# 3 attackers or 1 group?



## theletch1 (Nov 2, 2007)

How do each of you view multiple attackers?  Do you view each attacker in the group and deal with them individually while keeping distance from the others or do you deal with the group as a whole while seeing each attack as simply a different limb of the main "animal"?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 2, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> Do you view each attacker in the group and deal with them individually while keeping distance from the others


 
From my POV this would be a mistake and not at all healthy


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 2, 2007)

Succinct as always, Xue!:ultracool  Tell me how you view dealing with multiples as a single unit.


----------



## tellner (Nov 2, 2007)

As someone with more experience in fighting multiple attackers than any hundred men should have said  "Fighting two is different than fighting one. Fighting three is different than fighting two. After that it's just a matter of aerobic fitness." 

You have to consider the dynamics and timing of more than one opponent. If you fight one at a time they will get at least three effective moves to every one of yours. So you can't do it like it was three one-on-one fights unless you're Cyrano de Bergerac moving slowly backwards across the footbridge fighting a hundred. You have to move differently, use them against each other, disrupt their function as a group entity and take advantage of the chaos of the situation. "One punch, one kill" becomes "Stick and move. Do damage and sow disorder with every motion."

It's a very deep and difficult subject. There are almost no martial arts out there that do even a poor to fair job of it.


----------



## ejaazi (Nov 3, 2007)

I view the all as one. One is just an extension of the other. I also use each one of the against the other, thus creating "one" attacker. It's kind of hard to explain it, and it would be easier to show you what I mean. But if you focus your energy only on one attacker, that will allow the others to take advantage of you. Treat them all as one and you will have the upper hand.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 3, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> Succinct as always, Xue!:ultracool Tell me how you view dealing with multiples as a single unit.


 
As it has already been said depending on numbers and location things can very greatly. 

If at all possible keep them on one side of you if not possible keep control of one side and watch the other very closely. 

When I trained this I can remember grabbing the guy closest to me and taking him out of the picture first, once I remember by a throw and another by simply grabbing him and body slamming him into a wall. The both have shock value and give the other attackers something to consider, even if for a moment, it gives you a slight advantage. But all the times in training multiple attackers it was never greater than 3 for me. After one was taken out it was fairly easy to keep the other 2 on one side of me. 

The one time I actually had to use this against multiple attackers was also 3, much nastier, much more debilitating and I walked away a bit scrapped, bruised and a limp that lasted a week but I walked away. And it was nothing like what I had trained.

I cannot really tell you how to handle multiple attackers, you just do. When you are fighting someone else there are a whole lot of variables that come into play and you have nothing left but to hope what you have trained is automatic. You can train 2, 3, 6, etc multiple attackers in the school, kwoon, dojo but when you are out in the street at night it becomes a very different thing. In class I had time to take out one in reality I got hit by all at once and did not have that time, i did manage to keep them in front of me preior to teh attack. You have to treat a group as one entity with multiple hands and feet and if at all possible you have to know where all those are all the time, and it is not possible. My best advice. Run and run fast only fight if you have to.


----------



## charyuop (Nov 3, 2007)

I don't know, I have never tried a real Randori. Once we started a normal excercise of punching and simply doing a tenkan while blanding with the Uke. Sensei sped it up a little and a little more and a little more. It ended up doing tenkan and as soon as you finished another Uke was already there punching (of course got punched in the chest every single time ouch hee hee). Sensei corrected me by having me focusing on the next person and not the one attacking me. When he did it, even before doing a technique on the first attacker he was alrwady "concerned" about what the second was doing, thus what he did to the first attacker was determined by position and timing of the second attacker.
Does that mean seeing it as a group or as single attackers? I think both and none at the same time. If you focus too much on the group you could lose control on the immediate attacker, while if you focus too much on the immediate attacker you lose control on the group.

P.S. Just for the curiosity...I never managed to hit Sensei. I really tried hard, but he was like disappearing in front of me. In a couple of cases I could have hit the other Uke easily tho, don't know if that counts LOL.


----------



## LawDog (Nov 3, 2007)

Group - When individuals work together to accomplish a common goal, your defeat.
3 Attackers - Individuals who "do not" work together to accomplish a common goal, your defeat.
:matrix:


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 3, 2007)

I don't know if it is necessarily a matter of how you think about it - more of how you deal with it.  Personally, I prefer to use each of them against each other.  Manipulate them so that they get in each other's way and you are only dealing with one at a time - or ideally, they take each other out of the equation.  There is also the divide and conquer method that the OP mentioned, take care of one while keeping distance from the other, reducing it to a 2 on one fight and eventually a 1 on 1 fight.


----------



## MBuzzy (Nov 3, 2007)

LawDog said:


> Group - When individuals work together to accomplish a common goal, your defeat.
> 3 Attackers - Individuals who "do not" work together to accomplish a common goal, your defeat.
> :matrix:


 
Lawdog has a great point, if the three are working AS a group, it makes things MUCH harder and changes the entire ordeal.


