mirroring and/or use of weapons of opertunity/environmental advantages? outside of the your basic physical fight, these are the other 'facets' of self defense.

Quote:

Sometimes I think people believe MA is boxing and wrestling in funny pajamas, well it's not, there is a lot more to it

If it were boxing and wrestling in pyjamas at least the level of contact and resistance would be uniformly applicable against a real aggressor.

Quote:

This is probably the most disturbing of all the posts, this is a complete dismissal of TMA training, mocking it as if it were useless...I think it shows a profound lack of understanding of what Martial Arts really is.

The reason they are 'arts' is because they are open to personal interpretation. What they are to you, may not be what they are to me. Do you think police spend more time going through choreographed handcuffing drills against air, or throwing down with colleagues on the matt? Resistance is an essential element of training your skills to use as a tool as opposed to a hobby.

Quote:

Let me use Royce Gracie as an example, why did he win all those early UFC matches? He simply knew something the other fighters did not, his "secret moves" left them lost and defenseless. The first line is many Karate Dojo's motto....Karate is my secret....etc.

Didnt Royce negate an okinawan's 'secrets' in UFC 2?

thats not meant to start a style v style flame war, its just an observation that it is the PERSON, not the STYLE that wins a fight, and in a fight the PERSON that is used to real fighting, either controlled or unlawful is the one with the advantage.

Quote:

the concept that training and developing a skill only gives you a slight edge just makes no sense, it doesn't apply to any other physical activity why should it apply here?

Developing a skill in the martial arts only relates to a skill in fighting if it is trained in such a way as to provide that. I have known plenty of guys who can strike a ball really well on a driving range, and then play very poorly on a real golf course with the variables that entails. Its the same with strength training, one can train muscles to be strong of themselves, but without developing the coordination and core strength that makes them work together, functional strength can be lacking. All training relies on specificity in relation to goal.

Quote:

First the idea that every guy out there can fight is simply not true, for every Kimbo Slice there are 10 big mouth small D*** idiots

Neither attribute prevents the person in question from pulling a blade, or having an incredibly good punch.

Quote:

sure you need to assume the worst when sizing up any opponent but I have real life experience both in fights and as a bouncer, most guys are not much of a challenge for what I consider a Black Belt level fighter.

i was a bouncer as well. i was also a guy bouncers have had to eject. 'black belt level fighter' is hugely subjective, and many thousands of people have achieved 'black belt' rank without so much as one full force strike landed or recieved to/from a living target- and that is the whole point- a black belt gained in such training methods will count for little in a situation where full force is experienced for the first time

Quote:

Look at your instructor (or yourself) if you don't think he can beat the snot out of most of the guys walking down the street, then go find a new instructor.

what if he can impart information and training that allows you to fight well? should he still be discarded. Should all aviation engineers be ace pilots and ignored if otherwise?

Quote:

but seriously if you think a random person can drop him with a haymaker, you are training with the wrong guy.

Lennox Lewis got caught with such from Rahman. would you not like to learn boxing from Lewis? I would.

Quote:

Fighting and Karate, what is Karate fighting really like? Is it 2 guys squaring off like sparring? No that's brawling and while Karate might prepare to deal with that scenario, it's really only a small part of the training.

So, by your own admission, your training spends little time on how to deal with aggression from persons in day to day life.

Quote:

Karate is my secret...that is a very telling line, because a big part of Karate and why it works is surprise.

Sort of BOO!-FU?

Quote:

All of those "dead" drills are done that way because for the most part you should be doing them against a surprised and unprepared opponent.

But in SD, you are always dealing with a prepared oponent. They have instigated aggression against you, the dance has already begun. Pre-emptive striking i am a big advocate of in the right scenario, but whilst this takes initiative away from the attacker, it is not true 'suprise'

Quote:

Example-gun defense....why can it work? Well a big reason is the guy with the gun does not realize you are going to try and take it away, by the time he does it's already gone.

Yeah. And every groin kick results in clutching of the nads and comedy squeeky voices, and every punch to the chin results in a perfect KO

Again, its lack of testing under real world conditions that leads to people believing this stuff. Ideal world conditions exist in the mind, outside of the cerebelum its only real world that counts.

