# Fighting Multiples:  A Possibility or A Fantasy?



## MJS (Aug 20, 2008)

During some of my free time, I lurk on various forums.  I say lurk, because there isn't enough time in the day to be a member of every forum out there, but I do enjoy reading various posts, and the views of people.

So, while I'm lurking, I often come across threads on fighting multiple opponents.  The opinions vary, with some saying its possible, and others saying that anyone teaching students how to do this, is a fake, because its impossible to fight more than 1.

During my SKK years, I never saw any mult. opponent training, however in the Parker/Tracy system and even in Kajukenbo, there are techniques designed for more than one person.

So my question to the Kenpo/Kaju folks on this board is:  What are your thoughts on this?  Are there other methods that you use in your training to address this, other than the set techniques?


----------



## marlon (Aug 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> During some of my free time, I lurk on various forums. I say lurk, because there isn't enough time in the day to be a member of every forum out there, but I do enjoy reading various posts, and the views of people.
> 
> So, while I'm lurking, I often come across threads on fighting multiple opponents. The opinions vary, with some saying its possible, and others saying that anyone teaching students how to do this, is a fake, because its impossible to fight more than 1.
> 
> ...


 


 speaking for the skk i have been exposed to and train, the cross and cover after techniques is specifically to address multiple attackers...but that does not answer your question.  We have a dragon circle; gauntlet; kempo sparring multiple opponents, as well as reaction drills that progress to multiple attacker situations.  the best thing is to be aware of your exit, power a hole in that direction and run.  Your goal in a multiple attacker situation is an exit or a better defensive position so your techniques need to move you with a single minded goal to safety. of course, cut and damage as much as possible and in my opinon as ruthlessly as possible on the way.  Again training trumps techniques this is why we have the above mentioned training tools.  


Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## pete (Aug 20, 2008)

In baguazhang, we learn to 'stack' our opponents, which means we keep ourselves moving as to position one opponent behind the other.  This keeps us actively fighting one at a time.  

The american kenpo techniques that i am familiar sometimes put us between two opponents, which is not a good place to be... but you might end up there! 

so between these two methods we have the ideal and the what-if.  in my opinion is that if you find yourself in the what-if mode, take care of it best you can (the kenpo techniques are some good ideas)... but get back to the ideal (ie, bagua stacking~)

pete


----------



## JTKenpo (Aug 20, 2008)

Good answers in my opinion from both Marlon and Pete.  To reenforce a few points the idea is to ONLY fight one at a time even if there are multiple attackers.  In other words "stack" the opponents as Pete said to keep only one in front of you and deal with that one.  I think some people like to split hairs far too fine and say that it is impossible to fight two people simultaneously, which may be true but it is also true that you can fight two attackers off at the same time.  No they are not going to just wait their turn to attack BUT it is possible to get to the outside of the two and disable one and then deal with the other.

My experience anyway.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 20, 2008)

Is it possible?  Yes.  Many people have done it and there are even a couple clips on youtube of people doing it.  

Strategy and movement are they keys, also know your personal weapons and target selection.

1)  Awareness is key, know where your opponents are at all times
2)  You can only fight one person at a time, even if it is split seconds apart.  Use your movement to use one opponent to shield you from the others.
3)  You goal is not to fight multiple opponents, it is to do enough damage and shock them to get away safely.  This is not the movies where you stand in the middle of the circle and duke it out until you are the last one standing.
4)  Choose techniques that will do one or more three things to your opponent.  Take away his breathing, eyesight, and movement.  If he can't catch his breath, see you or move to you, he can't hurt you when you run.
5) Understand multiple opponent psychology and strategy.  Watch for the set up that they will try to take and flank you in the first place.  This also goes back to the first of awareness.


----------



## RevIV (Aug 20, 2008)

Ummmmm,  all the forms are fighting multiple people, and if you are doing the bunkai then you are training to fight multiple people -- heck the knuckle roll in the beg. of 1 pinan strikes two people in the groin.  I have a lot of forms that are hitting two people simo.