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 3, 2007)

Great answers all around.  For a long, long time I tended to deal with each attacker as they came.  Eventually, I came to realize that I was only able to do that because that's the way my ukes were attacking...singlely.  As I progressed in my training my ukes began to pick up their attacks in speed and singularity of purpose.  MBuzzy has a view very close to the way that I view multiples.  I love taking the first attack and either locking up one uke as a shield against others or using him as a bowling ball for the rest of the pins.  One of the things that I get caught up in though is "a technique for every attack".  I'm coming to discover that sometimes it will be necessary to pass of one attacker with a quick redirection and throw to be able to deal with the next attacker a bit more seriously.  I haven't taken out the first attacker but have given myself a little breathing room to deal with the second, third etc.

Keeping the attackers lined up is generally what I try to do before the first attacker ever gets to me so that they wind up in each others way.  I know that what we do in the dojo isn't exactly what I'm likely to have to deal with on the street but at least I'll have the experience in the dojo to draw on and not be completely out of my element.  

I'm enjoying this conversation and look very much forward to more from the rest of you.  Scenarios, tricks, dirty tricks and so on are always welcome.  Nothing, well very little, is ridiculous as anything is likely to spark that one thought that helps folks click on a concept.


----------



## shiho (Nov 3, 2007)

I pick one attacker and while engaging with him or her I have already picked the next one, and so on. I feel this method not only keeps me from focusing on one attacker, but also keeps me in a good flow, as to not get locked down.
          I kind of look as the group as a whole attack but individually deal with each. Thats just my theory or way of thinking.


----------



## charyuop (Nov 4, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> I know that what we do in the dojo isn't exactly what I'm likely to have to deal with on the street but at least I'll have the experience in the dojo to draw on and not be completely out of my element.


 
I do not agree 100%.
Try to think like 1 of the group. You have already won in your head. The first and second attacker might be there 100% to knock you out, but if you answer back the proper way, you might get effect also on the ones you haven't touched yet. The third and fourth attackers will start have hesitations, doubts and maybe some fear waiting for someone else to attack first so they can avoid a beating. Of course this is not always true, your reaction might wake up some more determination in the other attackers.
People picture street fights always in a certain way. But yes they can be like in the dojo, they could be much worse or even much easier...you never know.


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 4, 2007)

I don't think I was clear enough in what I was talking about with regards to "at least I'll have the experience".  If you find yourself thrown into a violent situation and have never trained to deal with any violence what-so-ever I believe that you'll have to rely wholly on those ingrained instincts that come with the original package at birth.  Fight/flight.  The conflict between these two, since we "modern" humans try so very hard to deny our basic nature could very well cause a system glitch and you'd simply freeze up and do nothing.  Having the relatively safe violence in the dojo against multiple attackers will at least allow my mental programming to have been accessed at some point in the past and when needed to kick in.  I'm not as likely to freeze up looking for the proper program somewhere way down in the dusty corners of my mind because the basic parameters of that particular defense program have already been accessed in training.  Is that making any sense?  It's kinda like one of the things you'll hear our newer students be told during an attack line..."Well, don't just stand there, do *something*."  If you've never run even a simulation program you can almost expect the works to freeze up during the real thing.


----------



## morph4me (Nov 4, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> I don't know if it is necessarily a matter of how you think about it - more of how you deal with it. Personally, I prefer to use each of them against each other. Manipulate them so that they get in each other's way and you are only dealing with one at a time - or ideally, they take each other out of the equation. There is also the divide and conquer method that the OP mentioned, take care of one while keeping distance from the other, reducing it to a 2 on one fight and eventually a 1 on 1 fight.


 
What he said . Perhaps the only advantage of being in a situation where you have to defend against a group is that you can defend against anybody in range and the group has to worry about getting in each others way. Small concillation but....


----------



## Yari (Nov 5, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> How do each of you view multiple attackers? Do you view each attacker in the group and deal with them individually while keeping distance from the others or do you deal with the group as a whole while seeing each attack as simply a different limb of the main "animal"?


 
I try working on seeing them as a whole, but there can be many different "wholes".  4 people can be 2 groups, and should be handled like that. 

I think that being able to change, depending upon what happens as a group dynamics is very important, if you capably of reading the signals.

But what I think as being the best approach, and even if by discussion it should show that it may be the best apporaoch. The really main issue is "you". Your abilities. If you can't read a group, there is no resaon for you to work techniques that demand being able to read groups. 

Some people are good at reading other, others are not good at reading otheres. You have to fit the style you pratice to the facts of yourself. First then your style will be even better.

Ofcourse you can try and leran to read people or groups, but the first step i being honest and wokring with that.

/Yari


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 5, 2007)

That's an interesting way of looking at it, Yari and I can certainly see where you're coming from.  I think it goes back to the post regarding groups attacking in unison as opposed to those just bum rushing someone.  A group that makes a habit of attacking as a group may very well have worked out a plan for couples to act as a single sub-unit of the whole.

Reading people is a skill that takes a good deal of time to become proficient with.  I, admittedly, am not where I want to be with it.  I'm making progress from running randori drills and just trying to read people that I come into contact with on a daily basis and that helps.


----------

