|
Post by youxia on Sept 8, 2012 9:44:57 GMT -5
"One man can beat ten men. Just as one man can beat ten, so a hundred men can beat a thousand, and a thousand men can beat ten thousand." ~ Miyamoto MusashiRecently, I was reading about some historical events in the history of Japan, such as the Battle of Hitotoribashi and the story of the 47 Ronin. And I started wondering, how many people one man can realistically fight? Was it training? Battle strategy? What made this possible? Was it possible? Have you heard any stories of impossible odds... 300 STYLE?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hitotoribashien.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-seven_Ronin
|
|
|
Post by Possum on Sept 8, 2012 11:26:50 GMT -5
The Bible is rife with war heroes who are believed to have overcome odds - like David (of David and Goliath), and of course Samson. Also, Greek mythology is famous for many, but of course we admit these are myths. And Greek history - like Alexander - have many non-myth folk heroes. You will likely find American Indian legends (I can't name any at the moment since I can't spell them I can't look them up). There is the Greek battle of Thermopylae (Greece). Julius Caesar is famous for such feats in battle. The battle of Hastings (UK). The battle of Gettysburg (US). Battle of Midway (US/Japan). Battle of New Orleans (US/UK). There are references to Korean naval battles against the Japanese, I don't remember either admirals' names, give me time to research and get the names. here are some references: uktv.co.uk/yesterday/item/aid/597908myfivebest.com/five-greatest-american-military-victories/EDIT: It was the Battle of Myeongnyang, fought between Japan and Korea.
|
|
odee
Global Moderator
Kyokushin 10 years - Brazilian Jujitsu 3 years - Muay Thai 2 years.
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by odee on Sept 8, 2012 17:36:16 GMT -5
With a weapon it is entirely possible. The whole point of a weapon is to make killing easier and more efficient. Very few people have what it takes to kill aggressors consistently with bare hands, even untrained aggressors, you'd need a combination of almost freakish accuracy, timing, speed and strength. With a sword for example you don't particularly need the strength and you have more targets that you can attack to put people down and make sure they stay there for the duration of the fight. With bare hands you'd have to be crushing windpipes and snapping necks and joints, these take time and a lot more effort than cutting a person's hamstring, jugular or stomach with a sword so people who are quick can do it.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Sept 10, 2012 12:13:25 GMT -5
I kind of agree with Odee. Yes with a weapon it is possible. A weapon become an equalizer. It can also make the odds unequal in your favor if you are skilled with the weapon. If you are unskilled with the weapon you might get hurt by your own weapon.
A sword is a difficult weapon. It is more than just slicing someone up in battle. Most people can't do hundred sword cuts unless they have been trained. You can get a guy that in on the cover of practically any bodybuilding magazines and they can't do hundred sword cuts. It also takes technique to do that many cuts.
As far as using your bare hands you only need that freakish accuracy from a distance. What you really need is to be comfortable fighting up close and personal. Most people aren't comfortable fight in close ranges. But the closer I am the worst it is for the person I'm fighting. We often hear this in martial arts that you poke them in the eye. That is an example of doing something from a distance. But that would be hard to do to stick your finger in the eye of a person that is moving around and keeping their distance. Just think if you watch a pro boxing fight. Most of them do not end in knock outs. More punches are missed than landed in many fights especially head punches. The head is a much bigger target than the eye. But if I'm in close the margin of error is greatly reduced. In close I can strike the eye, throat, neck, spine, etc.
|
|
|
Post by kokoro on Sept 10, 2012 13:40:47 GMT -5
you should read the book taiheikai, or something close to that spelling. when i get home this weekend i'll get the exact title. thats were musashi gets that line from, since its filled with battles like that
its possible but your not leaving them alive when doing this you are disabling or killing each opponent as you move to the next. i agree with the others as well you are using a weapon in most case for this, the philosophy with the sword is your not making ten cuts to cut down ten men your making one motion to cut down ten men.
in martial arts most are taught you are doing ten separate strikes. if you think of it that way you have lost, it must be one motion not ten motions. its one continuous movement. if you need to think between the motions you lost. when your mind stops your body stops your mind must remain in motion.