Quote:

So lets address the topic of the thread, how do you deal with multiple attackers? One scenario might be as they approach but before they have elevated the fight you attack, maybe you stomp the ankle, elbow the head rake the face, crane the neck and drop him at your feet.

Or maybe you stomp the ankle, and the coked-up guy punches you in the nose as his friend comes in and blindsides you with a bottle. They proceed to kick the f*ck out of your ribs before walking off chuckling as one says 'ah sh!t mate, slow down, that little c*nt bruised my ankle!'

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 02:51 PM

Quote:

Kimo brother, what's the safe bet here; under or over estimating someone? Personally, I prefer to respect my opponents,

Of course, my statements were basically a rebuttal to the idea that you will most likely lose against 3 average Joes.

You didn't make the statement I think mastafighter did, but my point is while the safest bet is to assume the worst, the reality is that most average Joe's can't fight worth a lick.

How do I define average Joe's? Go to the mall cast out a net and catch 100 guys. Of that group how many will be good fighters? In my experience not many, many may think they are but most won't be...IMO

Quote:

I don't dismiss as much as you may think I do. You may have a misconception of me.

Fair enough, I just see this trend as I have stated before where people believe fighting in the ring is all there is, and there is so much more.

Quote:

It's 2007 bro. There ARE no secrets. Not anymore. Not with high speed internet, youtube, SpikeTV and 24 hour network news. There are really no secrets anymore. This wasn't really the case back in '93.

I think there are still plenty of secrets and misconceptions. But you are agreeing that Gracie won because he had in essence "secret" knowledge?

Quote:

But fighting isn't really rocket science in the way that so many of people here apparently think it IS. I don't take that view. That's my prerogative. You're welcome to disagree.

Only rocket science is rocket science, but there is a lot of science to fighting and you need that science to fight and more able bodied people.

Quote:

Counter point. I've seen "black belt fighter" get their ASSES handed to them on a silver platter by an untrained individual who had more power and raw aggression. You point doesn't prove SQUAT!

I made a point of writing "people I consider to be Black Belt fighters" because there are a lot of people walking around with Black Belts on that couldn't beat my sister. Point is there are people who can hang and people who cannot, and while being a black belt doesn't mean you can beat anyone walking down the street, it should mean you aren't going to get you ass handed to you. IMO

Quote:

You're digging for more here than I've given you reason to.

Understand I was speaking to crowd as a whole not you specifically. My point is you should only train under someone who can walk the walk (or could, maybe he is old and broken down but still has the knowledge to teach).

Quote:

if your martial art is predicated on having your opponents all surprised and unprepared. Thats great if you're into that.

Part of the Art is exploiting surprise and confusion, its part of the technique. If you don't that or can't create that you need to use a different technique. So it's not that an art is predicated on it, it's more if your art is not training to capitalize on it you are missing out a valuable set of tools.

Quote:

Maybe that's because my instincts for staying out of trouble in the first place are just too finely honed and your's may not be. Don't know. Just a guess.

OK Jedi Master....I believe 99% of fights are avoidable, for sake of this argument I am presumming avoidance is off the table as an option.

It's been over 20 years since my last fight; I think my avoidance skills are working fine.

Quote:

Then again, if you're a bouncer and are just blasting everyone, wouldn't that get you fired from about every job you ever had along with having the PANTS sued off of you in this litigious era?

I used my bouncer experience to explain why I was so familiar with the quality of fighters in the general population. I did not go around blasting people (although in the 80's it's wasn't really a problem if you did but that’s another thread).

In the course of bouncing I got to see many many fights. A few of them were decent to good, but most were not much to write home about.

Quote:

Big deal, I can get a sucker punch in on someone unprepared, not let up, and beat them into the ground - maybe. That doesn't take a great deal of training to do (catching someone by surprise). But hey, that's a great tactic to be sure. Good luck and Godspeed with that.

Knowing what to do takes training, pummeling someone is fine if you want to waste time and energy. There are much more efficient ways to deal with someone, any monkey can throw a punch, and any decent student can throw a good punch in a matter of weeks.

But in a multi attacker scenario, you need to dispatch and move on quickly while the window is open, knowledge, technique and application are quite a bit different then throwing 10 haymakers.

Quote:

Can I have your plasma tv after you try this?

How did you know I had a plasma TV?

