How would you compare the grappling arts on their ability to escape the ground game?

[skribs]

And the methods you are using are different to the methods that a competent fighter would already know?

So if you now turn around and suggest to achieve this task you will use footwork and baiting strategy Mabye a bit of grappling. You are not exactly reinventing the wheel.

Thai clinch turning as an example of a method that could be used to create a barrier between two guys.

A competent fighter would know those techniques, but if all he's trained is 1-on-1, you can't know his competency in applying them outside of a 1-on-1 scenario.

It's like a driver being able to drive with a trailer. A lot of it is the same, but there are some things that are fundamentally different when you add a trailer to the back of your pickup.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And the methods you are using are different to the methods that a competent fighter would already know?

So if you now turn around and suggest to achieve this task you will use footwork and baiting strategy Mabye a bit of grappling. You are not exactly reinventing the wheel.

Thai clinch turning as an example of a method that could be used to create a barrier between two guys.

An example of mobility drills that could be used to out position multiple attackers.

Most of the drills I've used are precisely just applications of these kinds of things. It takes the tools already used, and applies them to this purpose. Not a huge change, but some factors are altered, so the practice is useful.

 

[pdg]

It's like a driver being able to drive with a trailer. A lot of it is the same, but there are some things that are fundamentally different when you add a trailer to the back of your pickup.

My dad taught me the basics of driving (what all the pedals do, how to pull away and change gear with proper clutch control, etc.)

I had driving lessons in a small hatchback. Not many as their primary purpose is to learn to control the car (as above) and the rules of the road (I'd been on bikes for a year beforehand).

I've never been trained in any way how to drive with a trailer - my dad gave me a rough explanation, and this was also pre internet - and that's it.

I tow a trailer maybe 40-60% of my miles... I can (and pretty much could from the first time I hitched one on) judge corners, parallel park, reverse around corners into spaces, do 3 point turns, reverse up windy driveways - if the trailer will fit I can get it there.

That's with trailers behind hatchbacks, saloons, 4x4s, pickups, vans. More than a couple of times it involved two ganged trailers behind a tractor.

Never had an issue, never felt I needed someone to show me how to do it.



Sometimes, people are perfectly capable of extrapolation from existing skills.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My dad taught me the basics of driving (what all the pedals do, how to pull away and change gear with proper clutch control, etc.)

I had driving lessons in a small hatchback. Not many as their primary purpose is to learn to control the car (as above) and the rules of the road (I'd been on bikes for a year beforehand).

I've never been trained in any way how to drive with a trailer - my dad gave me a rough explanation, and this was also pre internet - and that's it.

I tow a trailer maybe 40-60% of my miles... I can (and pretty much could from the first time I hitched one on) judge corners, parallel park, reverse around corners into spaces, do 3 point turns, reverse up windy driveways - if the trailer will fit I can get it there.

That's with trailers behind hatchbacks, saloons, 4x4s, pickups, vans. More than a couple of times it involved two ganged trailers behind a tractor.

Never had an issue, never felt I needed someone to show me how to do it.



Sometimes, people are perfectly capable of extrapolation from existing skills.

While that's true, in most cases learning can be accelerated by specific training. That's why commercial truck drivers have special training. If they are really careful their first few times out, they'll be able to figure out most of it on their own. But the'll get to that skill level faster (and with fewer mistakes) if they are trained in how to translate the driving skills they have to the big truck. And some people don't need (or benefit from) that specialized training.

I think the same is true of fight training, in many ways. If you have the basics, you could figure out all the rest yourself. You'll develop skill more quickly if you have good training, and will develop for specific contexts faster if you train specifically for them. And some folks will do well without so much specialized training.

 

[skribs]

My dad taught me the basics of driving (what all the pedals do, how to pull away and change gear with proper clutch control, etc.)

I had driving lessons in a small hatchback. Not many as their primary purpose is to learn to control the car (as above) and the rules of the road (I'd been on bikes for a year beforehand).

I've never been trained in any way how to drive with a trailer - my dad gave me a rough explanation, and this was also pre internet - and that's it.

I tow a trailer maybe 40-60% of my miles... I can (and pretty much could from the first time I hitched one on) judge corners, parallel park, reverse around corners into spaces, do 3 point turns, reverse up windy driveways - if the trailer will fit I can get it there.

That's with trailers behind hatchbacks, saloons, 4x4s, pickups, vans. More than a couple of times it involved two ganged trailers behind a tractor.

Never had an issue, never felt I needed someone to show me how to do it.



Sometimes, people are perfectly capable of extrapolation from existing skills.

I highlighted the most important words of what you said.

First off, your Dad gave you a rough explanation and you were able to figure it out. How well would you have been prepared without that explanation?
Sometimes people can extrapolate from existing skills. But sometimes they need help bridging that gap.

You said "and pretty much could" do it the first time. It sounds like there were at least a few bumps along the way.

Regarding doing 2-vs-1 or 3-vs-1, the same can happen. It can be that the fighter recognizes he should position one of his opponents in between the other. It's also possible that in the heat of the moment it doesn't occur to him.

