Originally Posted by fleetgunz

back at you i study middevil european swordsman sword and buckler and greatsword you should check it out too.

Originally Posted by fleetgunz

back at you i study middevil european swordsman sword and buckler and greatsword you should check it out too. as for throws you have a point i presumed that anyone who would try it is practices and anyone who is into h2h/sd should be thoughly practiced in their use... Take a look at the techniques used in the WW2 training for the SOE and the OSS or most of the real combat throws properly exicuted ...one bad guy down...

Originally Posted by Uke

All you have to do is watch any MMA event and you'll see dozens of guys attempting to use techniques that they are not proficient in. No one in MMA has proficient boxing skills. Very few in MMA have proficient judo throwing skills. All the throws look like wrestling throws or BJJ sacrifice takedowns which are throws at all.

Originally Posted by SamuraiGuy

"No one in MMA has proficient boxing skills."

Id like to refute that point there Uke, I may be nit picking, but here me out.

You mentioned Big Nog, while he's known for his ground game (best in mma)... He's also a brazilian heavyweight boxing champion, brazil might not be a boxing mecca, but I'm sure youd have to have proficient boxing skills.

Vitor Belfort is another who recently had a pure boxing match.. he destroyed his opponent in the first round... yet says he wants to get back into MMA.

Even people like Stephan Bonnar, 3 time Chicago Golden Gloves champ? I'd say hes a proficient boxer....

I understand your point, and for the most part I agree with it..but I like to nitpick...

"Variety leads to mediocrity" - SamuraiGuy.

Originally Posted by Tom Yum

Vitor Belfort has great boxing skills. So does Don Frye. Remember when Don knocked out the 400-lb street brawler/ kung-fu guy in Puerto Rico? He knocked him out with a jab...

Belfort and Frye are both Golden Gloves boxers.

Christoff Leninger (a 2nd dan BB in judo) fought Ken Shamrock. Leninger got owned, but Leninger hung in there.

Originally Posted by Uke

I'm sorry, but to say that Vitor Belfort and Don Frye have excellent boxing skills is a disservice to boxing. Put either of them in with a Top 20 or 30 pro boxer and they'd get knocked out. No question about it. These comments remind me of the guys who said that Arturo Gatti had a good chance against Floyd Mayweather. But when you put a C level fighter against an A level fighter ... well let's just say the match was embarrassing. Now even with that said, Gatti would beat Belfort worse than Mayweather did him in a boxing match. It would be a total mismatch. If Belfort truly stood a chance, he would be in boxing trying to make million dollar paydays instead of tens of thousands at a time. This goes more so for Frye. I can't believe that you were seious when you said that Don Frye had excellent boxing skills. Belfort's level of boxing skills are a bit superior to Frye's, and Belfort fight like an amateur boxer..

Originally Posted by Uke

I don't think that some of you realize the difference between amateur skills and pro skills. And to classify Frye and Belfort's skills as "great" is ridiculous. You put either of them in a boxing match with a ranked pro and you'll see those two get beat up really bad. I will agree with Tom that Frye and Belfort had great skills for MMA fighters though. But let's not kid ourselves and discuss them and their skills in the appropriate arenas.

As a matter of fact, if it were Marquee of Queensbury boxing rules only, I'd bet that ButterBean would knock Frye and Belfort out. As toughman fighters go, ButterBean had quick hands and KO power. Now some of you might laugh, but Bean was knocking out guys that were built just like Frye. And Bean's handgame was better than Frye's. What made him odd was that he was very fat and round, but he was knocking dudes out cold. And he was only at a toughman fighter's skill.

Originally Posted by Uke

I'm sorry, but to say that Vitor Belfort and Don Frye have excellent boxing skills is a disservice to boxing. Put either of them in with a Top 20 or 30 pro boxer and they'd get knocked out. No question about it.

Originally Posted by treelizard

You should really check out the mass attack video clip on www.atienzakali.com

I think the basics are, line them up, don't get surrounded, DON'T END UP ON THE GROUND, don't get tunnel-visioned just focusing on one guy, and kick enough ass that once you've taken care of the first two or three guys the rest lose their will to fight.

Originally Posted by BoarSpear

I figured this subject would eventually come up in this forum
........................................................
Fighting Multiple Opponents

Often I have heard many people state that fighting multiple opponents cannot be done. Although fighting more than one opponent is less desirable than fighting one, it is a fact that if you don’t believe you can win against multiple opponents, you can’t.