Let’s not turn this into a "do gun defense work" debate. There are good ones that are quite effective. I think Chuck Norris even demonstrated this in a court room and helped win a case....but I digress.

Quote:

Your scenario is based on speculation and nothing more. I don't have the desire to play the "what if", pretend scenario or fantasy game with you. Get three individuals with MMA gloves on and have them attack you. What comes of that will be the truth of the matter.

My scenario was part of something I saw once years ago, but I will say that what can happen is an endless list of unknowns, but there are things we do know, and we can apply that knowledge to our benefit, is this a guarantee? Of course not but every little bit adds up and the more you work the advantages the more likely you are too have things go your way.

In terms of having 3 guys in MMA gloves corner you, I have trained in that scenario as well, it was required during testing for several belts and frankly didn't score very high on the fun meter, but it was very helpful in identifying what can be done against multiple attackers and that even against good fighters all is not lost.

It also taught me that 3 guys can give you a hell of beating...

Quote:

You can speculate and theorize until the frickin' COWS come home or you're blue in the face.

I hope I am making the point that while you cannot pre-choreograph a fight, there are human factors you can predict and exploit in your favor.

Also I kinda said (not kinda I did) that 2 guys squaring up is not Karate Fighting..that is a bit of an overstatement of course Karate trains for those scenarios (I call them the schoolyard fights) but my point was self defense works hard not to ever be in that situation, doesn't mean you won't be, just means you try not to be.

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 02:55 PM

Don't look now, but I have multiple attackers!

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 03:28 PM

Quote:

Are you suggesting that TMA kata and bunkai incorporate de-escalation, fencing, mirroring and/or use of weapons of opertunity/environmental advantages?

Um no I am not suggesting that.

Quote:

Didnt Royce negate an okinawan's 'secrets' in UFC 2? thats not meant to start a style v style flame war, its just an observation that it is the PERSON, not the STYLE that wins a fight, and in a fight the PERSON that is used to real fighting, either controlled or unlawful is the one with the advantage.

I think he revealed a weakness in stand up fighters, but it was surprise and confusion and of course skill that won the day.

And I am not making an argument against alive or resistance training so not sure why you are going there.

Quote:

i was a bouncer as well. i was also a guy bouncers have had to eject. 'black belt level fighter' is hugely subjective

Yes I agree here and posted to this in my earlier reply.

But to the point of you being a bouncer wouldn't you agree there is alot more to a fight then the actual combat portion? That fights have a life that begins long before the first punch is thrown?

Quote:

Lennox Lewis got caught with such from Rahman. would you not like to learn boxing from Lewis? I would.

I don't think Rahman would count as a "random" person. And of course anything is possible in live speed, I mean to follow your logic I could knock out Lennox Lewis with a haymaker, but it's not likely to happen.

Quote:

So, by your own admission, your training spends little time on how to deal with aggression from persons in day to day life.

I have no idea where you are getting this from, my training is quite the opposite, dealing not just with the kicks and punches but everything around a fight or attack.

Quote:

Again, its lack of testing under real world conditions that leads to people believing this stuff.

I would have to agree that a lot of this stuff (gun defenses) has not been tested, but I guess that depends on what stuff you have been exposed too. A lot of what I have seen is crap, but there are cases and examples of people using techniques that have worked and will work.

Again Gun defense debates are another thread.

Quote:

Or maybe you stomp the ankle, and the coked-up guy punches you in the nose as his friend comes in and blindsides you with a bottle. They proceed to kick the f*ck out of your ribs before walking off chuckling as one says 'ah sh!t mate, slow down, that little c*nt bruised my ankle!'

I like my version better

Posted by: Ames

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 05:25 PM

Every situation is diffirent. Sometimes you'll escape, sometimes you'll go to hospital. That's why the best thing to do is avoid a fight at all costs. Too often I've two guys who agree to brawl, go out to the parkinglot, and then one of the guys buddy's jumps in.

That being said, I beleive it's possible to deal with mulitple attackers. This video is a good counter point to the first one. Notice how the guy attacks and disengages quickly, and how he strikes at the oncomers on the outside before the guy in front, confussing his assailents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tv3LMNnkMg

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Multiple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 05:39 PM

This video is interesting as it shows the mob doesn't work as a unit at all.

There is another video where a kid head butts a guy, then drops one more guy before running out, not sure where I saw it posted.

