Multiple Opponents

[Charlie Kondek]

I don't relish the thought of fighting one person with a sword much less more than one person, but watching Toshiro Mifune cut down a dozen people has me thinking: how do you do it?

I know there are sequences of cutting down multiple people in some of the iai kata that I have studied, but has anyone ever studied a ryu where principles of multiple enemies were passed on to them? Something along the lines of Musashi's "keep them all on your right" or Munenori's "one is the same as several?"

I can manage to fight multiple people with my hands and feet (also not something I relish, but I have trained for it a bit) but one time in full bogu I asked two or three of my kendo buddies to attack me and I couldn't even get one of 'em before I was bopped on the head. Definitely not like that scene in The Hunted!

Mifune makes it look so easy! How is it done?

[CEB]

Originally posted by Charlie Kondek
...
Mifune makes it look so easy! How is it done?

Choreography probably helps a lot.


PS: a couple of guys came back and said camp was great this year. Though they seem to have sore calves.

[Tiger Ed]

Never done it myself either but probably by being faster than the other guy and I am sure it works on similar principles to unarmed combat. There are the Katas but these are quite limited in their use as each one has a meaning doesnt it and each move is done for a reason with the imaginary enemy at a certain place?

Running away and getting to fight them one on one is a good start or asking them to line up so you can cut them all at once.

On methods there are probably a few different ones but these will have been made by one person-or a multiple- for themselves and from their experiences. It is probably best for you to look at these but try to make your own method as you will need to be comfortable doing it, like you mentioned with the unarmed combat it will take a while to get to the level.

I am sure if we al ask another student and challenge our instructors they would be able to do it. (They always seem to do that dont they?)

This is by no means an answer just my thoughts.

[chrismoses]

Nealy all of the kata in Shinto Ryu deal with only one attacker, but we have numerous kata (particularly at higher levels) that show various responses to attacks from the rear. These could be strung together in order to respond to attacks from various angles, but wouldn't help if the attackers weren't respecting the "Guild of Kung Fu Badguys" single-attacker at a time clause. One of the very last of our inside kata deals with at least four attackers using some odd tactics, but I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing details on the board.

In Seikikai (Aiki)ken, we did quite a few pseudo-kata with shitachi standing between two attackers. The point of the exercise was to enter and cut deeply enough that you turned the attacker you were initially facing so that you got them between you and the attacker that was behind you at the outset. I have no way to know what this was based on or if it was entirely made up. To their defense I have seen Don Angier do similar movements and describe the strategy of placing one attacker between you and the next attacker. I imagine this strategy is fairly common, it's a main point in the Aikido randori (with multiple attackers) that I practice. If through footwork you can get attackers into line, they will stay in each other's way and all of the tools you have for dealing with one attacker can come into play.

[Andy Watson]

Charlie

Despite the excellent quality and choreography of films such as those mentioned, if you watch carefully you will see that the multi-opponent scenes still rely on no more than one or two people attacking at the same time. No different really to the cheaper versions of the samurai dramas. Reams of enemies stand round and wait their turn then launch themselves ineffectively at the hero.

Looking at the koryu of 3 prominent sword styles (not including seitei), attacking more than two opponents at a time is a kata which does not exist. The only ones which have two opponents rely on stealth and speed to dispatch each one in turn - never are they both coming at you at the same time.

Maybe this is a perception of reality - in the short space of time that it takes for you to efficiently deal with one opponent, you are preoccupied while opponent two unskillfully cleaves your head open.

I also trained in a style of karate which interpreted multiple opponents in the kata. Steve Arneil however (who is a bit hard if you know what I mean) once said something on the lines of, dealing with one opponent is hard enough, two - nearly impossible, three - forget it. I like to look at my own ability to apparently deal with multiple opponents on the basis that it increases the chances of being able to deal successfully with one.

Phew!

