1 vs. 3

[Chris Parker]

Now this has some good lessons.

I got beat up by three guys once. I know what I did wrong.

In my case, I was watching a drunken idiot performing 'kick boxing' in public at a party. I attracted his attention. Mistake 1: don't bad stare drunken idiots.

Yep. The trick is to not be a soft target, but at the same time, don't present a challenge, as drunken egos tend to want to take such things up, whether you intended them or not.

He then approached me with two of his friends, who flanked me on either side while he approached head on. Mistake 2: don't let that happen. Move.

Yep, they were basically boxing you in. In your defence, though, that can happen incredibly fast, especially when your mind is taken up with the front guy yelling, shoving etc. So while you can say all that now, with the clear mind free of adrenaline and the benefit of hindsight, it may not really have been as much of an option as you feel.

He then did the 'chest bump' angry-talk thing in my face; I kept his buddy to my right in my peripheral vision and when he drew back to sucker punch me, I moved into attack position and chased him back, but did not hit him. Mistake 3: I should have gone all out on guy #1 as soon as he approached (or run away, whichever) and failing that, attacked sucker-punch guy on the right instead of threatening to hit him.

Ah. Close, but no. Guy #1 was a distraction. You should have taken out the one starting to punch first, then the next most dangerous (hint: it's not the guy in front), then gotten distance. Trying to take out all three won't work, and going all out on just one leaves you open to the friends swarming in on you.

Then his buddy on the left, who was now behind me, hooked his arm around my neck and pulled me to the ground. An old-fashioned ***-whipping commenced, with me as the recipient. I was nearly unconscious when some huge stranger came out of the crowd that had gathered around us and literally pulled me out of it by my armpits, scooping me up, backing away, and threatening anyone to try to stop him (no one did). I might have died if not for him. Mistake 4: Everything, basically.

And this is the swarming that I was mentioning. A very scary place to be, my friend. And that is something I know from both training and experience.

I had no business being where I was. Ignoring that for the moment, I should have moved the moment I realized his buddies were flanking me. Failing that, I should have attacked out straight up the front, and failing that, to the guy on the right who tried to sucker punch me. I should have gone all-in, held nothing back, and done my best to inflict maximum damage - or run away.

This guy? As others said. He should have gotten out of the corner, and when it became clear he was about to get hit, attack.

You might still lose. If you stand there, you will lose. That's the way it goes.

You have your targets out of order, but other than that, yeah. Lessons learnt well, albeit in a rather harsh way. Glad someone was there to help you out.

 

[MaxiMe]

Uggg. If you're gonna strike make it count. And get out of the fricken corner.
I think if he would have hit no shirt punk with a real strike and move out ot the corner into the isle he may have faired a little better. Stack multiple opponents.
Just my .02. But man hit the guy!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now this has some good lessons.

Happy to be of service!

Yep. The trick is to not be a soft target, but at the same time, don't present a challenge, as drunken egos tend to want to take such things up, whether you intended them or not.

Agreed. Guy was acting the fool, and I was watching him. Not my issue. Should have gone inside my apartment, called 911.

Yep, they were basically boxing you in. In your defence, though, that can happen incredibly fast, especially when your mind is taken up with the front guy yelling, shoving etc. So while you can say all that now, with the clear mind free of adrenaline and the benefit of hindsight, it may not really have been as much of an option as you feel.

I knew they were doing at the time. Bad move on my part to not react to it then and there.

Ah. Close, but no. Guy #1 was a distraction. You should have taken out the one starting to punch first, then the next most dangerous (hint: it's not the guy in front), then gotten distance. Trying to take out all three won't work, and going all out on just one leaves you open to the friends swarming in on you.

The way I see it, chest-bump guy was all mouth. His buddy to the right was ready to fight. Assault straight ahead, take out chest bump guy, and keep him between the two buddies. But potato/potahto, right? Important lesson is to MOVE and recognize when the fight begins; which is the moment you feel threatened, not when the first punch is thrown.

And this is the swarming that I was mentioning. A very scary place to be, my friend. And that is something I know from both training and experience.

