Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multiple attackers, have we got it wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Multiple attackers, have we got it wrong?

    IMO, the term "multiple attackers" is misleading and excludes a lot of information. While the possibility of multiple attackers does exist and should be accounted for, the idea of a multiple ATTACKER scenario is limiting. What we should be talking about is multiple ACTORS. In every fight I've witnessed there are different players. You have at least two combatants, who can create a mutual combat scenario or a predator/prey scenario. Then you factor in additional attackers if they exist. That's our multiple attacker scenario. Then you have your bystanders, people trying to break up the fight, and people playing strict defense from one side or the other. These are your multiple actors. Should you be a combatant, the odds are that not EVERYONE in any scenario is out to get YOU SPECIFICALLY. That's a kung fu fantasy and greatly oversimplifies the scenario. In fact, framing the conflict in that manner can actually CAUSE that scenario. A panicked defense can easily change the intent of third parties in the event of stray or hasty attacks or simply displays of rage and hostility. Essentially, the issue needs to be reframed.

    #2
    Its interesting you mention this. I think the whole multiple attacker or weapon being present scenario is a bit exaggerated. Sure both these things are common but from what i keep hearing from videos and seminars are both these things.

    I think its good to be aware but the constant pressure some instructors put on their students of 'your gonna get jumped in the street by more than one guy' or 'your gonna get stabbed' is not fair.

    Comment


      #3
      I don't think it's exaggerated at all. Most of what I see is multiple actors and I see a good number of weapons as well, though they're rarely displayed or deployed. Style vs style you can fight solo, even on the street, but when you're talking untrained people it's chaos.

      Comment


        #4
        I do agree, from what I've experienced as well, that a displayed weapon is mostly an intimidation tactic. If the attacker intended on using it, you wouldn't even see it coming, however that's not to say that if they are spooked that they won't actually use it out of desperation.

        Like everything it depends on the situation, but the same could be said for multiple bodies being present as well. Still risky though. Fight or flight must happen very quickly.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by The Villain View Post
          I don't think it's exaggerated at all. Most of what I see is multiple actors and I see a good number of weapons as well, though they're rarely displayed or deployed. Style vs style you can fight solo, even on the street, but when you're talking untrained people it's chaos.
          Excellent post. Not exaggerated at all. people who work in the security industry understand this. I know we like to make fun of the streetz here, but there are places where violence does happen quite frequently outside of the ring/cage/mat.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by The Villain View Post
            IMO, the term "multiple attackers" is misleading and excludes a lot of information. While the possibility of multiple attackers does exist and should be accounted for, the idea of a multiple ATTACKER scenario is limiting. What we should be talking about is multiple ACTORS. In every fight I've witnessed there are different players. You have at least two combatants, who can create a mutual combat scenario or a predator/prey scenario. Then you factor in additional attackers if they exist. That's our multiple attacker scenario. Then you have your bystanders, people trying to break up the fight, and people playing strict defense from one side or the other. These are your multiple actors. Should you be a combatant, the odds are that not EVERYONE in any scenario is out to get YOU SPECIFICALLY. That's a kung fu fantasy and greatly oversimplifies the scenario. In fact, framing the conflict in that manner can actually CAUSE that scenario. A panicked defense can easily change the intent of third parties in the event of stray or hasty attacks or simply displays of rage and hostility. Essentially, the issue needs to be reframed.
            Sounds like you are saying group dynamics are complicated and one should avoid street fighting and fighting in or with groups? Sounds reasonable for me, I haven't fought outside the mat in over a decade, plan to keep it that way.