----------



## John Bishop (Aug 20, 2008)

All good points, especially about stacking up attackers.  Plus I think you have to understand the psychology of a group attacker.  For the most part they attack in groups because they lack the courage or ability to fight well alone.  A couple good shots from a good fighter will cause some of these people to lose heart and quit. 
There always the nay sayers who claim that things like knee breaks, eye pokes, throat strikes, etc, aren't effective.  But they the same ones who say 90% of all fights go to the ground.  Well, a large percentage of fighters may be knocked down, slip, or be pulled down.  But that doesn't guarantee a grappling situation.  Most people just get kicked and stomped until they can get back on their feet.
But for the grappler who has no techniques for fighting multiple attackers, they just claim it's impossible to fight multiple attackers.  So why waste your time training to do so.

Well, here's some real life incidents of multiple attackers. 











Simple rules:

Stay on your feet
Stack the attackers up
Keep moving
Don't tie yourself up with just 1 attacker.  Hit him or kick him a few times while trying to watch the others with your peripheral vision.
Try and make each strike or kick count.  Target the knee, groin, eyes, throat, etc.  
Keep looking for your chance to escape.


----------



## Hyper_Shadow (Aug 21, 2008)

> There always the nay sayers who claim that things like knee breaks, eye pokes, throat strikes, etc, aren't effective. But they the same ones who say 90% of all fights go to the ground. Well, a large percentage of fighters may be knocked down, slip, or be pulled down. But that doesn't guarantee a grappling situation. Most people just get kicked and stomped until they can get back on their feet.
> But for the grappler who has no techniques for fighting multiple attackers, they just claim it's impossible to fight multiple attackers. So why waste your time training to do so.



Some good points, but the vast majority of instances I've witnessed myself have ended up with two guys (or gals, really rough women drink in the pubs by me) scrabbling round trying to get up and give the other a kick. Usually though they just end up repetedly pulling each other around and down to the floor whilst swinging their arms. But that's just what I've seen personally.
My opinion is that if you have to fight for your life then you'll fight whoever is in the way. Whether it's one or even ten. If you need to you'll fight and you'll use everything you've got to win. The chances of you winning are next to none but as Terry Pratchett would say, 'If it's a million to one chance, it's sure to work!'


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 21, 2008)

Well I have to agree with lining the people up and then trying to only take on one at a time.  Multiple opponents that are intent on doing you damage are a very, very dangerous situation.  However there simply are no absolutes in martial science training or execution in the moment.  Meaning that it is possible to defend yourself against multiple attackers and yet I do not think that any of us want to be in that situation any time soon because the odds are not good.


----------



## LawDog (Aug 21, 2008)

It is very difficult to use techniques during a multi opponent attack. One must fall back onto their "live drill" training to be effective.
Multi opponent techniques are,
* designed to help you understand a multi situation,
* give you idea's on how to respond,
* teach you proper footwork in a multi situation.
Multi drills will allow you to feel / experience the live flow of a multi opponent attack. Multi techniques tend to be static in nature.
A Golden Rule for a multi situation,
You should control the situation enough so that you keep your opponents away from each other. In this way you can, hopefully, be dealing with one opponent for very short time periods, (most SKK forms display this).
If your opponts are allowed to, from any angle, to get close to each other they will be unified in their assault.
Just a few on my thoughts / experience.
:soapbox:


----------



## bowser666 (Aug 21, 2008)

I hope you guys do not mind that I am chiming in this section.   I used to study kenpo but now study Kung Fu and we are taught that forms, as well as "dragon circles" are good preparations for dealing with multiple attackers. In fact as you get into the black belt areas , it is required for testing. 2nd degree is 3 vs 1 , and for 3rd degree ( Sifu ) it is required to do 6 vs 1 sparring. I have seen footage of this and it was insane! regardless of style, practicing sparring , doing forms, is all building up to the eventual goal of instinctive response. I personally would look for an exit before I got involved into a tangle with a group of guys.


----------



## kenpofighter (Aug 21, 2008)

More than two attackers: have fun! But with two attacker I think it is very possible if the person getting attacked knows what he is doing. In kenpo we teach to share: a hit to one guy, a kick to another, and back and forth till they are both down. We also try to keep them both in front of us or to our forty-fives. This keeps us from getting whacked in the back of the head. Dangerous but Doable. But, hey, isn't it all!


----------



## John Bishop (Aug 21, 2008)

I think we sometimes forget.  That just because people like to bully people once their in groups, doesn't mean they know how to fight.  In fact the  majority of people have little or no fighting skills.  
Most people who know how to fight, don't need the assistance of others.   As you can see in the Turkisk You Tube vid, a lot of guys wanted to fight.  But only one guy actually knew how to fight.  He just used basics.  Kept his guard up, moved around, just used a few well placed techniques, and never spent too much time with one attacker.