Whether it's something you figure out, or it's something you were told to do, it's something that will require more conscious effort than if it's something you've drilled. You do ~50% of your miles with a trailer. It's a skill you keep sharp.

 

[pdg]

Stupid advert is stopping me quoting stuff...

My dad's explanation - it was essentially "you need to start the turn in reverse by steering the wrong way".

Not much different to "try to line up your opponents".

You said "and pretty much could" do it the first time. It sounds like there were at least a few bumps along the way.

Not so much bumps, just a bit of getting my head around turning the wrong way.

A bit like getting your head around lining up opponents...




I might as well leave the discussion if I'm honest as nothing anyone says will change my opinion:

1v1 skills can generally be used in a 2v1 situation.

2v1 is worth working with sometimes, because there are things it's useful to practice and play with.

3+v1 is only any good as a cardio exercise. It's not worth training it specifically (over 2v1) in the hope of it increasing your chances should you be in that situation for real - any instructor who says otherwise is lying or deluded.

 

[drop bear]

A competent fighter would know those techniques, but if all he's trained is 1-on-1, you can't know his competency in applying them outside of a 1-on-1 scenario.

It's like a driver being able to drive with a trailer. A lot of it is the same, but there are some things that are fundamentally different when you add a trailer to the back of your pickup.

I don't know anyone's competency outside a one on one scenario at this point.

That was my original question.

 

[skribs]

Stupid advert is stopping me quoting stuff...

My dad's explanation - it was essentially "you need to start the turn in reverse by steering the wrong way".

Not much different to "try to line up your opponents".



Not so much bumps, just a bit of getting my head around turning the wrong way.

A bit like getting your head around lining up opponents...




I might as well leave the discussion if I'm honest as nothing anyone says will change my opinion:

1v1 skills can generally be used in a 2v1 situation.

2v1 is worth working with sometimes, because there are things it's useful to practice and play with.

3+v1 is only any good as a cardio exercise. It's not worth training it specifically (over 2v1) in the hope of it increasing your chances should you be in that situation for real - any instructor who says otherwise is lying or deluded.

A lot of what you're saying lines up with what I am, but then you somehow reach a different conclusion than me. I would think that the degree of the claim is what would be in question. Training should always increase your chance of success. If you train for it, your chance cannot remain the same. However, to make it seem likely to survive, vs. a small increase in survival is the question.

I don't know anyone's competency outside a one on one scenario at this point.

That was my original question.

How would you assess said competency?

 

[pdg]

While that's true, in most cases learning can be accelerated by specific training. That's why commercial truck drivers have special training. If they are really careful their first few times out, they'll be able to figure out most of it on their own. But the'll get to that skill level faster (and with fewer mistakes) if they are trained in how to translate the driving skills they have to the big truck. And some people don't need (or benefit from) that specialized training.

I think the same is true of fight training, in many ways. If you have the basics, you could figure out all the rest yourself. You'll develop skill more quickly if you have good training, and will develop for specific contexts faster if you train specifically for them. And some folks will do well without so much specialized training.

There is one huge glaring difference here though.

Towing a trailer (of any size) is a known and verifiable skill that can be (and is) assessed.

There are multiple verifiable ways of teaching that skill, and each is suited to different people to varying degrees. Any half decent instructor will modify their training to suit the individual.

Even with that, there are people who can simply never do it, no matter how much training they have. Some can never even learn to drive, let alone tow.



In contrast:

3+v1 fighting is a fantasy if the 3+ are simultaneous.

It cannot (safely) reliably be verified or assessed in anything like a realistic fashion.

Instructors who sell such do so on the premise they can teach it to anyone. If there exist people who can't learn to drive where is the reason behind "anyone can learn this"?

 

[pdg]

Actually, screw leaving - I'm in that sort of mood.

I pick two other people to be with me.

We use the standard SD stuff of markers, or similar.

We 3 go against anyone - absolutely anyone - who claims that 3+v1 training is worthwhile.


I would lay money on the one not "winning" (escape/victory/whatever).




But the way it's usually assessed is nothing like that, it's more like the group politely take turns and don't put any actual effort in - then the solo player is congratulated all round and sent out thinking they're prepared...

 

[skribs]

But the way it's usually assessed is nothing like that, it's more like the group politely take turns and don't put any actual effort in - then the solo player is congratulated all round and sent out thinking they're prepared...

If you consider a gauntlet to be X-on-1 training then you would be correct, but that's not what a gauntlet is. Your experience does not reflect mine in terms of how people choose to attack during these drills.

 

[pdg]

If you consider a gauntlet to be X-on-1 training then you would be correct, but that's not what a gauntlet is. Your experience does not reflect mine in terms of how people choose to attack during these drills.

I know what a gauntlet is (at least, what I think it is - a continual series of 1v1) and that's not what I was describing.

What I was describing was what you see in every single video of training against multiples.

It's also what you see in films where the hero is fighting loads of bad guys.


None of which is what I used to see in the biker pub on a Friday, or what I used to see in the mess when I was running the disco.