But it shows what a quick and deliberate fighter can do in those moments of confusion.

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 10:21 PM

Quote:

Of course, my statements were basically a rebuttal to the idea that you will most likely lose against 3 average Joes.

The premise here is that the three guys will always be “average”. I just believe that you can never know if they’re average or not until you’re engaged. Sure I believe that you are more likely to lose than you are to win. But before we can honestly say that, we also have to define winning and losing. What do each mean? If winning means that I escape, sure, there’s a good chance I can “win”. If it means knocking three guys out with me standing there victorious, no, I don’t believe that for a minute. And I have pretty decent stand-up.

Quote:

You didn't make the statement I think mastafighter did, but my point is while the safest bet is to assume the worst, the reality is that most average Joe's can't fight worth a lick.

Maybe you’re just better than everyone else. Maybe that’s it. It’s my assumption that the trained fighter will have the edge. I’m not saying anything less. I’m just saying that, depending on what a person has to fight for, an altercation can be more than you bargained for. You can never discount a person’s heart. That’s all I ever said - for the second time.

Quote:

How do I define average Joe's? Go to the mall cast out a net and catch 100 guys. Of that group how many will be good fighters? In my experience not many, many may think they are but most won't be...IMO

Again, maybe you’re just one of the elite on the planet. I don’t make such assumptions about myself. I’m just not a cocky guy -- confident, but not cocky or arrogant. I won’t say that’s you…but if the shoe fits……

Quote:

I just see this trend as I have stated before where people believe fighting in the ring is all there is, and there is so much more.

Was that something that *I* ever mentioned?

Quote:

I think there are still plenty of secrets and misconceptions. But you are agreeing that Gracie won because he had in essence "secret" knowledge?

Sure, you could say that. He had something that the guys he fought didn’t.

Quote:

Only rocket science is rocket science, but there is a lot of science to fighting and you need that science to fight and more able bodied people.

Of course, but I don’t think we ever disagreed here. But anyone can get lucky and land a big shot. That doesn’t take training. It just takes luck.

Quote:

Point is there are people who can hang and people who cannot, and while being a black belt doesn't mean you can beat anyone walking down the street, it should mean you aren't going to get you ass handed to you. IMO

Perhaps it “should” mean that you aren’t going to get your ass handed to you, but couldda, wouldda, shouldda. Problem is, this is a universal story.

Quote:

Understand I was speaking to crowd as a whole not you specifically. My point is you should only train under someone who can walk the walk (or could, maybe he is old and broken down but still has the knowledge to teach).

Fair enough.

Quote:

Part of the Art is exploiting surprise and confusion, its part of the technique. If you don't that or can't create that you need to use a different technique. So it's not that an art is predicated on it, it's more if your art is not training to capitalize on it you are missing out a valuable set of tools.

How do you train sucker punching?

Quote:

I used my bouncer experience to explain why I was so familiar with the quality of fighters in the general population. I did not go around blasting people (although in the 80's it's wasn't really a problem if you did but that’s another thread).

I was making a general point, not aimed at you really.

Quote:

…in a multi attacker scenario, you need to dispatch and move on quickly while the window is open, knowledge, technique and application are quite a bit different then throwing 10 haymakers.

No one here is talking about being inefficient. That’s not MY stand-up style. I don’t throw haymakers. I’ve worked boxing for years now. Still doesn’t mean I can beat multiple attackers. But who knows really. Perhaps I could. I’m just not stupid to assume I can. That’s just the way I feel about it.

Quote:

How did you know I had a plasma TV?

It’s in your living room beside the aquarium. No, wait a minute, I think that was Wristtwisters place…..

Quote:

Let’s not turn this into a "do gun defense work" debate. There are good ones that are quite effective. I think Chuck Norris even demonstrated this in a court room and helped win a case....but I digress.

Yes, please do digress. I’m NOT going into that subject. I’ve got my opinions, you have your’s. Lets leave it at that.

Quote:

My scenario was part of something I saw once years ago, but I will say that what can happen is an endless list of unknowns, but there are things we do know, and we can apply that knowledge to our benefit, is this a guarantee? Of course not but every little bit adds up and the more you work the advantages the more likely you are too have things go your way.