----------



## BLACK LION (Aug 21, 2008)

absolutely...one should always assume there are multiple attackers even in a singular confrontation.....     always penetrate and rotate ....penetrate rotate


----------



## Bodhisattva (Aug 21, 2008)

MJS said:


> During some of my free time, I lurk on various forums.  I say lurk, because there isn't enough time in the day to be a member of every forum out there, but I do enjoy reading various posts, and the views of people.
> 
> So, while I'm lurking, I often come across threads on fighting multiple opponents.  The opinions vary, with some saying its possible, and others saying that anyone teaching students how to do this, is a fake, because its impossible to fight more than 1.
> 
> ...



Fighting more than one opponent.

When will the fairy tales end?


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 21, 2008)

John Bishop said:


> All good points, especially about stacking up attackers.  Plus I think you have to understand the psychology of a group attacker.  For the most part they attack in groups because they lack the courage or ability to fight well alone.  A couple good shots from a good fighter will cause some of these people to lose heart and quit.
> There always the nay sayers who claim that things like knee breaks, eye pokes, throat strikes, etc, aren't effective.  But they the same ones who say 90% of all fights go to the ground.  Well, a large percentage of fighters may be knocked down, slip, or be pulled down.  But that doesn't guarantee a grappling situation.  Most people just get kicked and stomped until they can get back on their feet.
> But for the grappler who has no techniques for fighting multiple attackers, they just claim it's impossible to fight multiple attackers.  So why waste your time training to do so.
> 
> ...


Both are great videos for the nay-sayers of multiple attackers/fighters. The Turkish guy did exactly what he was supposed to do; keep moving and keep everyone within a line of sight and not letting them gang up on him or surround him. He was also hitting them hard enough and accurately enough to throw them off balance and to the ground, thus freeing himself to face the next guy and the next. 

The 2 to 1 guy just turned a defense into a highly aggressive offense, again another good example of how to stay on top of the situation. Seeing one go down and focusing on the next and yes both videos prove your point that most when seeing aggression turned (back) towards them, hesitate and either back off or reduce the aggression of their own attack. 

I've faced multiples twice in my years and got away with my life both times because I didn't cower and hope they'd go away... also ran like hell as soon as the opportunity presented it self, which occurred after laying some blows of my own and forcing the "group" to pause and re-think tactics, which gave me my window of opportunity to run. 

Fighting multiples IS possible, the main element is getting over the fear and then being twice as aggressive as the attackers.


----------



## John Bishop (Aug 21, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Fighting more than one opponent.
> 
> When will the fairy tales end?



Ah, spoken like a true grappler.  Hopefully you really don't believe what your saying?  That kind of belief is automatically planning to fail.

 People fight multiple attackers quite often.  And many people come out winners.  I can't remember how many times as a patrol officer I've arrived at the scene where some guy has mopped up the floor with 2-3 guys.  
There are probably many people on this forum who have fought multiple attackers, and came out either on top, or at least in one piece.  
Now days with the use of cell phone cameras, or surveillance cameras, there is plenty of video evidence that people can engage multiple attackers, and sometimes come out on top if they use good tactics and strategy.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 21, 2008)

Hyper_Shadow said:


> Some good points, but the vast majority of instances I've witnessed myself have ended up with two guys* (or gals,* *really rough women drink in the pubs by me*) scrabbling round trying to get up and give the other a kick. Usually though they just end up repetedly pulling each other around and down to the floor whilst swinging their arms. But that's just what I've seen personally.
> My opinion is that if you have to fight for your life then you'll fight whoever is in the way. Whether it's one or even ten. If you need to you'll fight and you'll use everything you've got to win. The chances of you winning are next to none but as Terry Pratchett would say, 'If it's a million to one chance, it's sure to work!'


 
:lfao: Ah the Black Country's fair damsels!


----------



## marlon (Aug 21, 2008)

John Bishop said:


> Ah, spoken like a true grappler. Hopefully you really don't believe what your saying? That kind of belief is automatically planning to fail.


 

true enough


----------



## Danjo (Aug 21, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Fighting more than one opponent.
> 
> When will the fairy tales end?


 
Hmmm... I've read an interview with Rorion Gracie where he said the same thing. He admitted that BJJ doesn't teach you to deal with multiple attackers, but that nothing else would really work either. 

