Multiple opponents, multiple opponents, multiple opponents, as a Self-defense professional who focuses primarily on Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, I sure hear a lot about multiple opponents. Yes, that’s right; there is a multitude of opponents to our stand on multiple opponents. We hear so much about multiple opponents these days that it does get a little irritating. However, I do believe that part of the increase in concern about multiple opponents is very legitimate because there does appear to be a significant increase in these kinds of attacks. Therefore, I want to take your concerns seriously and deal with them practically here with this post.
Nevertheless, I also believe that a lot of this talk about multiple opponents and how Brazilian Jiu-jitsu can’t deal with them is just drivel from the “pseudo-profession”. A “pseudo-profession” that I hope by now the public realizes is largely made up by the worst kind of “arm chair” warriors who literally may not even train or work out and who certainly do not “fight” (except perhaps obesity… which appears to be a battle many of them have lost a long time ago). In other words, people with no actual objective skill sets (other than winning pie eating contests, doing kata, pressure points or training others for tournaments or competitions…from a mostly seated position) should keep their cookie filled mouths shut about self-defense and fighting and leave it to people who actually physically train for it and have had to it.
Remember, actual, functional skill sets are governed by the same rules of science and empiricism as everything else is, they have to be observable, testable and repeatable and not the unfounded opinions of an insecure “pseudo-expert” who feels threatened by the new paradigm of actually being able to develop, test and prove fighting skills through a realistic format like Mixed Martial Arts training and fighting. Man, that stuff is too much like work. We hear too much of this prattle mostly because it’s not their “style”, which as I pointed out in a previous post, is a belief system not based on logic but more along the lines of something like religious indoctrination.
Of course, MMA training does not usually include multiple opponent considerations so this is often used by the “pseudo-profession” as an opportunity to again try to obscure the realities of real world self-defense because we don’t have as much objective evidence to turn to as we do in the area of unarmed single combat. MMA has been, or at least was, a living laboratory that enabled us to actually test and observe over and over again what was actually working in real fighting. Are there not differences between MMA matches and real street fights? Of course there are but the relationship is still much closer than the fantasy worlds of many “pseudo-experts”.
The fact is, if MMA is a series of combat experiments (which I have always looked to it as) then some people just can’t accept the results. Therefore, to try and reject the evidence and results of observable, testable and repeatable fighting experiments and replace it with unfounded opinions, baseless assertions and unsupported claims is what creates the worst aspects of a “pseudo-profession”. A dangerous “pseudo profession” at that, when we are talking about your personal safety, since most of these opinions are no more worthy of acceptance than “bleeding” is as a medical cure. While the “Pseudo-profession” is talking about things that really are the equivalent of “the four humors” (the best example being pressure points) we need to look for evidence.
Now that we have had this review of why there is just so much dumb advice being passed off as self-defense expertise, leading to my often repeated warning to the self-defense consumer that: “the self-defense industry can be the worst place to get self defense advice from”, we can now look specifically at the usual problems with multiple opponent defenses. Therefore, the realist minority within the self-defense community spends so much time contrasting the non sense of the “pseudo experts” with the more evidence based approach of Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and MMA that often they don’t realize that when it comes to multiple attackers, they too are operating from a kind of false paradigm.
Wait a minute! Have not you been saying that the methods of Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and MMA are the new paradigm of self-defense? Well…yes…but not entirely because the idea of “self-defense” covers too much ground to be easily handled by one perspective. In other words, a proven cure for cancer is not a proven cure for heart disease.
Let us remember that “self-defense”, as a concept, is a vast continuum that covers a huge amount of topics and areas of study. From simple “awareness” to purely verbal skills that can be used to defuse hostile people, all the way to battle field tactics including the use of small arms, grenades and perhaps things like rocket launchers. In fact, if you follow this continuum all the way to the end, you are moving from “self-defense” into what you could call “national defense” and the tactics of entire armies, navies and even nuclear weapons.
Therefore, when we say “self-defense” we are often really talking about “personal defense” which is a little less common but I think a more accurate term. “Personal defense” implies the self-defense needs of the ordinary individual usually outside the context of work related skills used by security guards or peace officers.
