When I was a young man, I got an adrenaline rush from doing this type of training every workout. As I got older, I am thinking: "I hope I get out of this in one piece." The most dangerous part of traditional Kajukenbo training is the multiple opponent training. Since gloves and protective equipment is discouraged, it is very easy to lose control and smash each other up. I do believe the training is valuable, but I am wondering if all the injuries Kajukenbo practitioners ( including myself ) received is worth it?
But I do not regret this training in any way. I am glad that I went through it.
No you should not disregard this type of training. In fact you aren't very smart if you are training for self defense and you don't include it. I understand if you are training in a sport and don't cover this. That is expected and acceptable as in a sport you are unlikely to face anything like that. But away from the sport and what takes place outside of your school, gym, etc there are many that face multiple attackers, If you have never been taught correctly how to deal with that you are likely to become a victim. Now one huge problem is that many school are not teaching this correctly. The other huge problem is some don't even try to address it. Like others have said this is not for beginners. It is also not for children.
Contrary to popular answers....I would say yes. It's wise to an extent. I simply do not feel it's possible at all for a lesser number to fight much less win against a higher number head on.
If we look at King Leonidas's 300 vs Xerxes's army, look at how the British Expeditionary forces went up against the vast majority of Germans in the brutal WW1 trenches, how Cao Cao managed to survive an assault by his higher superior who has double times the number of soldiers he has.....they only survived either to the end or prolonged the invasion by splitting the numbers up.
True, splitting the numbers up still comes as an aspect and an art of its own. But in the end...what good is it at all if Cao Cao had just finished the one half of his enemy but the other half suddenly came as re-enforcements?
Ending the first fight before the second attack is quite important too. Thus it may be vital that the students can sufficiently disable the first attack long enough to prepare or escape from the second...Put it like a gun...if you shoot the first guy before he gets to you...you shoot the second guy. If you punch the first guy...he's still functional and well capable of still attacking. You have not solved your problem. There's still both enemies hitting you. That small bit more on one opponent may make your fist into a gun.
On another side in a war situation...where sometimes escape is just not the possible....like the high stress situations of battlefields...crippling one enemy as an example might strike deep fear into the others enough to stun them and get an response than constantly being kept on heels and being run down eventually anyway. It may be a case where all you need to do is just kill whatever you can kill...that may get you more progress and more prolonged life than trying to find a way to escape. Of course...this is NOT always the case.
I ******* hate to say this...but the major standard British Army would not get so much advances if the Expeditionary force didn't sacrifice themselves. I'm not a big fan of such philosophy, I hate it in fact that men are used like pawns.... but it's a discussion.
Nothing is absolute. There's no such thing as 'wise' or stupid in existence. Sometimes...a philosophy is too smart...sometimes that same philosophy is so horrendously stupid to the point that it costs many lives.
I agree with Aon.
The first problem is that far too many martial arts schools are claiming to teach self defense but aren't adequately teaching their students how to deal with one aggressor before they start harping on about multiple person situations.
Multiple person is all about tactics rather than technique and the best tactic is to force your aggressors to attack you one at a time using tactical retreats or tactical positioning. No matter what you practice you're going to get your @ss handed to you by a group but if you can get in a hallway where the only way people can face you is by stepping over the last guy you put down for the count then your martial training becomes relevant.
I agree with Kokoro on this one. I have yet to see anyone deal with multiple opponents in a realistic way. It's always very static training that is based on scenarios and that is based on your opponents coming at you one at a time. Whenever I've tried multiple opponents training I try to go in there with an open mind. But it usually pisses me off so much that I just start arguing with the trainer mid class. Once I actually walked out and took half the class with me. It is so easy to disprove the philosophy and what most places teach on multiple opponents. Like Kokoro said, if you have 3 people rushing at you at once you only have one option. You have to stop them from attacking you all at once and you have to use lethal force. That is it.
So yes, I think it is wise to ignore multiple opponents training because frankly it doesn't exist. Sometimes it's wiser to not train anything at all then to train something bad.