Two things have changed since that interview: 1) Video tape of these kind of fights has proven him wrong, and 2.) The Gracies no longer dominate MMA.

Rickson versus Fedor anyone?


----------



## marlon (Aug 21, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Fighting more than one opponent.
> 
> When will the fairy tales end?


 

and yet a triskilion of three dragons...


----------



## kidswarrior (Aug 21, 2008)

OK, here's a sea story from long ago. 

There once was a boxer turned decent street fighter, who found himself in a verbal confrontation with another guy...who suddenly became two guys...who then morphed into four guys. The first of the four--the true aggressor--suddenly swung for the fence with an overhand right, which the lone defender blocked and returned fire. The other three 'attackers' were so shocked, evidently at the speed and level of violence of the incident, and certainly the fact that the single defender so quickly turned the tables (must have given them pause--even if it was a luck), that they stood frozen to the spot.

Bystanders broke it up (as was the norm in those days), and that was that. Point is, it was never four against one. It was always one on one, or maybe two if the follower had seen his friend draw some blood. But once the leader got rocked, it was all over but the shoutin'.


----------



## MJS (Aug 21, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Fighting more than one opponent.
> 
> When will the fairy tales end?


 
So because there are so solid answers in BJJ, its assumed that nobody else has an answer?  So pretty much if more than one person is involved, you're saying the defender should just shrivel into a ball, and accept a beating, because there is nothing he can do?  Sorry, I don't buy it.


----------



## MJS (Aug 21, 2008)

Great replies everyone! Thanks!

I agree with alot of what was said.  Of course, getting away from the situation, running, etc. is always a good option, but if its not available, I'd think that you should have a plan B.  The techniques are a base to build off of, but of course, running thru drills with multiples is going to help.

As some have mentioned, things such as the cross/cover.  Not a tech. per se, but its still something that creates space.  The katas are another tool, and of course, various parts that involve multiples should be extracted and worked live.  I like the idea of stacking the opponents in an effort to use one as a shield.  Of course, if its possible to get ahold of one, not only using him as a shield against others, and while doing that, punishing him, well, that in itself could be a good deterrant against the others. 

In addition to our empty hand skills, I'm in favor of picking up something to use as an equalizer.  The odds are already stacked against us, so picking up something to use as a weapon could increase the odds for us.  A stick, chair, ashtray, a rock...anything.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Aug 29, 2008)

One thing I learned from the second time I got jumped was to get inside their heads. The first time I got jumped, I crawled away. The second time, I fought like a demon, and walked away. Every time they tried to give chase I chased them right back, and *they* fled.


----------



## zDom (Aug 30, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Fighting more than one opponent.
> 
> When will the fairy tales end?



Bod, you can't be serious.

Unlike Brazil, where the culture, evidently, loves the "mano y mano" one-on-one fight, in Southeast Missouri almost every single time I've had to mix it up, both before and after training martial arts, it has been against multiple attackers. Several times before, several times after.

I've always done pretty well (or been lucky), even before martial arts. Since training, I have always come out unharmed while my attackers did NOT come out unharmed.

I hope the Kenpo folk don't mind me chiming in here, but to confirm some of what already has been mentioned, my experiences have shown me that:

&#8226; Most who attack as a group really don't know how to fight. Few will have their act together enough to all rush at the same time. Most will patiently wait for their turn to attack  But don't depend on it. It is best to get out of the situation before they figure out how to really use their numerical advantage.

&#8226; Depending on the locale (small room? outside? large room?) there is a limit on how many can get to you at one time.

&#8226; "Stacking" is GOOD. At the very least, don't let someone work their way around to your back. Even the biggest idiot realizes that jumping on you from behind is a low-risk/high reward attack.

&#8226; If you hurt one really bad, the rest will very often lose their taste for the fight and be more hesitant to attack &#8212; but not always. Sometimes it will actually make them more resolved and suddenly realize they need to rush in as a group.

&#8226; Be aggressive: do NOT wait around to "counter" an incoming attack. ATTACK the most immediate threat. Quickly switching targets DOES work &#8212; and very well. One or two strikes and then look for the next threat. If you stay on one target too long ("target fixation" they call it air combat ), it doesn't take another attacker long to figure out they can get you while you aren't looking.

By switching targets rapidly, you often catch them by surprise &#8212; you can often be hitting them as they are deciding to attack you, catching them wide open (all their thoughts being on attack instead of defense, I guess).