The problem with false paradigms begins when we consider that most people get their “personal defense” training from some sort of “martial art”. Now days we almost always think of “self-defense” as an unarmed activity because this is what most martial arts or combat sports are teaching and focusing on. In other words, take a martial art like Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, yes it is a martial art and yes, it is a self defense system but more accurately and by definition it is a: “method of unarmed combat” that can be used as a self dense system or a “defensive tactics” system for Peace officers or military personal.
This is a really important distinction when we are discussing multiple opponent attacks. Once you are putting a lot of time into a system or sport, you tend to become constrained by it and may not be looking for solutions outside of it. As we pointed out, self-defense is a sliding scale and systems of unarmed combat whether standing or grappling are just that, unarmed combat, that have a specific use and limitations. Even something proven to be as effective as Brazilian Jiu-jitsu may not be the correct choice in the larger context of self-defense.
It is unreasonable and even foolish to think or demand that methods of unarmed combat be used for the entire spectrum of “self-defense” needs. However, it is very easy for people to fall into this kind of thinking because for most of man’s history, even “personal defense” was seen as something best done with a weapon and not with your bare hands but that all changed and so did the personal defense paradigm. Only in our modern times have we started to think of “self-defense” and especially “personal-defense” as unarmed activities. If you are limited to this kind of thinking then you are thinking about multiple opponents from a false paradigm.
Therefore, the main idea I want to emphasis is that you first must get out of the “style” induced paradigm that you could or should be using one or another system of unarmed combat as a solution to the problems of multiple opponents. It’s a bad idea because it is not your best choice since this is not really what they are designed for. Thus, you have to start thinking outside the box that the “pseudo-profession” wants your thinking stuck in and start looking for logical alternatives.
Ergo, the solution to multiple opponents mostly lies outside the purview of unarmed combat systems so we should stop arguing about which method, that is not designed for multiple opponents, is the best to use against multiple opponents. Get my point?
The next question logically becomes: what methods are designed specifically for multiple opponents? Multiple opponents are a problem seen outside the limited scope of personal defense. In the bigger societal conceptual context they are called “mobs” or “riots”. How do we deal with mobs or riots? Answering this question should give us some tactical insights instead of trying to emulate what we see in a Bruce lee or Ip Man movie.
In other words, What do peace officers or other security professionals effectively use on unruly crowds? Firstly, we have to realize that if the crowds are large enough and motivated enough the answer is nothing! Riots all through history have brought down governments and nullified entire heavily armed police forces, that is simply the power of masses of people so if “multiple opponents” can defeat entire police forces there is only so much an individual can expect to do. However, this is at the extreme end of the scale and sounds a bit like something a pseudo professional would say by trying to use an example that is so statistically remote as to not merit being part of the discussion.
In other words, police and security forces successfully deal with masses of people all the time, (too successfully I suppose if we are judging political motivations and social justice, but that is another topic). Aside from rubber bullets and water cannon which you probably do not have access to, one of the simplest and easiest solutions is chemical sprays. On a large scale they use “tear gas” that usually needs more extensive equipment to deploy but on a smaller scale they can individually use simple tactics like “mace” or pepper/bear spray.
These chemical deterrents are by their nature perfect for one individual to use against a group since the spray is designed to spread out and cover a wide area. Tactically and technically you don’t have to do much but push a button, then let the spray do the work. Furthermore, pepper spray is generally legal and accessible in most jurisdictions. This is probably your best solution since it is simple to use, extremely effective but also relatively low on the force continuum. This is my first choice, but how many Brazilian Jiu-jitsu instructors even talk about it? Not many because it does not occur to them because they are too caught within their paradigm that self defense solutions can only come from the style they teach or worse yet the sport they compete in.
Now its not as easy as it sounds, but few things in real world violence are. There are always going to be tactical problems with deployment and training but these are separate issues that can be worked out once we are thinking outside the kung-fu theater or Brazilian Jiu-jitsu tournament box.
