From: barry@citr.uq.oz.au (Barry Kitson)
Subject: Re: multiple opponents; combat vs. self-defense
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:21:00 GMT

tac@cs.brown.edu (Ted A. Camus) writes:


>robinson@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson) writes :

>  In many martial arts, it is true that against multiple opponents
>  the strategy is to take them out as quickly as possible, in rapid
>  succession.  This strategy is especially true for percussion-effect arts.

	Does this mean that you are not trying to do this in Aikido?
(See below for more :^)

>  Note, however, the statement that the opponents are taken out *in
>  succession*, i.e. one after the other.  Just like in the movies, where
>  the bad guys rush up to the good guy, STOP, and patiently wait for 
>  their turn to spar him.  

	That's pretty unlikely.  What "taken out *in succession*" really
means is that you cannot (unless you're PRETTY good) deliver your final
incapacitating techniques to more than one person at a time.  So there
are a few strategies (yes even in "persussion-effect" arts :^) for
arranging things so that you can better the odds and only have to
face one or two (ideally one) person at a time.  I imagine things are
pretty much the same in Aikido, or are you capable of breaking the arms
of two people at once? :^)

>  If, however, you have two attackers attacking *simultaneously*, they
>  are not going to do this.  They are probably going to crowd you real 
>  close, then jump on you together.  You can hit one, but then you will
>  be in a grappling match with the other almost immediately.  And if you
>  haven't taken the first one out ("one punch = one kill"), then it's
>  two on one (actually "two on top of" one).

	Yup, same as Aikido, if you don't use a bit of strategy.  The
solution (such as it is :^) is to move to the outside of the attackers,
keeping one of them between yourself and the rest of the group.  If you
can hit him/her (pick the weakest one :^) and end his/her day, then
push him/her into the rest, then so much the better.

>  In Aikido, which arguably has a more martial tradition behind it,
>  we often train with two or three attackers, where they are genuinely 
>  trying to strike (*) or grab you.  

	Are all Aikidoka (at your school :^) taught how to punch and
kick?  I've seen one Aikido club where there were a lot of people who
also learnt (or had learnt) striking arts, and therefore knew what an
attack was.  On the other hand, I've seen a few schools where they
wouldn't recognise a decent punch if it hit them.  (then again 8+( )

>  Nage can't possibly give individual
>  attention to any of them, even for a split second.  (S)he has to treat
>  them as one entity (**).  I.e., there is *no* delay between one opponent 
>  and the next.  In attacking one opponent, you are in the process of 
>  setting up the attack for the following one; this is usually done by 
>  throwing the last one *into* the next one.  

	Hey, _just_ like TKD !!  :^)

>  If any other arts seriously train 
>  against multiple opponents, I'd like to hear about them 

	Ok, we do :^)  Especially over the holidays when the classes
are fairly small and there are no beginners who need to be taught
basics.  Most of our training involves all in sparring, or "all against
the puce :^) belts" exercises, which are usually a lot of fun.  With
all-in sparring, it's everyone for himself/herself so alliances tend
not to last long and the sparring is more open.  The other case tends 
to have a lot of people suddenly descending on particular unfortunates,
who get to work really hard :^) .

>  (I do not
>  consider most forms of two-on-one sparring to count, for the reasons 
>  given above.)

	I've looked for the "reasons given above" but am still not sure
what you mean.  If the "two" attack in concert, then what's your 
objection?

>  (*) An advantage of many Aikido strikes, for ex. shomenuchi (== sword hand 
>      to forehead), is that they can be done with full force safely.

	Um...huh?  I wouldn't be attacking someone's forehead with a
"sword hand" (if it is a traditional "karate chop"-type thingy with
fingers straight and contact made with the fleshy part between the base
of the little finger and the wrist) with too much hope of success.  You
should not spend too much time practising against such attacks (except 
that it may be somewhat similar to some weapons attacks which are more
common) from open hands.

	In any case, if it's a realistic attack (i.e. intended to do
and capable of doing damage) then it should not be delivered in training 
with full force (i.e. the intent to do damage) since the defender is
(presumably) capable of making mistakes.

>      Pulled punches are not necesary or desirable.

	How do you train to defend against punches (and how do you 
_learn_ to defend against punches) without getting someone hurt?  

	Also note that most punches will not come alone,

		Barry.


 _____________________________________________________________________
| Barry KITSON              | TRL of AOTC                   ||   \_() |
| Voice: +61 7 365 4469     | C/- CiTR                     //,____#_\ |
| Fax:   +61 7 365 4399     | The University of Queensland \|   __\   |
| email: b.kitson@trl.oz.au | St Lucia 4072 AUSTRALIA       \|  `     |
|_____ Proof of the above is left as an exercise for the reader. _____|
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts