"Go for the biggest guy"

[DWx]

As a kid (prior to any MA training), this is something my dad always used to tell me. If I were confronted by a group I was supposed to go for the biggest toughest guy of the lot and take him (or her) down. His reasoning was that going for the biggest would a) scare the rest of the them off and b) let you get them out of the way first rather than have them jump you if you start tiring mid-fight.

In the only altercation I could claim to have been in (I must have been about 7-8ish and they were teenage boys) it worked, but I have my doubts about whether this is a sensible policy to use in a SD situation involving multiple attackers.

Thoughts?

[tallgeese]

It's a situation that 's too fluid to make a blanket statement. I understand the psycology behind it, but it may or may not be impractical.

What if he's too deep in the line up, you'll be exposed to attack from others to easily. What if you don't end up dispatching him quickly. Now your messing with the strongest dude there while someone else beer bottles you to the back of the head?

I'd say that your tactics for such an encounter will be determined by the terrain that it occurs in, the numbers of the opposition, your access to weapons, ect. All this will determine the best course of action, not preset ideas that may or may not be acheivable.

[JusticeZero]

If the guy who looks like the alpha is an available target, it works great. If the guy is leading from the back, you're going to have to settle for the closest and most eager combatant to use as an object lesson.

[The BB of C]

I'd still say go for it. You'd be surprised how much of grandpa's wisdom still holds true to these days.

[bushido_man96]

I think all of you have good points here. I was taught to try to take the leader out, whether he be the biggest or not. But, like tallgeese mentions, he may be deep in line. If that is the case, you got to take out what is close to you, so eliminating the immediate threat with extreme prejudice would become the tactic of choice. But, I do believe that this can be harder than anticipated. It is not so easy to drop someone with one shot, as is often suggested. A nice thought, though.

[Kuma]

The Texas Rangers always go for the leader. Can't hurt to do the same "One riot, one Ranger!"

[tallgeese]

It's also a prominant riot control theroy. Sptters identify the primary insitigators and agitators and control elements press thru the line to get them in custory then bring them out.

The thing is in those cases you're talking about having a team of several individuals to accomplish each task and watch each others back. Not to mention the availibility of all sorts of munitions goodies.

In a one v. many brawl, you won't have all of those advantages. I still see the sense in the concept, and I'm certainly not saying it's a bad idea. I'm just saying that the realities of the situatin might dictate a different course of action being better at the time. That's all.

[joesteph]

Wouldn't it be that it's the one with the biggest mouth, the one that comes forward first, that you have to concentrate on, before his friends circle around you? And he'll likely be larger than you are, anyway.

It isn't necessarily the biggest guy who starts the trouble, but the one who's most arrogant (not aggressive--downright arrogant).

[the beast]

If the guy who looks like the alpha is an available target, it works great. If the guy is leading from the back, you're going to have to settle for the closest and most eager combatant to use as an object lesson.

I say go for it if he is within range if not take the closest target.

[tonydee]

Wouldn't it be that it's the one with the biggest mouth, the one that comes forward first, that you have to concentrate on, before his friends circle around you? And he'll likely be larger than you are, anyway.

It isn't necessarily the biggest guy who starts the trouble, but the one who's most arrogant (not aggressive--downright arrogant).

I don't have a lot of experience with gangs, but there's definitely a stereotype of a loud-mouthed frontman who's trying to impress the rest - especially the dominant guy at the back - by being in there first and either acting the clown or being incredibly vicious when the fighting does start, reasoning that if some attack fails they can rush back into the group for safety, or have the group come to their aid. Someone might put themselves in this position precisely because they're smaller than you and the "bravery" - as much as the term can be used when backed up by a gang and facing a single person - is therefore more likely to improve their standing within the gang. The others might actually be sitting back waiting to see whether he's taken out... it won't deter them at all... the display is more for their amusement anyway, and if he is taken out they'll feel more justified (if they ever had any inhibition) in a concerted retaliation....

More generally, I agree with everyone that it's good - perhaps even essential in order to end things - to get to the "alpha" guy, but may not be practical initially... you do what ever seems statistically optimal. I heard somewhere (now, how reliable does that sound) that a core strategy of legendary samurai Musashi was to draw a couple enemies away from their group at a time, dispatch them then return to lure a couple more...? If you have time, chipping away at whatever's available is increasing the long term odds. If you have limited room and time, more risk is called for.

Cheers,

Tony