&#8226; Do NOT target fixate in an attempt to "finish" one of the targets. And do NOT stop to make sure one of your targets is "all right" after dealing with them. An attack by multiple targets can be LETHAL (even if they aren't TRYING to kill you, they could end up doing so by accident by getting caught up in a frenzy), and it is my understanding an attack by multiple attackers is or can be considered a lethal attack under the law.

I'm not saying you should try to kill anyone; but don't stop to worry about if you have hurt someone really bad until YOU are safe. Then call an ambulance for your attackers and the police if the cops haven't already arrived. DO call the police. Being attacked by multiple attackers is serious stuff.


Something to consider: when the cops arrive, you are going to have (at least!) one BIG problem:

Assuming you are good and lucky enough to come out on top, the next problem is: They are going to have more "witnesses."

Expect them to say, "He started it!" and end up going to the cop-shop while they sort out the facts.

The GOOD news is: they won't have had the time to work out a story, so chances are they will expose themselves as liars during the interview. Stick to THE TRUTH &#8212; cops are pretty good about detecting lies.


----------



## kidswarrior (Aug 30, 2008)

zDom said:


> Bod, you can't be serious.
> 
> Unlike Brazil, where the culture, evidently, loves the "mano y mano" one-on-one fight, in Southeast Missouri almost every single time I've had to mix it up, both before and after training martial arts, it has been against multiple attackers. Several times before, several times after.
> 
> ...


Too soon to rep you again, so I'll say it here: A top-notch response, with the clear ring of truth. I'd love to see this expanded just slightly  and posted here on MT as an article.


----------



## morph4me (Aug 30, 2008)

You may not be able to fight multiple attackers, but you can fight one attacker multiple times. Keep moving, keep them stacked, attack brutally, and get away as soon as you can do so safetly.


----------



## tigdra (Sep 24, 2008)

Multiple opponent training is a skill and discipline that comes with lots of practice, it is not impossible. It is a process; you can't train for individual (one on one) defense and then the next minute train for multiple opponent attacks. 

At a basic level you should train to always keep your eye on the opponent, to focus on shoulder and hip movement so to react to his attack. Drills would include single opponent self-defense  

At an intermediate level your peripheral vision should be at 180 degrees and upon working your single opponent techniques you should have a cover out that faces both the front wall and the rear so that 360 degrees are covered but without any movement of your feet just a rotation over the upper body.
At this level 2-3 multiple opponent sparring would be included to train an individual to use positioning, confusion, and footwork to his advantage. 

At an advanced level your vision should be beyond 180 degrees and now you can start learning multiple opponent techniques, the theory of "no mind" should be adapted and there is no one focus point just reaction, your cover out should include one or several steps towards a position of advantage. At this level you should be training with 4-6 individuals focusing on quick and precise evasive movements and counter attacks.

Defending yourself from multiple attacks is as defending yourself against a gun attack.    

You wouldn't want to find yourself in either scenario, but it would be idiotic to not prepare yourself for either or, and even though defending yourself against either scenario ,ay seem impossible there are certain advantages that can be employed.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 25, 2008)

Danjo said:


> Hmmm... I've read an interview with Rorion Gracie where he said the same thing. He admitted that BJJ doesn't teach you to deal with multiple attackers, but that nothing else would really work either.
> 
> Two things have changed since that interview: 1) Video tape of these kind of fights has proven him wrong, and 2.) The Gracies no longer dominate MMA.


 
Just to add on to that.  Rickson did an interview many years ago and even said that in America he would fight standing up.  He said that the fight culture here was very different and you had to worry about others getting involved and would be dangerous on the ground.  He also made mention of carrying a gun here. 

I have heard people say this about other skill sets as well, just because YOU can't do something, doesn't mean it can't be done.


----------



## Hyper_Shadow (Sep 25, 2008)

> I have heard people say this about other skill sets as well, just because YOU can't do something, doesn't mean it can't be done.



Amen to that. People are always gonna be coming up with new and trickier ways to hurt and exploit other peoples weaknesses. So we as martial artists have to be one step ahead of the game and mould our individual skillsets to tackle these occurences.


----------



## zDom (Sep 25, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> Just to add on to that.  Rickson did an interview many years ago and even said that in America he would fight standing up.  He said that the fight culture here was very different and you had to worry about others getting involved and would be dangerous on the ground.  He also made mention of carrying a gun here.