Yeah. I was on the ground, chest-bump guy was kicking me in the head, the crowd was howling. I suspect they would have watched me kicked to death, no problem. Mobs are like that. I felt myself starting to go out, I knew it would be over for me soon.

You have your targets out of order, but other than that, yeah. Lessons learnt well, albeit in a rather harsh way. Glad someone was there to help you out.

I will always be grateful to that giant of a man who stepped in when he did not have to and saved my unworthy butt. Don't know his name, but I honor him just the same.

 

[Chris Parker]

The way I see it, chest-bump guy was all mouth. His buddy to the right was ready to fight. Assault straight ahead, take out chest bump guy, and keep him between the two buddies. But potato/potahto, right? Important lesson is to MOVE and recognize when the fight begins; which is the moment you feel threatened, not when the first punch is thrown.

Hmm, no, it's not really "potato, pohtahtoe", if you had gone for the "mouth", you would have been swarmed and taken out by the other two. He wasn't your threat, he was the distraction, the guys on the side were the threats, and they were the ones that needed to be immediately taken out. Hitting the guy in front is what they expected, and the way their tactic works (that's why the guy on your right was setting up to hit you, not the guy in front). As for keeping him between his friends, that also puts you between them, which is not a good place to be.

That said, the important lesson you state there is damn well on the money... too few people don't recognise when a fight has started.... for you, it was with the eye contact. From that moment on you were in a fight.

 

[Kittan Bachika]

Here is some more information on the guy who got attacked.
His heart was in the right place. For what it is worth.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/..._lA5fqatGSIxdc3bpKze0MP?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

 

[Indagator]

i would have to say that they key, primary, part of the training i do for a situation like this would be discernment/awareness training. unfortunatelt the clip starts a bit late for us to be able to see enough of the lead-up imho but from what we are shown there is no doubt of the shirtless guy's intent from word go. watching his buddy come up from the aisle i feel that both of them stand out but it may not have been the same to experience it from the victims pov.

as far as the combative side of things go, while i would hope to have been able to use my raining to either discern and avoid, or perhaps defuse a situation there are times when things just happen.

honestly i can't realistically sit here and theorise about it because for me when i find myself in those situations i tend to operate in the moment, and basically just go with the flow. so i guess you could say i am a reactive opportunist when it comes down to it lol.

in general, though, fighting a bunch of guys - form the clip if i was in that situation i'd be thinknig they are very likely criminal gang members based on their appearances, yeah i wouldn't be mucking around. it'd have to be some serious disabling and evasive action, followed by some careful preparation of what i'd need to say in court to show evidence of justification - just in case lol.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

The thing with multiples is that theres no sure shot solution.

That is what must always be remembered, along with the fact that you are probably going to sustain some injury while you work on extracting yourself from that scenario.
...

As for grabbing someone as a shield...that may/may not work. IMO, if you're going to do it, then make it worth your while, and punish the guy, while you're holding him. When I say punish, I mean, make him hurt. Dont just grab him, grab him, and start choking the **** out of him, gouging his eyes, whatever you can to make him feel some pain. Now, this may work, because the other 2 may see this, and haul ***. Of course, they may also want to come to the aid of their friend.

I would caveat the choking and say a strike to the throat would be better if possible. Hard to fight when all your concentration is on trying to get some air into your lungs. You can hit and move on. Eye gouges are also great to take someone out of a fight, as are strikes to the patella. With multiple attackers, you can't afford to concentrate on one to the exclusion of the others. Otherwise, I agree completely with trying to cause all attackers as much pain and damage as possible. But of course it is not like you have a lot of time to sit back and conduct a lengthy analysis of your situation and responses. As someone mentioned (Chris Parker?) you are well advised to practice multiple attacks in the dojo. It is also important imho, to consider situations at your leisure in normal life, which might go bad. What could you do. That mental exercise can also be useful (again, imho).