now can this be done without a weapon is the real question, i have know one person to take out as many as 6 people but haven't seen any take out 10. 6 to 10 may not sound like a big difference but it can be in a fight. btw my friend the fought those 6 he killed the first 3. he spent a fortune in lawyer fees to prove it was self defense, you would think 6 people armed with knifes you would be justified, apparently not by the da standards, but lucky by the court standards for him it was.
the story of the 47 ronin i dont think they were that greatly out numbered. it was more of a question of honor for that story. i'll have to read that one again. btw it was also a movie as well. back in the 60's possible older. that and the seven samurai is a good story as well. then hollywood remade the 7 samurai in to the magnificent 7
|
|
odee
Global Moderator
Kyokushin 10 years - Brazilian Jujitsu 3 years - Muay Thai 2 years.
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by odee on Sept 11, 2012 0:49:25 GMT -5
When a boxer misses a punch it's usually because the other guy saw it coming and dodged it. Besides, unless you absolutely know you can overpower or guarantee you can throw the guy you're closing with - close combat is a stupid idea. It leaves you open to the possibility of being grabbed and slowed.
The reason I say you need freakish accuracy using just your hands is targets like the eyes, joints, throat, temples and solar plexus are hard to hit when both you and the other guy are moving at a brisk pace and to hit with enough force to cripple requires a fair amount of effort, much more expended than what you would use with certain weapons. In the hands of a reasonably skilled wielder swords like thinner katana, sabres and rapiers can cut through flesh and muscle with about a quarter of the effort that it takes to punch someone's throat in. So without calculating all the other things that can go wrong you're using a quarter of the energy to put each target down. As Kokoro pointed out there is also the option of continuing that motion and attacking several more people, I've yet to meet the person who can put two people down with a single roundhouse kick or open more than one face with a single tiger claw swipe. We just aren't designed to be that efficient at killing things our own size.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Sept 12, 2012 20:37:46 GMT -5
Close combat is only stupid if you don't know what you are doing. Throwing a guy is easy when you know what to do. Throwing a guy is not the only reason to get close. It doesn't take much effort to cripple a person. It takes know what to do and how to accomplish it.
I agree I don't know anyone that has taken out 2 or more people with a round house. But I have seen boxer miss just because they missed, not because the other person dodged. I know pro and am boxers. I grew up with them. I've fought with them. I've even had to help them out to keep them from getting hurt. One example was I was coaching football. One of my parents whom we later added to our coaching staff as our conditioning coach. Three guys came to our practice field and tried to fight him. To this day I don't know why. He kept them at bay with his boxing skills. He was an Olympic hopeful, highly ranked as an amateur, but fell short of the Olympics. He never hit any of those guys but he didn't get hurt by them either. I got close and was easily able to control those guys and usher them out of the park without causing a scene. I could have easily hurt them, but that wasn't what I wanted my players to see. The threat was ended and no one got hurt or had to hire a lawyer.
I've used what I've been taught to break up huge fights with adults and separate them. I was working at the high school basketball game. I took the money at the door. I fight broke out that ended up in the lobby where I was. We had plenty of police there that was hired for security. There was more than 30 people fighting. I grabbed my cash box and hid it. I jumped in and began separating these people as I figured out who was against who. I moved them to one side and forced them out of the door. I noticed that the police were there watching and not helping me. After I got everyone from one group out of the door I kept the other inside. Then the police finally got involved and played super cop. They threatened to take the ones that were in to jail if they didn't stop or calm down. Then a couple went outside and ran the others off to keep them from trying to come back in or vandalizing the property. Needless to say I was a little upset with those officers. I worked with the guy that did all of the hiring for security and those guys didn't work with us again. In order to do what I did I had to be close. I have to put myself in a position that they can't harm me, but I can harm or control them. I chose to control them through pain. I would have love to reason with them, but it was too late for that. I had to control more than one person at a time. I had to use a person as a shield and or use a person to control multiple persons.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Sept 12, 2012 20:56:37 GMT -5
I used the sword cuts as an example not a generalization. If you ever practiced with a sword you know what I'm talking about. It is not an easy task to make 100 sword cuts. But it can be done. It takes learning to use proper technique instead of physical strength and stamina. If you are using strength and stamina you will tire out and those remaining will overcome you. Just to be honest you are not going to cut 10 guys with one cut even if you are highly skilled. You might get multiple cuts with a on cut, but not even 5 are going to be cut. Personally I don't know anyone that trains to cut 5 people with a cut. It sounds good in theory. Id rather have the weapon than not to have a weapon. If the odds are impossible I know I can't run and escape, I have already made up in my mind that this is it. I either going to kill or be killed. If I'm going to be killed I'm taking as many of them out as I can. But it only happens in the movie that one guy takes out an army by himself. Yes a guy can take out multiple attackers. It happens all of the time. If there are ten attackers you stand a one to t ten chance of survival. You can help yourself by training to survive multiple attackers, but the odds still aren't in your favor statistically. Having a weapon increases your odds of surviving longer. Having superior technology increases it even more. Superior technology my Sig P250 9mm has 17 rounds in the mag and one in the chamber. At least 4 of the ten attackers are dying the others ran before I could get a shoot without hitting them in the back.