I am now basking in what appears to me to be the glow of vindication  

I long ago stated (probably multiple times) that BJJ was something that works well in the mano-y-mano culture of Brazil but here in Southeast Missouri just isn't the best option as here it is a culture in which it is not a matter of IF your opponents will jump in, but WHEN.

I would love to have the transcript or vid clip of Rickson saying this.

Also wondering WHEN he said this: before or after me


----------



## kidswarrior (Sep 25, 2008)

zDom said:


> Also wondering WHEN he said this: before or after me


I'm sure he lifted it from you, verbatim


----------



## John Bishop (Sep 26, 2008)

zDom said:


> I am now basking in what appears to me to be the glow of vindication
> 
> I long ago stated (probably multiple times) that BJJ was something that works well in the mano-y-mano culture of Brazil but here in Southeast Missouri just isn't the best option as here it is a culture in which it is not a matter of IF your opponents will jump in, but WHEN.
> 
> ...



Back in the 90's when I was writing for "Inside Kung Fu's" theme magazines, I did several articles with Reylson Gracie.  Reylson is a 9th degree and son of Gracie jiu jitsu founder, Carlos Gracie.  
One of the things that Inside Kung Fu liked to do at the time was articles called "Comparable Styles".  In these articles they would take 1 attack, and show how 5 or 6 differant stylists would defend against the attack.
I had written several of these articles and included Reylson and his Gracie jiu jitsu.  When it came time to do one versus multiple attackers, I asked Reylson again to participate.  He respectfully declined, and explained to me that Gracie jiu jutsu was not really suited to fighting multiple attackers.  And that he would be a "charlaton" if he was to pose some pictures in a magazine claiming they were defenses against multiple attackers. 
He went on to tell me that in his society it was considered very unmanly to not fight 1 on 1, or mano e mano. 
He said that the only time several drunk guys tried to attack him, he threw the first guy hard to the pavement with a shoulder throw.  The guy screamed, and the others ran away.  He said if they hadn't run away, he probably would have gotten beaten up pretty bad.


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2008)

zDom said:


> I am now basking in what appears to me to be the glow of vindication
> 
> I long ago stated (probably multiple times) that BJJ was something that works well in the mano-y-mano culture of Brazil but here in Southeast Missouri just isn't the best option as here it is a culture in which it is not a matter of IF your opponents will jump in, but WHEN.
> 
> ...


 


John Bishop said:


> Back in the 90's when I was writing for "Inside Kung Fu's" theme magazines, I did several articles with Reylson Gracie. Reylson is a 9th degree and son of Gracie jiu jitsu founder, Carlos Gracie.
> One of the things that Inside Kung Fu liked to do at the time was articles called "Comparable Styles". In these articles they would take 1 attack, and show how 5 or 6 differant stylists would defend against the attack.
> I had written several of these articles and included Reylson and his Gracie jiu jitsu. When it came time to do one versus multiple attackers, I asked Reylson again to participate. He respectfully declined, and explained to me that Gracie jiu jutsu was not really suited to fighting multiple attackers. And that he would be a "charlaton" if he was to pose some pictures in a magazine claiming they were defenses against multiple attackers.
> He went on to tell me that in his society it was considered very unmanly to not fight 1 on 1, or mano e mano.
> He said that the only time several drunk guys tried to attack him, he threw the first guy hard to the pavement with a shoulder throw. The guy screamed, and the others ran away. He said if they hadn't run away, he probably would have gotten beaten up pretty bad.


 
Good points in these 2 posts.  Now, I will admit that they (The Gracies) have opened the eyes of many, with the importance of having some ground work in your toolbox.  Now, just because we have empty hand techs. in the Kenpo system for multiples, doesn't mean that we're always going to have luck with them, and we certainly need to train situations like this on a regular basis.  However, at least the Kenpo system is offering a possible solution.  We have a grappling system that advertises the ultimate in SD, but have 2 high ranking BJJ Black Belts saying that the system fails in that area, yet you still have diehards who claim that its a fantasy and running is the answer.  I think we've seen proof that it isn't a fantasy, and what if you can't run?  Crumble up in a ball and die?  Again, at least the Kenpo systems offer some possible solution.


