From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: multiple opponents; combat vs. self-defense
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:15:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr13.231525.1073
Organization: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences

In article <1992Apr13.213202.10718@cs.brown.edu> tac@cs.brown.edu (Ted A. Camus) writes:
>
>  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.  
>
>  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).
>
	...stuff deleted... 

>  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.  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.  
>
>  This is not as mystical as it sounds.  In fact, one quickly learns
>  that it is the only way to do it.  If any other arts seriously train 
>  against multiple opponents, I'd like to hear about them (I do not
>  consider most forms of two-on-one sparring to count, for the reasons 
>  given above.)
>
>  Ted Camus                          Box 1910 CS Dept 
>  tac@cs.brown.edu                   Brown University
>  tac@browncs.BITNET                 Providence, RI 02912

In my kempo school, the essence of defending against two is to try and get one
as you go by him/her, and thereafter keep one of your attackers between you
and the other one, effectivly fighting just one at a time.

For 3 or more (other than just praying) we were taught to break out of the
circle (attacking one of the attackers and getting by him/her), then run
away, hopfully streaching out your attackers behind you in a line (since they'll
run at different speeds hopefully), and turing for quick attacks as
necessary (or, for example, a few rear kicks as you continue to move away).
This means you have to run faster than all of them but one, and not get bogged
down with anyone. Keep moving, that was the key.

Of course, anyone who thinks this would actually work is probably crazy; you'ld
have to be pretty good, and very fast, but what the hell, better than just
giving up. I'd hate to have to try it.

Actually, you might have a hope after all. Most muggers, I think, would not
be experienced fighters (more like one punch guys, since most victims don't
fight), and whenever I spar someone new, I'm amazed at how easy it is for
me to pretty much land them where I want to. Or I could be totally wrong.
				Ed Hartnett
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts