[quote]Injurytime wrote:
I have a friend, 6’2" and a scary proposition with fast hands, good mobility and some moderately serious anger issues, who grew up in a seriously rough area. He remembers several multiple-opponent scenarios. In almost all of them the following things were true:
- He was the biggest guy there, or of equal size to the biggest guy there
- At least one person was armed
- At least one person didn’t really want to fight
- He was rescued by a friend
I should add that he had some martial arts experience and had been successful in competition. This is the OP’s hypothetical in miniture and the friend I’m talking about will show folks the scar where he instinctively blocked a knife he had not previously seen, which was aimed at his neck.
It’s worth noting that gangs are often formed initially for self-protection rather than for predatory reasons, and it’s quite rare for people with actual criminal ability to attack you for no reason. They might want money, it might be to do with politics but it’s unlikely to be random because the capacity for dangerous violence is a resource, not to be squandered. In most non- or semi-pro criminal gangs there is, an one poster has rightly pointed out, at least one person who likes to fight: this is often the local manipulative psychopath. Frequently there is also the ‘good leuitenant’ (I never have been able to spell that word) - his motivation is to do his duty by his unit without unnecessary trouble. But he will stomp you if you ‘make him’ - ie put him in a position where he must choose between you and his unit. Additionally there are any number of hangers on. They won’t ‘fight’ you, but if you go down they’ll stomp along gladly. It’s the crazy one and the ‘good loot’ whose job it is to actually hurt you enough that the rest can jump on you.
Note that none of this holds true for semi-pro to pro gangs.
From my own training experience: I’ve done multiple attacker drills and 2 attackers is just about manageable - meaning most people are decisively beaten only about 1/3 of the time. Any more is not manageable. Add to this the point that anybody who is willing to engage in an unprovoked violent attack is almost certainly armed with any one of a range of blunt, edged or pointy somewhat improvised weapons which might appear from nowhere - as in my friend’s experience related above - and you too might be hoping that your brother will show up and start laying about him with a plank of wood with a nail in it.
The appeal of the movie scene in which the sympathetic character disposes of dozens of contemptible thugs with relative ease is exactly its distance from reality: it’s a way to ‘experience’ by the proxy of entertainment a scenario we’re all scared of (all of us with enough sense to be scared) and get the outcome we wish was true, instead of the one that is true. The only way to get out of a situation like this is to determine the pace of the pre-fight encounter, seize control of the tempo of events and preemptively counter-attack with such a high level of force that it physically and psychologically overwhelms the attacking party, but as several other posters have pointed out, there are people around who come from where they make that shit and once you start escalating the level of force you have no control over how far it will go.
The responses from trainers who work with multiple-attacker scenarios have been educational, thanks.[/quote]
Great post, thanks for sharing.
