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

[pdg]

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.

Yeah, that video - "you first", "no, after you, I insist"...


It's not just a unicorn - it's a gold plated unicorn called Steve who lost a leg in a nasty swimsuit incident but found love with Barry the minotaur and settled down in rural Shropshire to raise their adopted family of bats.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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 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".

It is multiples if multiple attackers are involved. That we train for situations that we consider trainable (as opposed to those where a concerted attack makes the training unhelpful) doesn’t change the number of attackers. We also don’t train to defend against expert knife fighters, for the same reason.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

The best I’ve see. Or experienced was really just movement drills, not full-on sparring. Mostly because if you have a group of similarly skilled folks, with similar training, 1-v-x is a slaughter for the 1.

 

[pdg]

It is multiples if multiple attackers are involved. That we train for situations that we consider trainable (as opposed to those where a concerted attack makes the training unhelpful) doesn’t change the number of attackers. We also don’t train to defend against expert knife fighters, for the same reason.

From your previous descriptions I can accept you using "multiple" because there's few options for any other term.

But only if used in conjunction with the other parts of your descriptions... Stuff like one+backup - because then it's multiple but segmented, whereas (as you seem to have identified) multiple all at once is a whole different game.

In effect my standpoint is based on the number of concurrent attackers, not on the number of consecutive attackers.

Multiple consecutive is somewhat trainable and great for fitness (they're always fresher than you) - multiple concurrent is where the fantasy aspect enters.

If "multiple" is used alone (and/or the people involved don't have the understanding you've gone through) then that's where it becomes misleading.

And that's also where my snake oil opinion comes in, because it's rare (to nonexistent) that the distinction between concurrent and consecutive is highlighted when the advertising wank comes out.

 

[pdg]

Additional to above, here's an example.

Sometimes in our sparring we'll have a "ring" of people, with one in the middle.

The people in the ring take turns to come in singly or in pairs - the one in the middle stays in until everyone has had a turn, then another comes in and they join the ring.

That is consecutive 1v1 and 2v1.

Mr Marketing-Wank would bill that as "we can teach you to fight against 12 attackers"...

 

[dvcochran]

Additional to above, here's an example.

Sometimes in our sparring we'll have a "ring" of people, with one in the middle.

The people in the ring take turns to come in singly or in pairs - the one in the middle stays in until everyone has had a turn, then another comes in and they join the ring.

That is consecutive 1v1 and 2v1.

Mr Marketing-Wank would bill that as "we can teach you to fight against 12 attackers"...

"Mr. Marketing-Wank, That made me laugh.

We also do this drill regularly.

For Mr. Marketing-Wank, this is not a new drill. Back in the day it was called Smear the Qxxxr.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

From your previous descriptions I can accept you using "multiple" because there's few options for any other term.

But only if used in conjunction with the other parts of your descriptions... Stuff like one+backup - because then it's multiple but segmented, whereas (as you seem to have identified) multiple all at once is a whole different game.

In effect my standpoint is based on the number of concurrent attackers, not on the number of consecutive attackers.

Multiple consecutive is somewhat trainable and great for fitness (they're always fresher than you) - multiple concurrent is where the fantasy aspect enters.

If "multiple" is used alone (and/or the people involved don't have the understanding you've gone through) then that's where it becomes misleading.

And that's also where my snake oil opinion comes in, because it's rare (to nonexistent) that the distinction between concurrent and consecutive is highlighted when the advertising wank comes out.

I guess the difference is how we're viewing "attacker". If there are three threatening to attack, those are the "attackers", even if one gets ahead of the others and gets in first, or they manage to stupidly string themselves out. I still need to account for all of them in my movement (doesn't do me much good to take out the first guy if I do it by putting the others directly behind me within arms' reach).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Additional to above, here's an example.

Sometimes in our sparring we'll have a "ring" of people, with one in the middle.

The people in the ring take turns to come in singly or in pairs - the one in the middle stays in until everyone has had a turn, then another comes in and they join the ring.

That is consecutive 1v1 and 2v1.

Mr Marketing-Wank would bill that as "we can teach you to fight against 12 attackers"...

I'd agree that's 1v1 and 1v2. If you send a third a half-second later (while the first two are closing in, but this leaves him too far away for the first clash), then the scenario is 1v3. Part of the job of the defender is to try to keep the actual clashes from becoming 1v3, using movement, etc.

 

[dvcochran]

I guess the difference is how we're viewing "attacker". If there are three threatening to attack, those are the "attackers", even if one gets ahead of the others and gets in first, or they manage to stupidly string themselves out. I still need to account for all of them in my movement (doesn't do me much good to take out the first guy if I do it by putting the others directly behind me within arms' reach).

Agree. Accounting for the 2nd or 3rd attacker does not necessarily mean you are countering them. Possibly only keep them in line of sight.

 

[drop bear]

Additional to above, here's an example.

Sometimes in our sparring we'll have a "ring" of people, with one in the middle.

The people in the ring take turns to come in singly or in pairs - the one in the middle stays in until everyone has had a turn, then another comes in and they join the ring.

That is consecutive 1v1 and 2v1.

Mr Marketing-Wank would bill that as "we can teach you to fight against 12 attackers"...

Yeah. I is one of those tells about a martial art when you are expected to defend a really crappy situation. Do you mostly just get flogged or do you change the scenario so that the defender wins.

Escape from a rear bear hug is another. Where you will quite often see reality take a back step to making the defense work.

 

[drop bear]

Did I mention that basic rugby tackle theory breaks the multiple attackers drill?

 

[Buka]

Opinions tend to vary.

I find that It depends on if you’ve ever actually had to fight against multiple attackers in any way, shape or form.

Sometimes it’s riots, sometimes it’s boys out drinking and pounding their chests too much. And sometimes it’s about felony assault.

We sometimes delve into the “way” as opposed to the “you should do this” BS that people who have never actually done it tend to pontificate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. I is one of those tells about a martial art when you are expected to defend a really crappy situation. Do you mostly just get flogged or do you change the scenario so that the defender wins.

Escape from a rear bear hug is another. Where you will quite often see reality take a back step to making the defense work.

Agreed. During drills, adjustments are needed to focus on practicing what's being taught. When it comes to attempting the defense (things closer to sparring), it's better if there's a bit more realism in it, and people should fail. This gives a chance to recognize what makes the situation more dangerous. Hard to create that line sometimes while maintaining safety, and sometimes not really worth it, for the small amount of time spent on a topic.

 

[skribs]

It is multiples if multiple attackers are involved. That we train for situations that we consider trainable (as opposed to those where a concerted attack makes the training unhelpful) doesn’t change the number of attackers. We also don’t train to defend against expert knife fighters, for the same reason.

The best I’ve see. Or experienced was really just movement drills, not full-on sparring. Mostly because if you have a group of similarly skilled folks, with similar training, 1-v-x is a slaughter for the 1.

I think part of it is starting with the 2 or 3 (or more) squaring off against you, instead of starting where you already have someone grabbing you. At least give yourself the opportunity to use your feet.

I also think my ideal version of this type of drill would be for advanced students to practice on intermediate students. I think that would be a more realistic application of the drill, one where the person can have greater control.

As an example, for my 2nd degree test I was supposed to do 4-on-1 sparring. I chose 5 people. Not because I wanted to go above and beyond, but because there was one guy I did not want to spar, and if I picked 5 people then nobody would ask why I didn't pick that one specific guy. And it worked. Everyone was cheering me on for going against that extra person and going 1-on-5, that nobody said "why didn't you pick that guy?"

If I were teaching multiple opponents, I would want to have red and brown belts practice against green and blue belts, black belts practice against red and brown belts, and 2nd and 3rd degree black belts to practice against 1st degree. Alternatively, if it were a beltless system, I would have the more experienced and/or successful fighters train against those of moderate experience and success.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think part of it is starting with the 2 or 3 (or more) squaring off against you, instead of starting where you already have someone grabbing you. At least give yourself the opportunity to use your feet.

I also think my ideal version of this type of drill would be for advanced students to practice on intermediate students. I think that would be a more realistic application of the drill, one where the person can have greater control.

As an example, for my 2nd degree test I was supposed to do 4-on-1 sparring. I chose 5 people. Not because I wanted to go above and beyond, but because there was one guy I did not want to spar, and if I picked 5 people then nobody would ask why I didn't pick that one specific guy. And it worked. Everyone was cheering me on for going against that extra person and going 1-on-5, that nobody said "why didn't you pick that guy?"