I agree that chance favors the prepared mind and individual. That’s why we all train.

Quote:

In terms of having 3 guys in MMA gloves corner you, I have trained in that scenario as well, it was required during testing for several belts and frankly didn't score very high on the fun meter, but it was very helpful in identifying what can be done against multiple attackers and that even against good fighters all is not lost.

It also taught me that 3 guys can give you a hell of beating…

I’m not in disagreement with you. Never have been really. Just small details we tend to part ways on.

-John

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/05/07 10:33 PM

Quote:

But surely the karateka, by your logic, had suprise and confusion as his principle weapons, so why did they not come to the fore in this encounter?

Well they both were in the ring, so the element of surprise is a bit tough to pull off. But what I am discussing would be applied in Self Defense scenarios not sport scenarios, I see the 2 as having distinct differences.

Quote:

then why is it so unlikely that a group of lesser skilled oponents will not have great success against a trained fighter with the advantage of the victim having less time to prepare/react?

Well if you caught them by surprise ambush style, sure. But I believe my original point was about the instructors abilities, not what might happen under an ambush scenario.

We seem to be discussing different things.

Quote:

but its not about what we like, its about what is more likely

And then we disagree, I find that most people are not very good fighters and a trained MA (a well trained) would do very well in unarmed combat even with multiple attackers.

Quote:

I am afraid my version is what makes up the news articles in local papers across Britain every weekend.

Well I have to question that Black Belts accross Britain are finding themselves in multi attacker fights on a weekly basis. In my experience the really talented and well trained people almost never have altercations of any kind.

Quote:

i am not 'attacking' you btw

I understand, just bit of bad Sunday humor...

Posted by: Joseph_Webster

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 03:08 AM

Watch this vid. Tell me what you think about "multiple attacks" then.

Vid 1-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mYWNPa8me0
Vid 2-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeyasb3NHLI

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 03:23 AM

Quote:

Watch this vid. Tell me what you think about "multiple attacks" then.

Vid 1-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mYWNPa8me0
Vid 2-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeyasb3NHLI

How do I say this nicely....

If you were trying to provide evidence with those vidoes to support the claims that multiple opponents can be easily dealt with - you could not have done a WORSE job.

-John

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 08:23 AM

Quote:

Watch this vid. Tell me what you think about "multiple attacks" then.

Vid 1-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mYWNPa8me0
Vid 2-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeyasb3NHLI

Gonna have to agree with JKogas on those vids. Totally unrealistic.

Posted by: jpoor

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 08:54 AM

Quote:

Watch this vid. Tell me what you think about "multiple attacks" then.

Vid 1-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mYWNPa8me0
Vid 2-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeyasb3NHLI

Um, nice of them to attack one at a time. Too bad that doesn't usually happen in a real world scenario. There is a whole host of other reasons why this is not a good vid to support any argument. The fact that there is no real threat being chief among them.

Let's find some security footage or news footage that shows a real multiple attacker situation and then compare them.

Posted by: Leo_E_49

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 11:00 AM

See? This is what I was talking about earlier with the rose-tinted glasses rant.

I'm not going to try and put down your videos by saying they are not reality. The videos were clearly staged but I know that such fights do occur, albeit infrequently, in more "civilised" society. I will simply point out that showing a video of multiple attackers attacking one at a time does not prove that they will not attack all at once. Usually when this situation occurs, it's a one-on-one fight with a ring of people surrounding watching the fight; usually such fights occur amongst children or teenagers. All your videos really demonstrate is that multiple attackers will sometimes attack one at a time. Therefore, since we have already established that they also can attack all-at-once, it's best to train bearing that danger in mind.

It's fairly trivial to train for the scenario where multiple attackers attack one at a time. In fact, you hardly have to change your training routine. Nothing revolutionary, we see it in the movies all the time.

However, a vast change in mentality is required for the realisation that multiple attackers can mob you all at once. This leads to some people changing their attitudes about self defense, usually towards the goal of avoiding fights altogether. This is a very good thing in my opinion.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 11:10 AM

Quote:

Watch this vid. Tell me what you think about "multiple attacks" then.

Vid 1-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mYWNPa8me0
Vid 2-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeyasb3NHLI

Check this video instead. Aikido training, but much more realistic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGJCl6IS_xQ

Maybe we can run some scenarios at the East Coast get together! Who's up for it?