Ultimately, like I said, there is no sure shot solution. Something else to keep in mind...weapons. These guys were just using empty hands, but what if one of them or all of them pulled weapons? Now its 3/1 with a gun or knife. Despite the odds and the fact that 99% of the time, people say that its impossible to win against more than 1 (what do they say....oh yeah...well, if you can't fight one person and win, how're you going to fight 2 or more?) I'd rather do something, and possibly get away, even with some injury, than stand there and be a punching bag for a bunch of **** bags.

As you said, no sure shot solution. But as soon as you can get away, that is always a good solution. If you are attacked with weapons, that just increases the danger to you, and you have a split second to decide if close proximity of your attacker is an advantage or disadvantage.

People like that make me sick, they really do. ****ing punks, low life pieces of ****, who have nothing better to do than pick on innocent people. Go get a ****ing job, instead of trolling the the subway. This is why I feel the way I do, when it comes to SD. Why should I have any remorse or respect for them, when they have none for me? And yeah, I know, I know...people may think thats a poor attitude, but its the truth. Im minding my own business, and some dirt bag is going to do something like that, and Im supposed to feel bad for him or worry about what I may do to him...**** him! I highly doubt those punks were walking away feeling bad for the bloody guy laying on the ground.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? ;-) But I don't think many of us would hold the attackers in high esteem.

In general I agree with all you have said. It is a bad situation to find yourself in. When can you go preimptive and still justify SD? At what point might you feel you don't care? Hope I never find myself in that situation. Tongue-Fu would be the best, but I don't think it would have worked. His attackers seemed intent on doing what they did, but trying to provoke him first, and they did.

EDIT: I put this in from page one, when I read it. I see there are a lot of good posts on page 2 as well as page 1. In Hapkido I was taught some multiple attacker defense. I think a little more would have been good. When I breifly studied Moo Duk Kwan for a few weeks many years ago, there was a fair amount of multiple attacker defense taught as well. A shame many styles were absorbed into TKD without bringing in their advantageous differences as well. All attacks are to be avoided if possible, and multiple attackers even more so. But if real life, they are enough of a possibility that they should be taught.

Chris Parker - if you are teaching that as part of your normal classes, good on you and fortunate for your students.

Not to change the direction of the thread, but I am curious. How many MT people see that taught in their schools, and at what level? In the Hapkido I studied, it was fairly early on in red belt.

 

[Cyriacus]

In general I agree with all you have said. It is a bad situation to find yourself in. When can you go preimptive and still justify SD? At what point might you feel you don't care? Hope I never find myself in that situation. Tongue-Fu would be the best, but I don't think it would have worked. His attackers seemed intent on doing what they did, but trying to provoke him first, and they did.

EDIT: I put this in from page one, when I read it. I see there are a lot of good posts on page 2 as well as page 1. In Hapkido I was taught some multiple attacker defense. I think a little more would have been good. When I breifly studied Moo Duk Kwan for a few weeks many years ago, there was a fair amount of multiple attacker defense taught as well. A shame many styles were absorbed into TKD without bringing in their advantageous differences as well. All attacks are to be avoided if possible, and multiple attackers even more so. But if real life, they are enough of a possibility that they should be taught.

Chris Parker - if you are teaching that as part of your normal classes, good on you and fortunate for your students.

Not to change the direction of the thread, but I am curious. How many MT people see that taught in their schools, and at what level? In the Hapkido I studied, it was fairly early on in red belt.

Multi-Attacker Defense?
Green Belt and above. Its touched on before that, but only enough to get you by. It, along with a ton of other stuff, starts when You get there. Its a bit of a middle-point. The idea is that it allows You to focus on 1V1 Unarmed Fighting before You start Learning Multiple Attacker and Armed Fighting.
From Brown Belt, it becomes pretty commonplace.

As for what Level? Thats hard for Me to say. Where I Trained Previously didnt really do it that much, so I really dont have a point of comparison.

 

[Chris Parker]

In general I agree with all you have said. It is a bad situation to find yourself in. When can you go preimptive and still justify SD?