Understanding that the mind guides the body, when dealing with multiple assailants we must selectively change our mindset. When fighting multiples, people will normally adopt one of the following attitudes:

1. I can’t win against these odds (loosing mindset)
2. I may lose, but I’ll take as many as I can with me (this is still a loosing mindset)
3. I am going to win this thing ( this is your goal)

Again, the first rule in fighting multiple opponents is; “IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CAN WIN AGAINST MULTIPLE OPPONENTS, YOU CAN’T”

Phil Messina, founder of Modern Warrior and who I have trained with, has shared the following story to illustrate the topic of multiple opponents:

“ A great warrior was once asked, what would you do id one day you ran across three warriors equal to you in all respects except one. The first was faster than you, The second was stronger than you. And the third was more durable than you. If you had to fight each of them, which would you choose first? Without hesitation the great warrior responded: I would simply fight all three at once. When asked why, he responded; I have practiced fighting against the WOLF PACK, but I doubt they have practiced fighting as the wolf Pack”

The point of the above noted illustration is, multiples rarely train to work together and most often work against each other:

* They get in each others way
* Have a tendency to neutralize each others attacks


In a multiple opponent situation do you have to physically defeat each and every attacker? NO you do not! You must PSYCHOLOGICALLY destroy the wolf pack. You must physically defeat the threat as it becomes available, some will retreat, some will scatter. Some don’t really want to be there and will look for an excuse to get out.

First step if fighting multiples, “AWARENESS”

* Positioning relative to each other (movement in conjunction, setting up)
* Attackers glancing at each other (silent communication, waiting for attack cue)
* Word(s) that don’t make sense ( to confuse, may be attack signal)
* Unusual body language (inconsistent with conversation, assailant may do something-remove hat, wipe hair back, drop something-usually attack cue)
* Secondary subject distraction (may attempt to divert attention to other assailant(s) in order to attack)

Second Step in fighting multiples “IDENTIFY GROUP MENTAILITY”


· Who is the strong link, this is your greatest threat. This person may be identifiable by virtue of position or leadership role

· Who is the weak link, this is your weakest/least threat. This person may be identified by distance or in a protected position

· Remember that the above two are dynamic, and we have the ability to effect change on these



GENERAL STRATEGY WHEN FIGHTING MULTIPLES:


* Psychological battle is as important as physical battle
* If possible identify the leader and take him out of the fight quickly and decisively. This will create a new leader, by destroying the old one- see if anyone else wants to assume the role
* If you can’t take out the leader right away, take away his leadership role by showing the rest of the group that he can not protect them. Make the strong link psychologically ineffective- keep him at bay will defeating others
* Create a weak link by injuring an attacker but leaving him standing so that he may be used against the group later on
* Create a psychologically devastating and overwhelming visible injury to those you attack to disempower the group
* The use of real or improvised weapons should be used
* The first few seconds are critical in establishing psychological control
* CONTINUED MOVEMENT is a must. If you remain stationary the pack will triangulate
* Don’t be predictable move and strike erratically and viciously to the vision, wind and limbs of opponents using gross motor skills. Strike the person you are not looking at


Use the principal of S.C.A.R. (Screening, Cracking, And Re-directing) to your advantage:


SCREENING:

Use your attackers against each other. Cause them to get in each other’s way. Cause them to provide protection for you by being obstacles to others effectively attacking you (shield yourself from blows and attacks from others)



CRACKING:

When tactically feasible, move between your attackers, striking as you do so. This tactic will allow you to move into a more desirable position for attack while forcing your opponents to adjust to you. Position is often more important than distance. You want to be as efficient and productive as possible while forcing your attackers into less desirable positions


RE-DIRECTING:

Use your attackers momentum and direction against them. You do not have to make devastating hits with each engagement. Instead, re-direct your attackers into less desirable and or damaging positions such as walls, tables, chairs, each other. Let inanimate objects cause damage to them or let them cause damage to each other

Remember that while using the principals of SCAR, you want to be causing physical and psychological damage at the same time.


Remember that fighting multiple opponents is chaotic, and that you want to cause the chaos without becoming part of it. It is my opinion, that a multiple opponent confrontation is a “DEADLY FORCE” encounter. Why, it has been my experience as an LEO that those that fall victim to these swarmings end up seriously injured, or dead.


I have trained to fight the WOLF PACK, but I doubt the WOLF PACK has trained to fight cohesively against me. This is a tactical advantage that I can use to make a less desirable situation more desirable, thus giving me the “WIN” mindset and attitude.



Strength and Honor



Darren Laur

http://members.shaw.ca/tmanifold/fighting_multiple.htm

Originally Posted by Richard Kerr

Nice post.

Originally Posted by Tom Yum

Not excellent, but great. From my humble point of view, Golden Gloves fighters are great. If they were the best of the best, I'd agree that they'd be in the big times fighting for bigger checks.

Originally Posted by Tom Yum

Bean has an impressive amateur record for sure, but he's not the cream of the crop either.

He got schoold by a retired and out of shape Larry Holmes in 2002. He also tied against Peter "Hurricane" McNeily. The same McNeily who lost to Tyson, fresh out of prison.