            Comment


              #7
              While I realize that Villain's OP is not about grappling specifically,
              I'm a grappler so my answer is colored by my own POV and concerns about what false impressions the grappling model may give my own students.
              The problem with BJJ specifically, when it comes to self defense,
              Is BJJ is often marketed, and trains people to a model
              That has them looking to go to the ground,
              And gives them the idea that on the ground they are safe.
              "The mats are my ocean, and on them I am a shark" kind of thing.
              Deliberately giving up one's peripheral vision and ability to rapidly readjust your position / ability to escape is not a good idea in a complex street environment where there are multiple actors (whose disposition to engage in violence or interference may change during the altercation).
              Now obviously, if someone engages you to grapple, or the choice is grapple or sustain damage from strikes/weapon then its game on for grapple mode until that threat is neutralized and you can extricate yourself.
              When it comes to self defense, I am avoidance first, ranged weapon second (firearms are my clear first choice for ranged weapon),
              and hand to hand martial arts of any kind dead last.
              It's also true that sometimes you need to restrain drunk Uncle Fred so he does not hurt himself or others.
              Sometimes grappling has a role there.
              Hand to hand martial arts (all of them) are a lousy option for self defense for many reasons.
              I train combat sports, they certainly have a value for self defense.
              But I describe combat sports and hand to hand martial arts as a last option.
              However, one could also point out that pulling a firearm is also a last option.
              So this question of self-defense is a complex one,
              and should be framed in terms of what minimizes the damage to you and your loved ones.
              Unlike combat sports where the goals may be 'winning', fitness, being able to perform cool techniques on an opponent trying to beat you, etc., self defense is about avoiding trouble, survival and damage minimization.
              I largely agree with the framing of multiple actors when considering self defense.
              Particularly because the role and disposition of actors can change several times during a conflict.
              Last edited by Dr. Gonzo; 4/06/2016 5:42am, .

              Comment


                #8
                While Villain is raising some excellent details, and coming up with some helpful labels (learning is difficult without discussion, discussion is impossible without language), I'd argue this is not so much a topic that we ie Bullshido get wrong, as much as the self defense salesmen, or the subset thereof that claim the moment violence starts, all NPCs in the area aggro, turn red, and launch attacks.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by plasma View Post
                  Sounds like you are saying group dynamics are complicated and one should avoid street fighting and fighting in or with groups? Sounds reasonable for me, I haven't fought outside the mat in over a decade, plan to keep it that way.
                  There will always be reasons to fight even in such conditions. I think that it should be studied in a realistic manner, then folded into more martial arts curriculums, especially in the RBSD and self defense community as this is supposedly their domain.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by WFMurphyPhD View Post
                    ...Unlike combat sports where the goals may be 'winning', fitness, being able to perform cool techniques on an opponent trying to beat you, etc., self defense is about avoiding trouble, survival and damage minimization.
                    ...
                    I couldn't give you two up-arrows, so I just quoted a salient part of your post.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by The Villain View Post
                      ou have at least two combatants, who can create a mutual combat scenario or a predator/prey scenario. Then you factor in additional attackers if they exist. That's our multiple attacker scenario. Then you have your bystanders, people trying to break up the fight, and people playing strict defense from one side or the other. These are your multiple actors. Should you be a combatant, the odds are that not EVERYONE in any scenario is out to get YOU SPECIFICALLY. That's a kung fu fantasy and greatly oversimplifies the scenario. In fact, framing the conflict in that manner can actually CAUSE that scenario. A panicked defense can easily change the intent of third parties in the event of stray or hasty attacks or simply displays of rage and hostility. Essentially, the issue needs to be reframed.
                      Dare I say this sounds like the kind of outside-the-box multiple opponent drilling that systema encourages?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        How about most of start off by being able to get good enough to freaking deal with one person, than worry about dealing with one person with a weapon, than we can start worrying about dealing with a bunch of people?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by goodlun View Post
                          How about most of start off by being able to get good enough to freaking deal with one person, than worry about dealing with one person with a weapon, than we can start worrying about dealing with a bunch of people?
                          Selling stuff requires creativity, Goodlun, you know that...

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by goodlun View Post
                            How about most of start off by being able to get good enough to freaking deal with one person, than worry about dealing with one person with a weapon, than we can start worrying about dealing with a bunch of people?
                            I can't see the post you quoted.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I don't see that as an insult. Last systema guy I met went 2-1 in throw down fights.

                              But seriously it's original work, done on the streets.
                              Last edited by The Villain; 4/06/2016 7:30pm, .

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X