In Australia, it's pretty simple. Our self defence laws state that your aim is to get away, and you can use anything considered reasonable to do so. That does not mean you have to wait until the other guy is throwing a punch before you can do anything physical in your own defence, though. Essentially, if you feel that you are in physical danger (you feel threatened), and the cause of that threat has the present ability to carry out that threat, then you are allowed to strike first in order to create the opportunity to escape. If you continue to attack, that becomes assault, though, so once the opportunity to escape is established, you should take it.

So basically, a single attacker, no weapons, but a feeling that you're in danger? Then you can legally hit first, provided you are doing so to escape.

At what point might you feel you don't care?

I always care... just not really about the other guy!

Hope I never find myself in that situation.

Agreed. It's not fun.

Tongue-Fu would be the best, but I don't think it would have worked. His attackers seemed intent on doing what they did, but trying to provoke him first, and they did.

While we do a lot of verbal de-escalation, to be frank, it's not much about what is said... after all, the attackers aren't listening. Honestly, it really won't matter what you say in situations like that, tactical body positioning, confident body language (again, though, not presenting a "challenge" to the status of the attacker/s), distancing, and so on work better when dealing with de-escalation. Oh, and practice both passive and aggressive versions... but know when each is appropriate!

EDIT: I put this in from page one, when I read it. I see there are a lot of good posts on page 2 as well as page 1. In Hapkido I was taught some multiple attacker defense. I think a little more would have been good. When I breifly studied Moo Duk Kwan for a few weeks many years ago, there was a fair amount of multiple attacker defense taught as well. A shame many styles were absorbed into TKD without bringing in their advantageous differences as well. All attacks are to be avoided if possible, and multiple attackers even more so. But if real life, they are enough of a possibility that they should be taught.

Can you describe what some of these group defences were like?

Chris Parker - if you are teaching that as part of your normal classes, good on you and fortunate for your students.

Not to change the direction of the thread, but I am curious. How many MT people see that taught in their schools, and at what level? In the Hapkido I studied, it was fairly early on in red belt.

Yeah, it's part of our regular class. We change the "self defence" topic each month, and group defence is covered at least once or twice a year, so provided you stick with us for at least a year, you're guaranteed to be taken through the base strategies at least once (for a month).

 

[MJS]

The thing with multiples is that theres no sure shot solution.

1) That is what must always be remembered, along with the fact that you are probably going to sustain some injury while you work on extracting yourself from that scenario.


...

As for grabbing someone as a shield...that may/may not work. IMO, if you're going to do it, then make it worth your while, and punish the guy, while you're holding him. When I say punish, I mean, make him hurt. Dont just grab him, grab him, and start choking the **** out of him, gouging his eyes, whatever you can to make him feel some pain. Now, this may work, because the other 2 may see this, and haul ***. Of course, they may also want to come to the aid of their friend.

2) I would caveat the choking and say a strike to the throat would be better if possible. Hard to fight when all your concentration is on trying to get some air into your lungs. You can hit and move on. Eye gouges are also great to take someone out of a fight, as are strikes to the patella. With multiple attackers, you can't afford to concentrate on one to the exclusion of the others. Otherwise, I agree completely with trying to cause all attackers as much pain and damage as possible. But of course it is not like you have a lot of time to sit back and conduct a lengthy analysis of your situation and responses. As someone mentioned (Chris Parker?) you are well advised to practice multiple attacks in the dojo. It is also important imho, to consider situations at your leisure in normal life, which might go bad. What could you do. That mental exercise can also be useful (again, imho).



Ultimately, like I said, there is no sure shot solution. Something else to keep in mind...weapons. These guys were just using empty hands, but what if one of them or all of them pulled weapons? Now its 3/1 with a gun or knife. Despite the odds and the fact that 99% of the time, people say that its impossible to win against more than 1 (what do they say....oh yeah...well, if you can't fight one person and win, how're you going to fight 2 or more?) I'd rather do something, and possibly get away, even with some injury, than stand there and be a punching bag for a bunch of **** bags.