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 11:39 AM

That video was MUCH better.

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 12:42 PM

First I didn't even watch much of those first 2 videos, people running with their wrist out in front so they could be taken down etc...just an exercise, demonstrates nothing.

The second video was better, the attackers seemed to be trying much harder, the defense was limited for obvious reasons. What it did show was how you can fight them one at a time, even when they are both or all coming. Often with simple movements you can cut off the other attacks giving you a window to deal with one attack at a time.

Also I will not grant that multiples attack all at once, I think the earlier video showed that they will/may come in one at a time, everyone waiting there turn until they see an opening or the defender goes down and they surround. It is not a given that 3 guys will attack all at once.

But if you ever find yourself in a mob, I think the best attack is to high low the guy, very difficult to defend no matter who you are.

Quote:

What do each mean? If winning means that I escape, sure, there’s a good chance I can “win”. If it means knocking three guys out with me standing there victorious, no, I don’t believe that for a minute. And I have pretty decent stand-up.

I would except escaping 3 attackers as a win, the idea that you knock all 3 out and stand in the middle untouched, while sexy, is hardly the goal. 3 guys who want to beat you up, then decide they can't or don't want to try to beat you up allowing you to walk away, is a victory.

Quote:

Maybe you’re just better than everyone else

That must be it, that sure would explain the cape and the xray vision.

Quote:

Again, maybe you’re just one of the elite on the planet. I don’t make such assumptions about myself. I’m just not a cocky guy -- confident, but not cocky or arrogant. I won’t say that’s you…but if the shoe fits……

Now the serious answer, I am in no way elite, even when I did have a fight with muliples I didn't do anything anyone else here couldn't do. Maybe I was more prepared because we trained in street fighting application, but then I imagine many people here do as well.

This thread is not about staying humble and avoiding fighting-that is a given in my book and I think most everyone elses. This thread is not about if you choose to respect everyone and make no assumptions about what they can or cannot do.

That is how we prepare and how we carry ourselves, which I agree with completely.

This thread and my point is 'how it really is' most people are not used to getting hit, most people do not train, most people don't know how to throw a punch. Most people can't fight a lick.

Truth is if you cave the skull in of the first guy who gets close to you, there is a good chance rest of the guys will back off (or shoot you). These are not absolutes but there is plenty of evidence to show this can and does occur.

Quote:

But anyone can get lucky and land a big shot. That doesn’t take training. It just takes luck.

Agreed

Quote:

How do you train sucker punching?

First you find a sucker...then you punch him.

But I do think a lot of self defense is a form of sucker punching, that and specialized knowledge.

Posted by: Joseph_Webster

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 12:59 PM

Quote:

That video was MUCH better.

Sorry, i can't distinguish sarcasm over the internet so tell me..sarcasm or not?

Posted by: Joseph_Webster

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 01:07 PM

I sure did get bashed just throwing my opinion out there =P

Posted by: Joss

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 01:12 PM

Must be just me, but you guys are spending a lot of time arguing unknowable things.

To me, the only question is whether or not someone should devote any training time at all to multiple attackers. If you can not forsee a single possibility that the practice could benefit you... then I suppose your answer would be "no".

And if your mindset toward more than one attacker is:

"You get stomped. End of story."

...then I figure that you have pretty much eliminated every possible successful outcome just by your attitude.

To me, though, this feels pretty contrary to the basic self defense concepts of the arts (I train principles and hone skills. Then I do the best I can if I'm assualted).

The way I see it, I have no control over what "could" happen beyond taking care about where I go. Reality is that all I can ever address is what "does" happen. So it's to my benefit to prepare for what I might face. I don't spend a LOT of time on multiple scenarios, but I don't do zero, either.

And so what if there's no guarantee I can get out of 2to1 or 3to1 with my skin? Since when has our training been picked over so that we only train what's "guaranteed"?

If the assault situation gives me no choice ANYWAY, what's the alternative? No choice means simply no choice.

Posted by: Joseph_Webster

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 01:27 PM

I wish everyone had your mindset....everyone should look at your post. You have brought about the point that "if your going to encounter something wouldn't it be best to train regardless of having a 5% chance or 100% chance; either way you still have a higher chance than 0% right?"

