Perspectives on Fighting Multiple Opponents

[tallgeese]

Swarming is actually in reference to what they are going to do to you.

[joesteph]

Swarming is actually in reference to what they are going to do to you.

When I saw this by Jim, Tallgeese, I wondered exactly what was meant, because when I think of a swarm, it's like a swarm of bees descending on you, stingers ramming home.

This is why I brought up the guy I knew back in college (work your way to the center) and the idea of the best defense being a good offense, as I interpreted Jim's post.

I don't expect to defeat multiple attackers, but to handle them. As Wa-No-Michi said:

"Make quick your exit plans and expedite them as efficiently as possible."

[bushido_man96]

The premise of dealing with attackers one at a time I believe is a bad hangover from cheesy 80's karate movies. You cant decide to handle your opponents one at a time- your opponents can only decide to fight you one at a time.

I agree. The reason that a group attacks one person is to put a simultaneous beat down on him. Not to line up and "take their turn."

If you can identify a leader, its best to try to single him out, and take him out. Keep blasting him until you can get away.

[ShawnMiller]

You have to look at this not from a sport fighting pespective, but a life pertection one. Laws in some states very but in most, when you have multipule or larger attackers ( diperaty of force) you are justified you use weapons ( gun or knife even).

Part of the purpose of conceal carry laws if you read them. SO like I said you cant look at it as a sport spraing perspective, you can use it just with no rules. Eyes, throat, joints things you dont use in a tournament. You should Always assume a mulitpule attacker seneareo in a real life self defence situation. You do swarm them but you also attack them singely both are correct. You have to attack them one at a time quickly and efectively and keep moving. You cant concern your self if your attack defeated them. It is posable to attack 2 or 3 at once but not like in the movies. But by stacking them up on each other. If you stand there and try to duke it out with the leader , what do you think the other crimnals are going to do stand there and watch. Maybe if there budy is kicking your butt. But the instant you get the advanagte they will have you. Hit fast, hard and in vital areas. Keep moving dont get tied up with them.

[MMA_Jim]

Basic principle of attacking someone with numbers- swarm them.

I remember a friend from when I was in college who had a black belt in karate (I don't know the style; people just said "karate" then), and he had said something I heard only from him: fight to be in the center. I didn't hear him speak of zoning, or speak in some way of having them be in one-another's way. He said that the one in the center has the advantage, but I knew little about karate at that time, so I didn't even know what to ask him to elaborate on this. Looking back, it almost sounds like the best defense is a good offense.

Jim, are you referring to anything like what this fellow was saying?

No- just as tallgeese stated- the swarming will be done by the many attackers against the lone defender.

I would say that you're friends advice for fighting multiple attackers has to be some of the worst I've ever heard. If you're in the middle, than your opponents have 360 degrees from which to attack you. All one has to do is merely grab you and the others are free to tee off on you.

I see lots of other suggestions too but in the end they're all guesses- they dont even qualify as theories.

Fighting hard and dirty is something that people already do when fighting one on one- and throat/eye/groin attacks have not proven to be any more effective than the simplicity of a punch.

If you're fighting multiple people who are intent on hurting you (i.e. in contrary to the popular Mike Valley "streetfight" where he beats up 4 140lb kids who slap fight) chances are incredibly high they're going to be successfull at it.

[joesteph]

I would say that you're friends advice for fighting multiple attackers has to be some of the worst I've ever heard. If you're in the middle, than your opponents have 360 degrees from which to attack you. All one has to do is merely grab you and the others are free to tee off on you.

My instructor has had someone stand in the middle of a circle, and one person steps forward to do something simple, like the ever-popular wrist grab, but just as a kind of exercise.

She's worked on teaching us to zone, and when she demonstrated against two people, she wasn't looking so much at the guy in front of her as to the one behind him. I remember a really big guy who wasn't that fast-moving, so she had him in front of her (the rules were that you could use open hands to the arms and shoulders, but nothing more--it was an intro). I was trying to get around him to move in on her, but she was always going the opposite way I went. She told me later that, despite the other guy's size, she could still see me and so she was able to zone.

I really admired the way she darted back and forth, side to side.

[ShawnMiller]

Generalizing eyes throat and groin as vital areas is much too simplistic of a view on things, everyone instinctively knows those targets. There is a difference between just punching at general areas and targeting them.

[bushido_man96]

I have heard some people say that they like to get their back to a corner when fighting multiples.

I don't know how good of an idea this is, but I can see the pros and cons of it. At least you know there isn't anyone behind you.

[jtweymo]

Hi ya folks,

Probably this sort of thing already got mentioned,

but I know that lots of martial arts have codified ways of

dealing with multiple attackers.

Our school, shinden yoshin ryu jujutsu, has them and they are

of a genre fairly common for such systems. They're called "toritsuke"

and has methods for 2 man, 3 man and 4 man captures.

I know most of our school toritsuke tactics, they do somewhat work.

I've seen the same type of thing from other schools (of Jujutsu),

have you guys not considered these methods?

I mean, their codified and everything... with a full set of explanitory principles and tactics.

I dunno, maybe you have already covered this subject and I just didn't catch it while reading over the thread...