 

[pdg]

Here's an actual challenge, open to anyone:

Find a video of something you consider to be a realistic scenario / good training of multiple v one.

 

[skribs]

What I was describing was what you see in every single video of training against multiples.

It's also what you see in films where the hero is fighting loads of bad guys.

First off, don't conflate bad choreography with training.

Second, if that's the go-to strategy people use in drills, it makes sense to assume that's what's going to happen a lot in a real situation. I remember a fight one of my friends got in after school one day. It went exactly like that. The leader threw a punch at my friend, who punched him back, and then another guy came in. The fight ended there (the leader really didn't like that punch), but they didn't all come at once.

Find a video of something you consider to be a realistic scenario / good training of multiple v one.

Marshawn Lynch highlights.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Stupid advert is stopping me quoting stuff...

My dad's explanation - it was essentially "you need to start the turn in reverse by steering the wrong way".

Not much different to "try to line up your opponents".



Not so much bumps, just a bit of getting my head around turning the wrong way.

A bit like getting your head around lining up opponents...




I might as well leave the discussion if I'm honest as nothing anyone says will change my opinion:

1v1 skills can generally be used in a 2v1 situation.

2v1 is worth working with sometimes, because there are things it's useful to practice and play with.

3+v1 is only any good as a cardio exercise. It's not worth training it specifically (over 2v1) in the hope of it increasing your chances should you be in that situation for real - any instructor who says otherwise is lying or deluded.

You actually aren't that far from others' positions on this, PDG. If you look at your points, you're saying you can take related skills and figure out how to apply them. Of course, that's true. Not in the moment, under the pressure of a fight, but with some practice. The drills in the dojo are just that: a chance to practice applying those skills.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually, screw leaving - I'm in that sort of mood.

I pick two other people to be with me.

We use the standard SD stuff of markers, or similar.

We 3 go against anyone - absolutely anyone - who claims that 3+v1 training is worthwhile.


I would lay money on the one not "winning" (escape/victory/whatever).




But the way it's usually assessed is nothing like that, it's more like the group politely take turns and don't put any actual effort in - then the solo player is congratulated all round and sent out thinking they're prepared...

This is almost exactly what I explain to students. A good, concerted group attack with some skill will almost certainly overcome you...perhaps unless you have a REALLY high level of fighting skill, or if you get lucky. But that's talking about 3 people acting like a wolfpack. That's not always what it looks like. We can find a lot of video evidence of multiple-attacker scenarios where one attacker comes forward while the others "back him up", which is a different scenario. I've also seen video evidence (I'm thinking of one specific one, at the moment) where the attackers strung themselves out and ended up attacking like a danged Chuck Norris movie - coming one after the other with a moment between for the defender to reorient.

IMO, that's the stuff we're training for. We can't train for when they do everything right, except to hone fighting skills in case a miracle happens (they trip over each other, etc.).

 

[drop bear]

A lot of what you're saying lines up with what I am, but then you somehow reach a different conclusion than me. I would think that the degree of the claim is what would be in question. Training should always increase your chance of success. If you train for it, your chance cannot remain the same. However, to make it seem likely to survive, vs. a small increase in survival is the question.



How would you assess said competency?

 

[skribs]

Both are interesting, but not exactly an X-on-1 scenario.

The first one you linked can lead to it, but it's a slightly different take since you're usually already engaged.

 

[pdg]

We can find a lot of video evidence of multiple-attacker scenarios where one attacker comes forward while the others "back him up", which is a different scenario. I've also seen video evidence (I'm thinking of one specific one, at the moment) where the attackers strung themselves out and ended up attacking like a danged Chuck Norris movie - coming one after the other with a moment between for the defender to reorient.

IMO, that's the stuff we're training for. We can't train for when they do everything right, except to hone fighting skills in case a miracle happens (they trip over each other, etc.).

If that's what you're training for, then that's not what I consider 3+v1(or whatever term you use for multiple) and imo calling it such is misleading.

That becomes more of a gauntlet (to use that term) where it's a succession of 1 or 2 v1.

3 people acting like a wolfpack.

3 or more

Which is the only situation it's justifiably called 3+v1 (or whatever term you use for multiple).

It's also the type of fighting I used to see...

Common scenarios:

Someone comes in the pub and thinks it's funny to try insulting the bunch of bikers. At first it's ignored, or eye rolled, but they carry on, and on.

Eventually, it gets tedious enough that they get grabbed by 3 guys, given a little bit of a tickle () and unceremoniously thrown into the car park.

Landlord says "cheers lads, he was a tit".


Or


A bunch of squaddies spots another who they think is sleeping with one of their wives, so they jump him...


In those cases it's effectively never "one with backup".

 

[drop bear]

I have been looking for some decent multiple sparring video.

Man. There is some tragic rubbish on YouTube.

Sorry but decent multiple oponant training is probably a unicorn.

If someone can find a good example I will change my mind. But there is a lot of what I linked and doesn't seem to be any realistic sparring like people are describing.