# Multiple attackers



## Kenpo Yahoo (Nov 2, 2003)

Do you feel that, specifically, the multiple attacker techniques, found in the EPAK Brown belt curriculum, adequately portray or prepare you for a multiple attacker situation?


----------



## Michael Billings (Nov 3, 2003)

If you look at the techniques, as written for Two-Man attacks, they give you lots to chew on.  Specifically the tactics for dealing with multiple attackers:

This includes:

1.  Attacking the weak link
2.  Distraction techniques
3.  Simultaineous striking with upper and lower case
4.  Creating a blockade with one of the opponent's bodies
5.  Rebounding off one opponent into the other.
6.  etc.

There is a lot more here in the base techniqes as written, that gives you the tools you need to modify other techniques into multiple attack responses.

It opens up the idea of grafting pieces of techniqes into two-man attack scenarios, and on a more interesting note for me personally, utilizing the control (not limited to "contact") manipulations to create a more favorable environment to end the fight.

We were sparring this weekend with multiple attackers, and the only "successful" scenarios used pieces of techniques, because if we were sparring "tournament" style, you just did not want to damage your training partner such that they could not continue.  Hard to train the reality of this.  Some of the survival drills were on the ground and using the other opponent as a shield temporarily.  Very interesting stuff.

It will always be a fluid and ever-changing target rich environment as more opponents come into play.  "It may be easy to kill 'em, but hard to beat 'em." (Me)

I think that the two man techniques give us a good starting point in terms of strategy and tactics for working against multiple opponents.  We should not limit ourselves to these, but maybe flow into some rhythym sparring using the techniques also, and see where it evolves from there.

IMHO,
-Michael:asian:


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Nov 3, 2003)

Michael:  Excellent points!  Sounds like you had a really fun workout.  

In my not-so-humble opinion, Kenpo 2-man techniques are about as good as you can find anywhere.  The techniques are tools to teach principles.  Applying those principles in a more alive environment (as in Mr. Billings recent workout) are what will enable you to be effective.   That being said, I don't think you can ever be adequately prepared to fight multiple skilled, determined, strong attackers.  But I don't know of any other way to prepare for such a situation.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Nov 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kenpo Yahoo _*
> Do you feel that, specifically, the multiple attacker techniques, found in the EPAK Brown belt curriculum, adequately portray or prepare you for a multiple attacker situation?
> *



Let me say, that I think they do a sufficient job just like any of the other techniques do in our system.  Like OFK and Mr. Billings have pointed out, they teach a "base" from which you can use as  a [point of reference] as you move into the "what if" phase and experiment with variable expansion as you should.

It seems to me that many people are looking for the "cookie cutter" system, with every possible type of attack or defense possible.   This to me is confusing... did they miss the point of all the Kenpo Tools?

Our System has been organized with much valuable material, but we must first learn the basics or foundation, understand the tools taught, examine the posted examples, then continue and train for the possible variables that may occur.  

:asian:


----------



## Blindside (Nov 4, 2003)

I like some of the two-man attacks found in both the Tracy and Parker curriculums.  I find value in the two-man techs that involve grabs, either by one or both attackers.  As soon as you get to the point of two striking attackers I think self-defense would be better taught by simply teaching the tactics/concepts of multiple attacker self-defense (examples like Mr. Billings pointed out) and then going out and doing spontaneity drills.  

My main problem with two or more striking attackers is that you are trying to what if off an incredibly chaotic situation and that no base technique is going to give you more than the tiniest glimpse of what really might happen.

Lamont


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Nov 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Blindside _*
> My main problem with two or more striking attackers is that you are trying to what if off an incredibly chaotic situation and that no base technique is going to give you more than the tiniest glimpse of what really might happen.
> Lamont
> *



These techniques (as in others as well) are just some base examples so as to give us a reference point to what you call "incredible chaotic situations".  Do you really expect to be able to cover "all" such scenarios possible?  

The "ideal" teaches us the coordination and basic knowledge we need to start, the "what if" allows us the vehicle to explore variables, after much training in the "what if" phase we THEN should be able to "FORMULATE", which does allow us the ability to react extemporaneously.


:asian:


----------



## kenpo12 (Nov 4, 2003)

I think the kenpo two man techs do cover alot of principles and concepts, but in my opinion, you need to strike preemptively in a two or more opponent situation.  Otherwise you're fighting an uphill battle you are unlikely to win.  I think the two man techs are great to get you out of there if you goof up the pre emptive strikes.

Matt


----------



## clapping_tiger (Nov 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Goldendragon7 _
> *Let me say, that I think they do a sufficient job just like any of the other techniques do in our system.  Like OFK and Mr. Billings have pointed out, they teach a "base" from which you can use as  a [point of reference] as you move into the "what if" phase and experiment with variable expansion as you should.
> 
> It seems to me that many people are looking for the "cookie cutter" system, with every possible type of attack or defense possible.   This to me is confusing... did they miss the point of all the Kenpo Tools?
> ...


I agree 110%. This mentality is one of the most frustrating for me. I am not pointing fingers to anyone here, but I mean people I meet in person, always asking the "what would you do here", and then "What would you do if........" Every situation is different and may warrent a different action/reaction. You cannot predict what you would do in any situation, 2 man attack, 1 on 1, 5 to 1. The techniques are just the tools, you must learn how to apply them and make them work for you.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 4, 2003)

> These techniques (as in others as well) are just some base examples so as to give us a reference point to what you call "incredible chaotic situations". Do you really expect to be able to cover "all" such scenarios possible?



No, my point is that a base technique in a two-man attack (before contact, so no grabs) covers such a limited percentage of the possible attacks that it isn't even worth the time to spend on such a fictitious ideal.

By brown you have a student who has been studying at least 3 years or so, should be reasonably competent with single attacker scenarios, and be able to react extemporaneously to those attacks.  Your what if is a second attacker, instead of resorting back down to a base technique to start your process over.

For our multiple opponent attacks (pre-contact) we teach our students general rules such as: to take out the leader, line up opponents, keep their awareness open, use an opponent as a shield, and to MOVE.  Probably not a whole lot different than what any other kenpo school teaches, but I think our method makes more sense.

Salute,

Lamont


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Nov 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Blindside _*
> Our multiple opponent attacks (pre-contact) we teach our students general rules such as:
> to take out the leader,
> line up opponents,
> ...



Of course it makes perfect sense, however, these are some examples of strategy as Billings eluded to in his post.  You still need examples of actual engagement as a base to start with, and then "what if" it from there.

:asian:


----------

