The Dynamics of A Street Fight

[Ironberg]

2. Your opponent will be

 

i) resisting

 

ii) moving

 

iii) high on adrenaline

 

iv)trying to attack you.

 

Not to mention: probably high on a bunch of other things (PPC, etc.).

[delta1]

Not to mention: probably high on a bunch of other things (PPC, etc.).

 

Very true, very possible. One good reason to learn gross motor joint destructions first, then learn finer joint locks. A matter of priorities, not exclusion.

[Jiyn]

In a street fight you would do what ever you could to win,such as spit,bite,punch,kick,elbox,pinch,grab hair etc.

[Quest33]

I have been in a few "potential" situations with multiple attackers.. but thanks be to God I never was. I do play out the possibilities in my mind though. When I was a teen I used to cruise with a friend that loved to pick fights. In one situation my would-be attackers flanked me on four sides (four guys) and where definately going to follow through with it if provoked.

 

*a distance strike would have been a big advantage here. If I had become immobilized in any way..even for a second, then they would have got me. My best defense would have been to be on the offense and effeciently. Precise, Deft and destructive is the key. If I am a seasoned martial artist I can take control of that adrenaline dump and use it in my favor. If I go for a neck strike with a Knife hand for example...would that not K.O. if not kill an attacker? (if it is executed properly and that is not to hard to do). Remember this is just and example. So I basically disagree that a precise strike is excluded as an option. It is actually in order. I believe that a martial artist can become a master at all rings of defense that suround them. Distance, medium range.. close quarters. That of course takes a lot of practice.

[cymry]

So I basically disagree that a precise strike is excluded as an option.

 

I did clarify that by not striking precise targets I meant not targeting meridian points.

[JEM618]

The fight is not decided on the aggressor or whoever gets in the first shot but the one that controls the situation. Although I know getting the first shot is important in some cases I think controlling the situation is a better strategy.

 

Survey the surroundings; you are not in the dojo:

 

Are there any items that could be used as a weapon?

 

You may not want to use one but consider that your opponent may use something against you.

 

In a bar – beer bottles, chair, pool cues, a mug of beer, or worse a hot drink

 

In the street – bottles, a piece of wood, anything that looks like it could be used

 

On the beach – sand (a handful of sand in the face is no fun – you could use it as a defense against multiple attackers or get some thrown in your face, then get your but kicked.)

 

In just about any environment there is an abundance of ‘weapons’ if you don’t plan to use one at least be aware of them.

 

In controlling the situation there are a few things you can do. Concerning the above; before the **** hits the fan, position yourself between your opponent and anything he may want to use or you may want to grab. This can be done while ‘talking him down’, i.e., ‘I really don’t want to fight you’ (shuffle – shuffle)

 

As far as ‘talking someone down’ this also has its advantages; as a situation escalates, so does adrenaline, if you are in the ‘toe-to-toe-in-the-face-shouting-pushing’ stage you are in trouble. You can't think clearly and are certainly not in control. If you are ‘talking someone down’, in a very natural way you can assess positioning: e.g., if you are too close, step back a bit; if you are square shouldered to your opponent exposing vital targets, you can adjust your stance.

 

IMHO, in a street fight I think it’s better to counter off an attack, than to attack. In a street fight, if someone is attacking you, and they are pumped up on adrenaline they are focused on attacking and hurting you, they are not thinking about defending themselves, just attacking you. If they are ‘allowed’ to attack first this gives you the advantage. Moreover, from a legal standpoint; if there are witnesses, and the police are called, it makes a difference. Were you attacking someone or were you attacked. The cops always ask who threw the first punch. Was it assault or self defense?

 

(I know some will digress, but let’s be realistic if we are talking about a ‘real street fight’. In the case you DON’T know your opponent, if he trains, has any training, etc. You don’t know. You also don’t know how CRAZY he is. Is he going to try to bite off your ear, grab you by the skull and shove his thumbs into your eye sockets, stab you in the throat with a pen?)

 

Consider this – with no mats if it goes to the ground head injuries can be serious or fatal. Suppose you fire off a good spinning sidekick and knock some guy on his a**, he’s not trained to fall, or maybe he’s a bit drunk, slams the back of his skull off the pavement, gets a concussion, goes into a coma, or dies. This could also happen if it goes to the ground; you get the mount and bang the goys head off the ground a few times. You really don’t want someone point to you and saying ‘He started it’. (POINT: drinking alcohol dilates the blood vessels in the head – with increased blood volume in the skull, the natural ‘cushion’ that exists is reduced increasing the likelihood if brain damage if an injury is sustained – avoid fighting drunks)

 

IMHO 2 - a street fight is almost always avoidable, and would dare to say, in every case can be avoided. It takes two people to fight and if you try to talk the guy down and diffuse the situation it’s much better. Now, if HE still wants to fight, than it’s not a fight, it’s an assault and THAT changes all the rules.

 

Again some may digress, but if you are a trained Martial Artist and you reall have confidence in your ability, there’s nothing to prove.

 

Of course there are many other factors to consider, but that’s my 2 cents for now.

 

I’ll be back…

[Mart]

Humm but what if the situation is more than one on one, would you change it then. In my experience a group even if its only two people, has a leader. The guy that is starting it all.

 

Wouldnt it be better to lay the guy out and show you have no fear of them. If you lay out the rest of the group has something to think about now.

 

However, if you let the leader throw the first punch. Most likely his group will pile in and you got a real fight on your hands.

 

Let me know what you think. I guess every situation takes jusdgement but i would be more likely to do as i have stated. As far as the law goes that is a secondary consideration and i would not be aiming to kill them, but as far as knocking them out i couldnt care less

[White Warlock]

In situations where you're dealing with multiple adversaries, taking out the leader, surprisingly enough, isn't necessarily the most effective route as a norm. What makes the biggest impact is taking out the biggest threat. If this so happens to be the leader, then fine...

 

Of course, when dealing with multiple adversaries, the better route to go... is the one of quickest retreat. If, however, that's not an option, it is best to determine the best exit path, and then attempt to create it... whether it be via moving around your adversaries, causing them to bump into each other, and/or smacking down those who you deem as the most likely to prevent you from escaping.

 

And as to the biggest threat issue, it's not necessarily the one who looks like he could cause the most damage, as it is the one who looks like he can run you down... as in... he looks like he can run faster than you.

 

But, in most cases, the most aggressive adversaries are the ones who will invariably force your hand. All in all, multiple opponent confrontations are complicated and not easily described in just a few paragraphs.

[cymry]

If you are being non-threatening while the leader is being verbally abusive, then suddenly lashing out at him is a good tactic. If you begin arguing with the leader it gives the group an excuse to kick things off, and they will be ready to pile in on you should you attack the leader.

 

A better tactic would be to try to verbally disuade the leader with non-threatening behaviour, then attack one of the guys flanking you. While they're fixated with your dicussion with the leader their guard will be slightly dropped, and it'll come as a surprise when you take out one of the guys to the sides only moments after you were concntrating on the leader.

[pmh1nic]

"But Isn't the whole point of studying MA's to basically broaden our options when it comes to violent altercations?"

 

I think of MA training as training to to teach you how to take advantage of the opportunities made available to you in an altercation. I always tell my students that real fights are chaotic, the situation changes in milli-seconds and your training is meant to help you react correctly, instinctively to take advantage of the opportunities to strike, break, lock-up, throw during the milli-second the opportunity is available to you.