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 01:41 PM

Positive mindset is a good thing. And I never said that training against multiples was bad - I have done so myself. But people need to realize that it's no cake-walk EVEN IF you have been trained. Anyone and their big, bad black belt can get stomped very easily.

This is like the people that think they can disarm a knife-weilding attacker without getting cut.

Posted by: Joseph_Webster

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 01:52 PM

I agree, it is a challenge, but look at it as life and death not just "winning some fight". Then you will realize that if you can use your MA to defend yourself, get away, and not die then i'd say my techniques work pretty darn good. =D

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 03:31 PM

Guys-

I would LOVE to train the following:

*Boxing
*Greco-Roman wrestling
*Judo
*Freestyle wrestling
*Gi style Brazilian jiu-jitsu
*No-gi Brazilian jiu-jitsu
*Filipino stick and knife fighting
*Empty hand vs. the blade/shank and blunt instrument
*Multiple attacker scenarios and other scenario training
*Combat hand gun and shotgun

The problem is that there are only so many hours in a day.

As I would MUCH rather have a depth of knowledge in a few things rather than a limited knowledge in a LOT of things, I choose to limit my practice to those things that provide the most enjoyment and which to me, are the most realistic. For me that means combining boxing, Greco, no-gi jits - in short, MMA. There is just not enough time in my day to devote meaningful practice to the other things.

Aside from this is my firm belief that self-defense is an easy thing to bring about, providing that we have control of our ego and an intellect capable of making wise decisions. I’ve only had one minor altercation over the last 25 years. I must be doing a pretty good job of defending myself.

Also, the places that I frequent aren’t known for their wandering gangs. That’s partly a choice that I make. In most cases, I’d likely be dealing with one-on-one confrontations if anything. I’m not stupid enough to pi$$ off a group of guys hanging out together when I am outnumbered. I mean, who is? If you’re that dumb, natural selection states that you probably NEED to be beaten to a pulp anyway, leaving the more intelligent of us here to pass along our genes.

That said, if you HAVE incurred the wrath of a group of people, you will more than likely have to deal with them all at once, not one at a time. You also have to consider the fact that they may well be armed. Gangs of people here in the US carry weapons. Sorry, but I just don’t like my odds in those sorts of situations.

So it’s a simple matter of training what I believe is most realistic; one-on-one. Two or more people and I’m running away at the first opportunity. Sticking around in those situations for whatever reason defies the survival instinct for self-preservation.

Story time:

Just a week or so ago, I was at an intersection where another car pulled up along side of mine. There were three guys in the car and two pit bulls (dogs, not women). Bass was thumping from their car so loudly that my own rear view mirror was vibrating. The attitude emanating from the vehicle was so thick you could cut it. The guys were daring me to even look at them funny (gorillas as well, interpret direct eye to eye contact as a threat, so it’s funny how far down the evolutionary ladder people like this are in terms of mentality).

So what did I do? I smiled. Nothing more came from this at all, because I had complete control over my own ego. Because of this I was calm and secure in and of myself. As a result, I was able to make intelligent decisions and not compound problems by forcing myself to have to act “macho”. That would have only forced a further reaction from them as well.

What if my ego had been weaker?

Well, its entirely possible that I could have created a more difficult situation to get out of. It’s possible that they could have changed their “itinerary” and decide to follow me. Then what? Who knows because it would all be speculation. But I CAN guarantee that I would have suffered an unwanted outcome in some way, regardless of how that situation may have turned out.

The key here is that I wasn’t “afraid” of them individually. I knew I could “probably” TRASH each one of them individually in the ring or on the mats (same goes for asphalt). This lack of fear is the very thing that kept this situation from escalating. Lack of fear does NOT mean that I didn’t respect them collectively or even individually. I don’t disrespect or underestimate anyone as I’ve said before. You get the benefit of a doubt from me until proven otherwise.

So why was there no fear? A very short answer would be because of “aliveness”. Thing is, that will probably get some folks’ bowels in an uproar, so I will just say that years of athletic training with resistance provided a confidence and inner strength sufficient enough to weather the storm, so to speak. And yes, that means training in COMBAT SPORTS by God! lol

In this situation, the athletic training that imparted real confidence while eliminating the fragile ego kept me “safe” from potential multiple attackers. My training reinforced my confidence and enabled me to stay cool about things. Its also my firm belief that some forms of training can reinforce paranoia. But I won’t get into that at the moment.