----------



## marlon (Sep 26, 2008)

John Bishop said:


> Back in the 90's when I was writing for "Inside Kung Fu's" theme magazines, I did several articles with Reylson Gracie. Reylson is a 9th degree and son of Gracie jiu jitsu founder, Carlos Gracie.
> One of the things that Inside Kung Fu liked to do at the time was articles called "Comparable Styles". In these articles they would take 1 attack, and show how 5 or 6 differant stylists would defend against the attack.
> I had written several of these articles and included Reylson and his Gracie jiu jitsu. When it came time to do one versus multiple attackers, I asked Reylson again to participate. He respectfully declined, and explained to me that Gracie jiu jutsu was not really suited to fighting multiple attackers. And that he would be a "charlaton" if he was to pose some pictures in a magazine claiming they were defenses against multiple attackers.
> He went on to tell me that in his society it was considered very unmanly to not fight 1 on 1, or mano e mano.
> He said that the only time several drunk guys tried to attack him, he threw the first guy hard to the pavement with a shoulder throw. The guy screamed, and the others ran away. He said if they hadn't run away, he probably would have gotten beaten up pretty bad.


 
any possiblity of a link to the original article or at least the issue #?

Respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## John Bishop (Sep 28, 2008)

marlon said:


> any possiblity of a link to the original article or at least the issue #?
> 
> Respectfully,
> Marlon



Well the articles Reylson declined to be in was "2 Against 1, What To Do When Your Outnumbered".  "Inside Kung Fu Presents- Secrets of the Masters" December 1995.  2 man defenses were demonstrated by instructors of: Shorinji Kempo, Wing Chun, Hop Do Sool, Kung Fun San Soo, and American Kenpo.


----------



## J.K. (Dec 3, 2008)

Lots of good points highlighting the superiority of kenpo (or other stand-up styles) vs. bjj in this scenario. All good and fine. But... would the scenario change if... horror of horrors.. you ended up on the ground w/ multiple opponents ? Maybe someone holding you down or on top of you, someone else trying twist an ankle, someone kicking? I think bjj might be a little better in that instance.


----------



## kidswarrior (Dec 3, 2008)

J.K. said:


> Lots of good points highlighting the superiority of kenpo (or other stand-up styles) vs. bjj in this scenario. All good and fine. But... would the scenario change if... horror of horrors.. you ended up on the ground w/ multiple opponents ? Maybe someone holding you down or on top of you, someone else trying twist an ankle, someone kicking? I think bjj might be a little better in that instance.


Well, this is in the Kenpo/Kempo area, so don't want to derail the discussion. But John Bishop mentioned Kung Fu San Soo in passing, and I'd like to say I've seen/practiced quite a few scenarios in KFSS against multiples on the ground that appeared pretty effective. Never had to try them outside the training hall, though, so couldn't say first hand. But my point is, BJJ is not the only way to fight on the ground, nor is it the only art to supplement Ken/mpo with, in my mind.


----------



## Danjo (Dec 3, 2008)

J.K. said:


> Lots of good points highlighting the superiority of kenpo (or other stand-up styles) vs. bjj in this scenario. All good and fine. But... would the scenario change if... horror of horrors.. you ended up on the ground w/ multiple opponents ? Maybe someone holding you down or on top of you, someone else trying twist an ankle, someone kicking? I think bjj might be a little better in that instance.


 
You mean fighting for position and then submission? The Gracies don't try to argue that BJJ is good for fighting multiple opponents. Their claim is that _no_ art is good for fighting multiple opponents. As we've seen, this is not quite true.


----------



## MJS (Dec 3, 2008)

J.K. said:


> Lots of good points highlighting the superiority of kenpo (or other stand-up styles) vs. bjj in this scenario. All good and fine. But... would the scenario change if... horror of horrors.. you ended up on the ground w/ multiple opponents ? Maybe someone holding you down or on top of you, someone else trying twist an ankle, someone kicking? I think bjj might be a little better in that instance.


 
I will admit that BJJ does give some great ideas on the ground, as well as methods to get back up properly and safely.  However, the goal, in the situation you just presented, should be to get back to your feet ASAP.  From that point, I like the idea of trying to a) position yourself so you try to use one person as a shield against the others, and b) doing your best to cause as much damage to the person closest to you.  

To clarify my above.  Trying to use 1 opponent to block the others.  Will it always work?  Nothing is a sure shot, but its a good tool to use and will hopefully frustrate the others.  If you can overwhelm the person closest to you, grabbing them if necessary, that may be enough to make the others think twice, if they see their friend in pain.


----------