3) As you said, no sure shot solution. But as soon as you can get away, that is always a good solution. If you are attacked with weapons, that just increases the danger to you, and you have a split second to decide if close proximity of your attacker is an advantage or disadvantage.

People like that make me sick, they really do. ****ing punks, low life pieces of ****, who have nothing better to do than pick on innocent people. Go get a ****ing job, instead of trolling the the subway. This is why I feel the way I do, when it comes to SD. Why should I have any remorse or respect for them, when they have none for me? And yeah, I know, I know...people may think thats a poor attitude, but its the truth. Im minding my own business, and some dirt bag is going to do something like that, and Im supposed to feel bad for him or worry about what I may do to him...**** him! I highly doubt those punks were walking away feeling bad for the bloody guy laying on the ground.

4) Why don't you tell us how you really feel? ;-) But I don't think many of us would hold the attackers in high esteem.
In general I agree with all you have said. It is a bad situation to find yourself in. A) When can you go preimptive and still justify SD? B) At what point might you feel you don't care? Hope I never find myself in that situation. Tongue-Fu would be the best, but I don't think it would have worked. His attackers seemed intent on doing what they did, but trying to provoke him first, and they did.

1) Agreed 100%

2) True. I just used that as an example, but no, you dont want to spend too much time dealing with 1, when 1 or more are trying to kick your *** too..lol.

3) Agreed again. No need to hang around...get the hell out of dodge when you can.

4) LOL...yeah, nothing like holding back right..lol....speak your mind dammit! LOL! As for your other questions:

A) Funny you should ask this. In a recent BB magazine article, Kelly McCann mentioned this. He said that if you know its coming, (applying the resonable man standard) waiting any longer just means the attack will fully manifest itself, and your opportunity to disrupt it will be lost. He said, you have to feel that you've seen enough to warrant the pre-emptive use of force and that you're in fear of your life. Of course, nothing is absolute, so you're always at risk of making the wrong call.

So, for me...as I've said, if its possible to talk your way out, do it, but we all know that wont always work nor will there always be time. Once someone starts moving towards me, getting closer, within arms reach, the threat is escalating. You wanna yell, scream, and call me names, fine, but that can be done from a distance. Getting closer is a sign, to me, anyways, that physical violence is coming quick. So, sure, I'll back up, while at the same time using verbal commands, giving this guy more than enough leeway to stop, but if he keeps coming, then thats when I'd do something. Will this be viewed bad in the eyes of the court and some people here? Yeah, probably, but thats fine. I'll respect the opinions of others. And I'll deal with the end result, should I find myself in court.

B) I start to not care when the person starts doing something to me to cause me or a loved one harm or tries to take something from me. So, people such as we saw in this clip.....no respect or care for them. Someone invades your home....no respect or care for them. In a nutshell...and again, this probably isn't the popular reply, but....whatever happens to them, happens. They're not going to care if they kill me, beat me, rape my wife, steal my car, take my money, so if they get shot, beat up, a few teeth knocked out, it is what it is.

But yes, I strongly agree....IF its possible to talk your way out, then do so. I've done it and its worked for me.

EDIT: I put this in from page one, when I read it. I see there are a lot of good posts on page 2 as well as page 1. In Hapkido I was taught some multiple attacker defense. I think a little more would have been good. When I breifly studied Moo Duk Kwan for a few weeks many years ago, there was a fair amount of multiple attacker defense taught as well. A shame many styles were absorbed into TKD without bringing in their advantageous differences as well. All attacks are to be avoided if possible, and multiple attackers even more so. But if real life, they are enough of a possibility that they should be taught.

Chris Parker - if you are teaching that as part of your normal classes, good on you and fortunate for your students.

Not to change the direction of the thread, but I am curious. How many MT people see that taught in their schools, and at what level? In the Hapkido I studied, it was fairly early on in red belt.

IMHO, I think alot of things that should be taught, sadly are not. More scenario drilling, the legal side of self defense, adrenal stress training, weapon familiarization as well as how to use them. Those are just a few things that came to mind. Of course, some are better geared towards adults. So to answer your question...in Kenpo, we have a few different multi man defenses. But thats really as far as it goes. Nothing is really expanded upon. Now, I can't speak for ALL Kenpo schools, just the ones that i've been a part of. IMO, it needs to go beyond the standard textbook techs.