If you are really concerned about multiple opponents, which now days is a very valid concern, then I sincerely suggest you start carrying some form of chemical spray set to have a wide dispersal pattern. I suggest this regardless of what your “style” of martial art is. However, I am certainly not suggesting that you do this instead of training in your system of unarmed combat. They are different but related things and do compliment each other. In other words they occupy different places along that spectrum or sliding scale of self-defense needs and part of your training in that “unarmed combat system” should include the deployment and use of your chosen anti-multiple opponent technology.
lets not forget that unarmed combat skills can be a factor in any close quarters situation, whether you are armed or not. Being able to deploy any kind of a weapon at close quarters is a skill that needs to be honed because it could be the deciding factor on whether you are able to successfully use your weapon or not. For example, whether you are trying to deploy pepper spray or a firearm at close range you have to be prepared for someone grabbing your arm and preventing your deployment. At close quarters this is often not hard to do so you must have a contingency plan and train for it.
In fact, this is the original purpose of a lot of the classical Jiu-jitsu which was not necessarily a system of unarmed combat in the modern sense but a secondary or back up system that the samurai used in conjunction with his sword or other weapons. The samurai knew well that combat did not fit neatly into one style or sport, it was a continuum and he had to be able to fight or defend himself any where along that continuum.
Deployment is a very critical issue at close range because firearms and pepper/bear spray are essentially “missile” weapons. In other words, they are designed to be used at relatively long range. Therefore, just like unarmed combat systems being used for the wrong things It is easy to get into trouble trying to use missile weapons at close quarters.
Furthermore, this has been the flaw in the thinking of people at the other end of the self-defense continuum who try to down play the importance of unarmed skills by saying: “oh, I will just carry a gun” . A firearm is absolutely no use to you if you don’t have access to it. Don’t take my word for it, just look a the all too frequent reports of peace officers who are disarmed and killed by their own weapons. We need the right tools for the right job.
This leads us to our next option for dealing with multiple opponents and that is an “edged weapon”. This is a little bit different from other armed responses because it is pretty much a close quarters weapon. An edged weapon or knife is also a highly stigmatized weapon so a lot of people are unwilling to carry one or train with it. I think this is a real mistake, especially in jurisdictions where you have no other choice. You must not let social norms or worse yet some “pseudo-professional” living in a fantasy land tell you what you should or should not do in order to protect yourself. We need to use facts and evidence .
The fact of the matter is that a full blown multiple opponent attack is a “lethal force” situation. you should not be treating it as anything else and should have the mind set that these people are trying to kill you and respond appropriately. You have to level the playing field and if you are unwilling to do that fine, but admit to yourself that you are abdicating your responsibility for protecting yourself and the people you care about and don’t try to blame your empty handed system. Or more usually from the “pseudo-expert”, some one else’s “style”
Now this does not necessarily mean you have to use the edged weapon on people, it may not come to that although you have to be physically and psychologically prepared for that or carrying a weapon of any sort can potentially be worse than not being armed.
The major point I want to make with this post, is that no matter what anyone tells you, what the research shows is the most effective way to stop a multiple opponent attack is not any system of unarmed combat (i.e a “martial art”) but the brandishing of a weapon. It really is that simple, if you are armed and appear to have the resolve to use that weapon than the chances of multiple unarmed attackers continuing their attack plummets. Multiple attackers are cowardly scum bags that want to do easy violence to others with out consequences. The prospect of facing a motivated and armed defender suddenly takes all the fun out of a multiple opponent attack.
I know these facts break a lot of hearts because so many people in the martial arts world are doing it at least partially as an ego fantasy. They want to hear about the Bruce Lee like exploits and have visions of doing the same. man, anyone who has been in real life multiple opponent encounters, as I have, is thinking about the best way to get home safe and whole not more martial arts ego fantasy. I have been doing Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and what came to be called MMA longer than anyone else in my entire country, and I routinely carry, when legal to do so, edged weapons and chemical spray…often on my way to do my job of teaching Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. One thing certainly does not contradict the other.
I have come across in my personal research, a few completely untrained people who dealt with the very dangerous threat of multiple attackers without getting a scratch on them. They were able to do this precisely because they were untrained! The idea that they should be “fighting” with these people never occurred to them because they were not operating from within that “martial arts” paradigm. Therefore, they were able to make more practical decisions. How did they do it? In two cases, by the brandishing or display of an edged weapon and in the third, a blast of bear spray. I have also come across the consummately trained martial artist who also didn’t hesitate to use the same tactics. This is a far more objective “truth” about multiple opponent defense, so if you want to argue about it that is fine but please take off your yellow jump suit and put down your nunchaku first.