So forgive me for the extended rant, but I wanted to further extrapolate on the merits of athletic training here for the purposes of self-preservation (which I see as separate from self-defense, which for me implies a “hands on” defense of self). Take it for what you will. It’s benefited me many times over, in a myriad of different ways.

Multiple opponents? Knives, guns?

Forget it. You can HAVE it.

-John

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 05:24 PM

Quote:

Anyone and their big, bad black belt can get stomped very easily.

What is sad is there was a time when BB had some status, but today it's almost a joke, maybe it's always been a joke, I just didn't know it at the time.

It's just a bit odd to me people feel that if 3 people come at you oh you are going to lose...makes me wonder if they bought into the training, do they belive in what they were taught?

Of course anyone can get beat at any time, you never know what is going to happen, but where is the confidence? Not arrogance, just confidence that what you have spent a decade training in has some value.

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 05:52 PM

Quote:

I knew I could “probably” TRASH each one of them individually in the ring or on the mats (same goes for asphalt).

Need to borrow my cape (has a big K on it)!

Your rant is well taken, and I don't think we have any disagreement about much of it.

The question of the thread was "how it really is" with the assumptions of no weapons, and the fight was unavoidable. Granted 2 very unlikely things, but none the less the question was rasied.

Not much more to say on the subject...

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 06:00 PM

Quote by Kimo -

Quote:

Not arrogance, just confidence that what you have spent a decade training in has some value.

Confidence that you can beat 3 pi$$ed-off college football players? 3 angry high school varsity wrestlers? 3 navy guys fresh out of basic?

That does seem like arrogance to me. Exactly the kind that gets a lot of MA people stomped because of it.

But I am merely a regular, non-athletic guy that has trained for while. Long enough to have a good idea of what I can and cannot do.

Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 06:07 PM

Quote:

Confidence that you can beat 3 pi$$ed-off college football players? 3 angry high school varsity wrestlers? 3 navy guys fresh out of basic?

Well we went from average Joe's to Physical Specimans...hardly the same thing.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 06:28 PM

Quote:

Well we went from average Joe's to Physical Specimans...hardly the same thing.

College football players are not common? High school wrestlers are not common? These kind of folk are all over the place in the USA.

Posted by: IceCat

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 06:38 PM

College football players are not common? High school wrestlers are not common? These kind of folk are all over the place in the USA.

If it takes 3 or 4 of them to beat up someone they're scum

plus if it takes that many they might as well forget winning a football game or a wrestling match

Posted by: Joseph_Webster

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 06:39 PM

True; although these "kind of people" have a lot better things to do than to randomely pick on people and as long as you go about your bussiness the odds of getting assaulted are very low.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 06:47 PM

Oy. I was merely making the point that there are a lot of "average joes" out there that have athletic skillsets that are comparable to a martial artist's. Football and Rugby players (for two) are also used to working together in teams.

However, I am not saying THEY DO - only that THEY COULD.

Posted by: Joseph_Webster

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 07:28 PM

Yes they could I suppose. Unless you actually wish to put yourself at the level of skill needed to "take them on".

Posted by: JKogas

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 09:10 PM

Quote:

Well we went from average Joe's to Physical Specimans...hardly the same thing.

The problem is identifying these "average Joe's". If by average we mean, weaklings without any athletic ability or the natural strength of youth, we're severely limiting the notion of what "average" is. While on the surface that may seem possible, I don't know that it really is.

Take a look at a large group of 18 to 25 year olds these days. It's hard to nail down that "average Joe". For me anyway.

I just think its foolhardy to write people off and make assumptions about poeple that we see as average. Average for what age group? Average according to whom? Etc. I know this is just being nit picky about a general statement, and one that I've made myself. But that's a tremendously generalization. And I personally am still not going to take anyone lightly. "Average" or not. Fighting a group of people is asking to be severely stomped.

-John

Posted by: Joseph_Webster

Re: Mulitple attackers - how it really is - 08/06/07 11:06 PM

I agree John. It is hard to distinguish people in terms of "skill or strength" these days as most feel the NEED to be stronger than most even if it means having no "experience" at all.

Multiple attackers - how it really is