 

[oftheherd1]

In Australia, it's pretty simple. Our self defence laws state that your aim is to get away, and you can use anything considered reasonable to do so. That does not mean you have to wait until the other guy is throwing a punch before you can do anything physical in your own defence, though. Essentially, if you feel that you are in physical danger (you feel threatened), and the cause of that threat has the present ability to carry out that threat, then you are allowed to strike first in order to create the opportunity to escape. If you continue to attack, that becomes assault, though, so once the opportunity to escape is established, you should take it.

So basically, a single attacker, no weapons, but a feeling that you're in danger? Then you can legally hit first, provided you are doing so to escape.

I know that has been held as SD in some States in the USA. I don't know if all do. It wouldn't be my preferred scenario, but as a last resort, I would opt for the preference to be tried by 12 rather than carried by 6.



I always care... just not really about the other guy!

Obviously I made a mistake in how I phrased that! I meant when you would not care if you were not confident that everyone would agree that what you were about to do was SD. That is, you feel you have to act in SD at a chosen particular moment, for safety, even though not everyone else could be counted on to agree. I agree, if I feel I am being forced to defend myself physically, I have somewhere between very little and no sympathy for how the attacker may end up: pain, injury, maimed, he has asked for whatever he gets.

Agreed. It's not fun.

So far I have no personal experience with it. But I believe you.

While we do a lot of verbal de-escalation, to be frank, it's not much about what is said... after all, the attackers aren't listening. Honestly, it really won't matter what you say in situations like that, tactical body positioning, confident body language (again, though, not presenting a "challenge" to the status of the attacker/s), distancing, and so on work better when dealing with de-escalation. Oh, and practice both passive and aggressive versions... but know when each is appropriate!

Sounds like worthwhile training.

Can you describe what some of these group defences were like?

It was about 1965, and as I recall I only got to study about six to eight weeks. It is more a memory of that being a lot of the training we got. We had katas as I recall, but also what I would now describe as techniques. One I recall was being held by two attackers, one on each side, with your arms straight, and a third attacker approaching with a weapon. Push pull the holders before the third is quite in range, and rotate your wrists to grab their wrists. Use the stability you gain from that for a kick to the weapon hand of the third attacker (or if unarmed, just pick a body target of convenience), withdraw your foot and snap to the body (stomach, head, whatever). In the push pull you will have kept one arm bent. That will allow you to cross step with that side's foot, straightening the arm (so you can cross step), and use the other foot to snap kick the other holder in the ribs under the armpit. Again a cross step back (longer if necessary) to the other holder, snap kicking him under the arm pit. This then will allow other defenses to be brought into play if needed. Sorry for the long explanation, but you asked. ;-)

Yeah, it's part of our regular class. We change the "self defence" topic each month, and group defence is covered at least once or twice a year, so provided you stick with us for at least a year, you're guaranteed to be taken through the base strategies at least once (for a month).

Thanks as always for you input.

EDIT: Wow, that was over 45 years ago for the Moo Duk Kwan. I just remembered another one, not multiple attacker, but if as you were walking, someone grabbed your shoulder, grasp and pin the attacker's hand to your shoulder as you look back to see where they are. Take one step forward to off-balance the attacker, then kick with your rear foot up into the armpit. I had been so favorably impressed by what little I had learned in that when the wife and I went to Korea in 1979, I tried to find a Moo Duk Kwan school in Seoul. If there was one, nobody we talked to knew how to find it.

 

[Chris Parker]

I know that has been held as SD in some States in the USA. I don't know if all do. It wouldn't be my preferred scenario, but as a last resort, I would opt for the preference to be tried by 12 rather than carried by 6.

Well, all you asked was when it was possible to strike first, and that's the answer here. The "tried by 12" thing is a bit melodramatic if all we're talking about is striking first, yeah? I mean, in order to be justified in that, there only needs to be one attacker, and no weapon....