"wise", "disregard", and "training"?
No I do not think it wise to disregard training for multiple opponents. Senior students ought to be training in scenarios they are likely going to be engaged in, and to develop awareness of potential for multiple opponents. There is a time to pin someone to the ground, and then there's a time to throw them into oncoming traffic. If you know you're dealing with a single person - for example, a drunk with a big mouth, it might be safe to take him to the ground and prevent him from injuring you, himself, others, or property. But in a mugging, you do not know who else may be lurking in the shadows, and taking someone to the ground deliberately can spell disaster for you. If your training always takes an opponent to the ground, you're liable to get into trouble on the street.
As to disregarding, no - don't disregard any training. If it doesn't apply to you, file it away in a mental cabinet somewhere under "use later when appropriate". But disregarding suggests an air of arrogance. If you are training somewhere, you implicitly admit that you know less than the instructor - that is why you pay for instruction, yes? If something doesn't make sense to you, raise the issue or find an instructor you trust.
As to training, we will all sink to the level of our training. If we moderately train for multiple opponents, you may not fare well on the street. That is why it is all the more important to train for multiple opponents.
However, several rules apply when fighting multiple opponents:
Don't rush the training. Be sure you have proper instruction, and adequate practice against one opponent. This can take years of practice. You need not be a master of handling one opponent; in fact, occasional training early can be a good thing because such training can be good for a change of pace, and it can re-enforce good habits of being environmentally aware, preservation of stamina, and the underestimated value of a good pair of running shoes.
i dont think many places even teach multiple opponents training correctly. nor do i think that most people have what it takes to do what you need to in a real fight against multiple opponents.
face it if you have more then two people attacking you, unless you are willing to seriously disable and/or kill two of them you will be overwhelmed by the number. how many people are willing to actually go that far.
in sparing sections we use to have free for all's it was basically the entire class fighting all at once. as many people that want to could gang up on one person.
everyone continued until the sensei pulled you out for getting you a$$ handed you too many times. it could get rather mess at the end.
although that was only one method we used tom is correct its not for beginners.
and yes i dont think the kids asking know what is really involved most of them are asking for school yard spats and not a real self defense situation.
One should train in a variety of ways and to be able to deal with any situation.
I don't recommend that people start off by training against multiple opponents. But we do add it to our mix.
We also include some of it when we have new people. Mostly for demonstration and for fun. But we also do it with just senior students for other reasons. Such as:
Having multiple attackers is very different than one, and is a great aid in that things go crazy fast. So it helps you stay cool, focusing on multiple things going on at the same time etc. Being able to do one thing and do the next. Working on reaction time, positioning etc.
Why would you train someone for multiple adversaries when they can't even adequately face off against just one - to teach them how to get beaten up quicker?
The problem is not that students are not trained in it, but the vast majority of students can barely handle the training to fight just one opponent. Why waste class time and the student's money?
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you say that "the asker was a kid".
A very large number of martial arts practitioners practice it almost solely for self defense in the Streets, where it's rare that there isn't multiple opponents.
I am saying this, because I have seen it in several answers this year, sometimes perhaps from reaction to the asker that was a kid, but still...
Thanks in advance for all the answers and feel free to analyze. All opinions are respected.:)
Multiple opponents is when you maneuver around them so they form a constant line and can't surround you. If you mean that, then people shouldn't ignore it, as 1v1 skills don't apply to 2v1 when people stand around like a fish in a bucket.
I don't think it's wise at all. If the martial art is training self defense they should regularly train multiple opponents and weapons defense. But I don't think most does this type of training even once a month. I'd suspect that the reason is because there really isn't a good way to practice it without risking injury. Have a class full of people just bash it out isn't really the safest training and there aren't a good method to simulate group of people fighting. So for the sake of safety and convenience we train techniques against a single man that could work even in multiple opponents and try to have a tactic in executing these techniques in our head. It's hardly enough, but it'll keep the school from producing cripples.
Mulitple self defense is impossible but multiple martial thought is easier.
If you can stop one person, you can stop many.