|
|
odee
Global Moderator
Kyokushin 10 years - Brazilian Jujitsu 3 years - Muay Thai 2 years.
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by odee on Sept 13, 2012 17:41:07 GMT -5
Close combat is only stupid if you don't know what you are doing. Throwing a guy is easy when you know what to do. Throwing a guy is not the only reason to get close. It doesn't take much effort to cripple a person. It takes know what to do and how to accomplish it. I didn't say it's impossible I said you needed to KNOW before you close. If you know you can throw your target in front of or on top of the other aggressors by all means do it, if you don't know you're better off staying mobile because when a group of four has to chase you all four are expending energy at the same time rather than you and one other expending energy while you struggle with them and the others just taking it easy until they can exploit your distraction. I agree I don't know anyone that has taken out 2 or more people with a round house. But I have seen boxer miss just because they missed, not because the other person dodged. I know pro and am boxers. I grew up with them. I've fought with them. I've even had to help them out to keep them from getting hurt. One example was I was coaching football. One of my parents whom we later added to our coaching staff as our conditioning coach. Three guys came to our practice field and tried to fight him. To this day I don't know why. He kept them at bay with his boxing skills. He was an Olympic hopeful, highly ranked as an amateur, but fell short of the Olympics. He never hit any of those guys but he didn't get hurt by them either. I got close and was easily able to control those guys and usher them out of the park without causing a scene. I could have easily hurt them, but that wasn't what I wanted my players to see. The threat was ended and no one got hurt or had to hire a lawyer. I've never missed the bag unless it's been moved and I've never missed an opponent unless they've moved, yes, some have had lucky dodges but even if they stumbled to get that dodge it remains a fact that they moved and avoided it and I wasted that shot, that's why you need freakish accuracy to make sure that every blow lands, every one that doesn't land is wasted energy. You were able to control those three because they either had no real ability or no real desire to fight, the question is about fighting and since the examples are regarding Musashi and the 300 Spartans you can guess youxia is referring to conflicts that are full of intent. I've used what I've been taught to break up huge fights with adults and separate them. I was working at the high school basketball game. I took the money at the door. I fight broke out that ended up in the lobby where I was. We had plenty of police there that was hired for security. There was more than 30 people fighting. I grabbed my cash box and hid it. I jumped in and began separating these people as I figured out who was against who. I moved them to one side and forced them out of the door. I noticed that the police were there watching and not helping me. After I got everyone from one group out of the door I kept the other inside. Then the police finally got involved and played super cop. They threatened to take the ones that were in to jail if they didn't stop or calm down. Then a couple went outside and ran the others off to keep them from trying to come back in or vandalizing the property. Needless to say I was a little upset with those officers. I worked with the guy that did all of the hiring for security and those guys didn't work with us again. In order to do what I did I had to be close. I have to put myself in a position that they can't harm me, but I can harm or control them. I chose to control them through pain. I would have love to reason with them, but it was too late for that. I had to control more than one person at a time. I had to use a person as a shield and or use a person to control multiple persons. I work as a bar-tender and back up bouncer, in my opinion the absolute best confriontations are the ones I don't have to get involved in but they've got nothing to do with the question. I'm not really into weaponry besides what I've practiced with the bo and jo and what classes I've been dragged to by friends at the university but in those short times spent in weapons classes I've encountered multiple person attacks in every one including kendo, foil, rapier, sabre, broadsword, longsword, spear and knives. Each one has covered one or two attacks that are designed to clip more than one opponent simply because a weapon allows a person the efficiency to cause large amounts of damage with little more than a clip.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Sept 13, 2012 22:47:05 GMT -5
I agree if you don't know what you are doing you should do it. That goes for being in close or any other distance.