Obviously I made a mistake in how I phrased that! I meant when you would not care if you were not confident that everyone would agree that what you were about to do was SD. That is, you feel you have to act in SD at a chosen particular moment, for safety, even though not everyone else could be counted on to agree. I agree, if I feel I am being forced to defend myself physically, I have somewhere between very little and no sympathy for how the attacker may end up: pain, injury, maimed, he has asked for whatever he gets.

I don't need everyone to agree, I just need to feel that I am in danger personally.

However, there are a range of things that we do in order to take the "doubt" out of the equation, essentially training specific triggers that, essentially, guarantee your justified use in striking first. They are based on the attackers proximity, and a few other things.

So far I have no personal experience with it. But I believe you.

I hope you never get it.

Sounds like worthwhile training.

I try to make it as worthwhile as I can.

It was about 1965, and as I recall I only got to study about six to eight weeks. It is more a memory of that being a lot of the training we got. We had katas as I recall, but also what I would now describe as techniques. One I recall was being held by two attackers, one on each side, with your arms straight, and a third attacker approaching with a weapon. Push pull the holders before the third is quite in range, and rotate your wrists to grab their wrists. Use the stability you gain from that for a kick to the weapon hand of the third attacker (or if unarmed, just pick a body target of convenience), withdraw your foot and snap to the body (stomach, head, whatever). In the push pull you will have kept one arm bent. That will allow you to cross step with that side's foot, straightening the arm (so you can cross step), and use the other foot to snap kick the other holder in the ribs under the armpit. Again a cross step back (longer if necessary) to the other holder, snap kicking him under the arm pit. This then will allow other defenses to be brought into play if needed. Sorry for the long explanation, but you asked. ;-)

Wow, that was over 45 years ago for the Moo Duk Kwan. I just remembered another one, not multiple attacker, but if as you were walking, someone grabbed your shoulder, grasp and pin the attacker's hand to your shoulder as you look back to see where they are. Take one step forward to off-balance the attacker, then kick with your rear foot up into the armpit. I had been so favorably impressed by what little I had learned in that when the wife and I went to Korea in 1979, I tried to find a Moo Duk Kwan school in Seoul. If there was one, nobody we talked to knew how to find it.

Thanks for those. This is the way most systems seem to deal with such things, and, honestly, it is not a practical way to train them. But, it's common.

Thanks as always for you input.

My pleasure.

 

[oftheherd1]

[/B]Well, all you asked was when it was possible to strike first, and that's the answer here. The "tried by 12" thing is a bit melodramatic if all we're talking about is striking first, yeah? I mean, in order to be justified in that, there only needs to be one attacker, and no weapon....

I'll clarify again, I meant whether or not you would make a decision to strike first, even it if might be difficult to justify in court. The "tried by 12" thing is an expression meant to show you would rather have the chance do justify it in court than be badly beaten or even killed. So if it injures your sensibilities, sorry, but it it conveys a message. Again, I accept the responsibility of first having been unclear.

I don't need everyone to agree, I just need to feel that I am in danger personally.

However, there are a range of things that we do in order to take the "doubt" out of the equation, essentially training specific triggers that, essentially, guarantee your justified use in striking first. They are based on the attackers proximity, and a few other things.

The feeling of being in danger is a good reason to strike first, then do whatever else it takes to survive, take out the others or run (difficult in a subway train). Those methods of de-escalating the situation would be worth trying first.

I hope you never get it.

So do I.

I try to make it as worthwhile as I can.



Thanks for those. This is the way most systems seem to deal with such things, and, honestly, it is not a practical way to train them. But, it's common.

I would appreciate your description of how your system would handle being held in the same way with an attacker coming at you. One can never have too many tools in my opinion.

My pleasure.

Thanks again for your insight.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'll clarify again, I meant whether or not you would make a decision to strike first, even it if might be difficult to justify in court. The "tried by 12" thing is an expression meant to show you would rather have the chance do justify it in court than be badly beaten or even killed. So if it injures your sensibilities, sorry, but it it conveys a message. Again, I accept the responsibility of first having been unclear.