If I were teaching multiple opponents, I would want to have red and brown belts practice against green and blue belts, black belts practice against red and brown belts, and 2nd and 3rd degree black belts to practice against 1st degree. Alternatively, if it were a beltless system, I would have the more experienced and/or successful fighters train against those of moderate experience and success.

I've never run them segregated into ranks like that - I'll have to think about that concept. When we did them, it was either everyone above X rank, or everyone in the class, and the entire group (or sub-group if split up that way) would work round-robin so everyone got a chance to play.

One of the problems with a lot of drills is that - if you're playing the safety card - there's not enough penalty for the "attackers". They can risk everything to try to get their attack in, and the worst they'll get is a light punch in most cases. "In the street", hitting one of them hard can (doesn't always) have an effect on the rest of the group, but that effect doesn't show up in the dojo, since we're not trying to knock the other guys out.

 

[skribs]

I've never run them segregated into ranks like that - I'll have to think about that concept. When we did them, it was either everyone above X rank, or everyone in the class, and the entire group (or sub-group if split up that way) would work round-robin so everyone got a chance to play.

One of the problems with a lot of drills is that - if you're playing the safety card - there's not enough penalty for the "attackers". They can risk everything to try to get their attack in, and the worst they'll get is a light punch in most cases. "In the street", hitting one of them hard can (doesn't always) have an effect on the rest of the group, but that effect doesn't show up in the dojo, since we're not trying to knock the other guys out.

I think this is where a lot of those rules come in, like "if you get hit, stay down for 5 seconds". Rules which make it work with light contact, but then other people see it and call it phooey.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think this is where a lot of those rules come in, like "if you get hit, stay down for 5 seconds". Rules which make it work with light contact, but then other people see it and call it phooey.

Agreed. The issue is that this is really no deterrent for the attacker. They have two possible outcomes: win by taking the defender down (with friends), or have a seat for a few seconds.

The same issue shows up in weapon defense scenarios. Guy with a rubber knife can attack with impunity, as he’ll probably get a light tap, at worst. The guy he’s trying to stab gets an uncomfortable (perhaps even painful) poke in the ribs. I don’t know a solution other than harder contact in responses, but that limits how much time you can reasonably spend in such drills.

 

[skribs]

Agreed. The issue is that this is really no deterrent for the attacker. They have two possible outcomes: win by taking the defender down (with friends), or have a seat for a few seconds.

The same issue shows up in weapon defense scenarios. Guy with a rubber knife can attack with impunity, as he’ll probably get a light tap, at worst. The guy he’s trying to stab gets an uncomfortable (perhaps even painful) poke in the ribs. I don’t know a solution other than harder contact in responses, but that limits how much time you can reasonably spend in such drills.

I know some knife-fighting arts use rubber knifes with lipstick on them and wear white shirts. Guy with more lipstick on his shirt loses.

One idea I had is if the life-bar electronic sparring gear catches on in Taekwondo, to do something similar for multiples. Like have 3 people with 30 HP each, and 1 person with 100 HP (or something similar).

 

[dvcochran]

Agreed. The issue is that this is really no deterrent for the attacker. They have two possible outcomes: win by taking the defender down (with friends), or have a seat for a few seconds.

The same issue shows up in weapon defense scenarios. Guy with a rubber knife can attack with impunity, as he’ll probably get a light tap, at worst. The guy he’s trying to stab gets an uncomfortable (perhaps even painful) poke in the ribs. I don’t know a solution other than harder contact in responses, but that limits how much time you can reasonably spend in such drills.

We have light(er) sessions for teaching technique and hard contact sessions for drilling. During hard sessions everyone wears forearm pads, groin protection, and a chest protector. Many people will wear headgear and shin/instep pads. Our floors have the interlocked padding.
It only takes one or two hard sessions for a new person to figure out they need PPE. We have plenty of hogus and headgear but most people prefer their own headgear at some point.

 

[skribs]

We have light(er) sessions for teaching technique and hard contact sessions for drilling. During hard sessions everyone wears forearm pads, groin protection, and a chest protector. Many people will wear headgear and shin/instep pads. Our floors have the interlocked padding.
It only takes one or two hard sessions for a new person to figure out they need PPE. We have plenty of hogus and headgear but most people prefer their own headgear at some point.

When I started practicing nunchucks, I'd wear headgear and a cup.