[gmlc123]

Interesting topic and question. And not that I would relish the thought either, suffice to say part of the key would be to keep moving... preferrably forward, dealing with one opponent at a time and not to let your mind dwell in a single place.

Of course, easier said than done I would imagine. Also I suspect that in such a situation you'd feel and/or sense which opponent had the greatest sakki (intent to kill you) and deal with them in such an order based on their level/s of intent.

Again all hypothetical and just another opinion. First preference for me would be to just run away.

[John Lovato]

Charlie,
Here are just a few of the stratagies I was taught. Of course depending on how your opponents are arrayed might change things a little.

When faced with two or more attackers to the front, attack the swordsman on your left. Do not attack him head on because that leaves you open to the other swordsman. What I mean is you have to enter deep enough that the man on the left blocks the other opponents.

Cut and move. Do not spend any amount of time fighting any one opponent. You must keep moving, do not let yourself get in a dueling situation with just one opponent. If you miss a cut, move on to the next guy. Footwork is everything.

Use the terain. Take advantage of obstacles, move so that furniture(indoors) or trees(outdoors) or whatever limit the ability of your opponents to come at you in a solid group.

These are just a couple of basic(i hope not to basic) stratagies. When faced with multiple opponents, survey the situation and move. Take the offensive, never get in a defensive situation. Take the fight to the enemy.

I hope this helps,

John Lovato
Yoshida-Ha Bujutsu

[Charlie Kondek]

You know, John, that sort of sounds like the same way you might do it hand-to-hand (although you have the option of grabbing in hand-to-hand; like I and Andy said, not something anyone wants to do if they can help it). Guys, I know the movies make the hero look good. But what about references to multiple-opponent fighting in bugei texts or the like? I'm sure these old bugeisha didn't like taking on more than one person at a time either - but they believed it possible!

I remember reading a bit of an interview with a yakuza once in which he said get your back to a set of stairs and start cutting and kicking anything that comes near you. Yakuza hyperbole? Maybe.

I wonder if it would be a good idea, given enough space, to charge through the opponents, come out the other side, turn, and charge in again, taking out opponents as you go.

Well, for me, this is just speculation. I was wondering, though, if anyone had ever been taught specific tactics or principles (and it appears some of you have).

[John Lovato]

Charlie,
There is nothing that says you have to hold your sword with two hands. In fact I would'nt reccomend it. By all means use your other hand to grab one guy while you cut another. Then throw, or push the grabbed guy into the others.

I read that Yakuza interview also, A great use of terain.

We have a few sets where we move between the two attackers. Ussually we cut one on the way through and then turn and cut the other.

John Lovato
Yoshida-Ha Bujutsu

[Dan Harden]

There is no point in discussing in-depth strategies of particular arts that have multiple opponent attacks and defenses unless you are willing to stop and begin in that art. Arts have a rationale that you would have to adopt at the ground level to build through until you are an “X” ryu man. John has offered some good points but I can't see it as a beneficial across the board discusion in a free venue unless you are doing what he is doing. Does that make sense?

Cutting down Japanese movie sword swinging poseurs is about as relevant as watching Jacki Chan movies-best discussed while eating popcorn and soon forgotten.

Multiples of what?
As an aside-playing with multiple opponent “scenarios” is interesting and it may affect your ability to handle an increased threat level. Question is- whether that effect is beneficial or deleterious to your true ability. Burning-in response mechanisms and movement can be veeerryy dicy in the long run. No judgments here on any one thing. Cutting with two swords and moving naturally and using terrain is an example of excellent strategy-best practiced outside-but again it is difficult to near-impossible to substitute the former real-world threat levels. Of course then, as now, there were excellent adepts, mediocre practitioners and down right inepts.