Then I'll put it this way... our training takes into account the legal side of things (including how to talk to the police, what to do if/when arrested, and so on), as well as certain measures to ensure that you are always justified (legally) when we strike first.

And, no, my sensibilities weren't offended, it just seemed out of place and overblown based on the question as I read it.

The feeling of being in danger is a good reason to strike first, then do whatever else it takes to survive, take out the others or run (difficult in a subway train). Those methods of de-escalating the situation would be worth trying first.

Yeah, running in a train carriage isn't the easiest... but the concept should still be used. Ideally (taking it back to the original video), pre-emptively strike the first guy, and the second if they're in range, and escape into the aisle, narrowing their chance to surround you, and back away. Really, that would have been the ideal.

I would appreciate your description of how your system would handle being held in the same way with an attacker coming at you. One can never have too many tools in my opinion.

That's the thing, the initial set up in the first place is highly unrealistic, and therefore not something I'd ever even bother with. I'm a little more concerned with how I might actually be attacked than a hypothetical unrealistic situation.

Thanks again for your insight.

 

[oftheherd1]

[/B]

...

That's the thing, the initial set up in the first place is highly unrealistic, and therefore not something I'd ever even bother with. I'm a little more concerned with how I might actually be attacked than a hypothetical unrealistic situation.

Are you saying it is unrealistic that you might be attacked by three people, one of whom might attack from the front while the other two pinned you by holding your arms taunt? Is it your intent to say that never has and never would happen? Could such training be a building block, teaching a student to accept danger and react to it? Do you see any value at all in the technique I described?

It is just that your answer seemed a little abrupt and dismissive. And if that is what you meant, OK, I just don't want to misunderstand.

 

[Cyriacus]

Are you saying it is unrealistic that you might be attacked by three people, one of whom might attack from the front while the other two pinned you by holding your arms taunt? Is it your intent to say that never has and never would happen? Could such training be a building block, teaching a student to accept danger and react to it? Do you see any value at all in the technique I described?

It is just that your answer seemed a little abrupt and dismissive. And if that is what you meant, OK, I just don't want to misunderstand.

It doesnt sound too common to Me, for one. And if they did, You have Legs.

 

[mook jong man]

It doesnt sound too common to Me, for one. And if they did, You have Legs.

Yep , medium heel kick to the bladder for the one in front , then a low side kick each to to the knee joint for the blokes on the side , end of story.

 

[Buka]

Like Chris Parker said "too few people don't recognise when a fight has started.... for you, it was with the eye contact. From that moment on you were in a fight."

The guy on the train didn't realize when the fight started. He should have known as soon as he spoke to that group.
Then - pre-emptive strike(s) (the preferred targets, if available, being vision, wind, limbs)
Time framing - he who controls time wins.
Position, position, position. Never stop moving. Landscaping.

Clean up afterwards or just get away.

 

[Chris Parker]

Are you saying it is unrealistic that you might be attacked by three people, one of whom might attack from the front while the other two pinned you by holding your arms taunt? Is it your intent to say that never has and never would happen? Could such training be a building block, teaching a student to accept danger and react to it? Do you see any value at all in the technique I described?

It is just that your answer seemed a little abrupt and dismissive. And if that is what you meant, OK, I just don't want to misunderstand.

I mean that the entire set-up in the first place is completely unrealistic, so there's little reason to train it seriously as a realistic scenario, which is the focus for us. That said, there are reasons to have training methods such as that, including the teaching of principles, or combining of principles (escapes, focus on separate actions at once, etc), as well as teaching students to handle seemingly overwhelming odds, building confidence, and other ideas. But to treat it as a real situation? Nope.

 

[kbarrett]

What I find more disturbing is that there where people standing around and just watch and somebody video taped the whole thing, so once again nobody tried to help this guy at all. And it's not just this one situation, but many other that we've all hurd about where nobody want to get involved and help the perosn being attacked.

Ken