Judge the attack-not the defense.
When you watch an art-never watch the guy defending. Watch what he is moving against! How is he being attacked? Many if not most attacks I have seen in Dojo’s were laughable, stiff attempts at cutting, stabbing, hitting or pushing /grabbing then on to Gi-grabbing and throwing with no kicks or Punches to counter and stop the entries. Fit-ins take on a whole new meaning with an upper cut and cross heading your way. We should never allow ourselves to get overly impressed or involved with these arts “three-card-Monty” game of “you do this and I’ll do that.” “You move this way –I’ll defend like this.” In other words practice it, but see it for what it is.
We all learn through Kata (and hopefully free-style fighting) but Kata is Kata -prearranged attack- prearranged response. Weapons are no different from empty hand. If you are doing Aikido or Judo/jujutsu or Karate etc…and you are feeling good about your ability to free-style with dojo-jockeys –then at a certain point be self effacing and ask yourself just what you’re facing by way of a real attack!
Think of multiple attacks by a team of drunks, as opposed to Dojo guys who know YOU and who you know- then think of facing a team of fighters from the Militic camp or team Gracie or the Pride fighters from team Brazil or team Japan. Those are some drastically different threat levels. SO it is with anything in a Dojo.

Training in multiple attackers is just “potentials.” Real attacks are feints, interrupted rhythms, staccato leads and closing -all while they are using YOUR weaknesses and revealed responses to see you undone. Many –if not most people have never even ventured outside of their arts to fight an experienced fighter, much less a multiple of that. And weapons adds a whole new dynamic of Maai as well as speed.
Surviving multiple experienced attackers is the stuff legends are made of. More than likely it was the result of luck as well as ability. The likely result for most of us would be our untimely demise.
Its all fun-do it all, but try to think rationally.

Cheers
Dan

[chrismoses]

I wonder too how the use of the katana as a sidearm and then dueling weapon affected the shaping of its strategies? I would be interested if there were more yari/naginata techniques designed to deal with multiple attackers? I can imagine it would be easier to create a perimiter with a longer weapon. Since these were the weapons that were more likely to be employed on the battlefield, where one would face more than one attacker, more time may have been spent on this scenario. That said, I can imagine that the strategy may have been as simplistic as, "flail about at their knees until you get a few of them." Dueling would be more likely to involve only one opponent, so those techniques may have taken priority in kenjutsu.

SR also has the strategy of attacking to the left first, though this is because so many of our techniques are batto, so drawing to your weaker side is perhaps less expected, and more critical. From there it is easier to turn to the right to deal with the next attack. Attacking to the right first is easier initially, but makes the second attack rather difficult. This is taught in our first outside kata.

Yo Johnny, sounds like you're not coming up for the Toby seminar, too bad it would have been good to see you. Our new pit, I mean dojo, isn't nearly as nasty as the old pit, it's practically respectable!

[gendzwil]

My personal experience with multiple opponents is that you have to keep moving, moving, moving. Lots of backward movement to get them chasing you and strung out so that you can deal with them one at a time. Once in a while, you can cut going forward and run like hell to get clear of the pack and try to create some space. Mind you, this is mostly for fun with a bunch of kids, but it's the only experience I've got...

[ZealUK]

I always wondered about multiple attackers striking in unison. Would it be reasonable to assume that each attacker would not want to accidentally injure or kill his ally by rushing in to attack a single opponent in close proximity? Perhaps then the idea of one or two attackers moving in while the others stay back and watch the outcome is reasonable? I suppose psychological dominance on the part of the defender would be a major issue. If the defender could intimidate his attackers to such an extent that they could not coordinate a sustained and coherent attack, then maybe he could deal with the opponents on a one on one basis until they are all dispatched?

I suppose the problem with these questions it that they can only be answered at best in a hypothetical manner.

[John Lovato]

Hey Chis,
I'm sorry that i'm going to miss it. I am going to be in San Francisco that weekend. I will try to make it up there sometime.

John Lovato
Yoshida-Ha Bujutsu

[Charlie Kondek]

BTW, Christian, cleaned out your PM box yet?