As far as me getting involved I look back and say I should have stayed out of it. I have been able to stay out of things more since then. The last one for me was a big fight at a basketball game. I wasn't coaching but my former player were playing. It was an away game in a rough school. I was on crutches after have surgery. I saw things progressing and knew a fight would break out if the refs didn't clean up the game. It did. My wife and one of my sons were there. I had to make sure they were safe. I only got involved enough to get my players off of the floor and to stop there involvement so that when the police came they wouldn't get locked up. Security came and restored order. All of the ball players for our high school was near me. They were able to finish the game after they put out a few people. It was a spectator that came in the floor and took a swing at one of our guys. One of my layer had hit her brother with an elbow. It was a basketball move. It was done because of the elbows that were done earlier. That's part of the game. It's call a foul. Some of the fouls got carried away because the refs were calling them and should have as some were dirty.
My reference to weapons. I've never seem a weapon take out more than one person. I understand the theory of taking out 10 guys with a sword, but I do not believe that is realistic. You might cut 2, but not 10. It there are multiple attackers I prefer to have a weapon. It helps to equal the odds. But even so that it is no guarantee.
My point about being freakishly accurate, I'm not in disagreement with you. It is very difficult to hit and crush a person windpipe from a distance. My point is this become much simpler and quite easy if you know what do and you get close. You must know how to fight in your effective range. This mean you position yourself to cause maximum damage while greatly decreasing the possibilities of your attacker being able to cause any damage. This isn't something you learn and become good at for most people after a few years of training. It does take time. Some may get decent after a few years. That depends on the individual and the amount of time spent developing those skill sets. I only need a thumb to drop a person. I can use a finger to bring a person to their knees. It is simple to do. But I couldn't always do that. I must be close enough to do this. It doesn't take any power. It takes know how. I wasn't always comfortable getting in close other than when I was doing judo. But I have since learned to get close if a guy is punch or kicking.
|
|
odee
Global Moderator
Kyokushin 10 years - Brazilian Jujitsu 3 years - Muay Thai 2 years.
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by odee on Sept 14, 2012 1:37:46 GMT -5
I have. Managed to drop two guys at the same time with a bo. First guy was on purpose, second guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and I nabbed him behind the knee with the backswing.
I'm all for pain compliance techniques in one on one situations but not in multiple person. My philosophy is hit and move. My most favoured range is close in but that's for one on one, I know that I'll do best when both fighters are too close for any kind of blocking and elbows, short punches, knees, throws and sweeps are the main fair. My multiple person range is to make distance and attack the first person to enter that distance, being a close range fighter I know that more often than not I will get grabbed at that range and I'm just not willing to risk that when there is more than one person to deal with. Pessimistic I know but I'd rather be proved wrong as a pessimist.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Sept 15, 2012 1:42:19 GMT -5
Yes you can take out more than one person with a weapon such as a bo, jo, or sword. But please tell me what training have any of us had that we can take out 10 men at one time with one technique?
Pain compliance is just one thing that can be done. In multiple attacker you are supposed to keep it moving. It is best to keep every one in front of you where you can see them. You can drop a person up close if you have the training and confidence in the training by getting close. If you are going to do the eye gouge or throat, etc this is much easier to accomplish when you are up close.
I understand if you don't have the training or the confidence in your training I would keep my distance. But this is part of the training that we do in our dojo. I was actually working on this yesterday with my white belts as far as getting close to the attacker. Of course they didn't learn how to drop a person with no effort yet. That comes much later. But they did learn some good striking areas up close. The more advanced learned some good throws and chokes up close. They also learned how to make a person go where you want the to go even though they don't know they were learning that. That will come together in time. Then I had a "black belt" from wing chun he says he wants to learn but he don't want any contact...lol He wanted to see what I was doing but when he started to feel a portion of it he stays away. But then he want me to teach it to him. If you don't want to experience both sides of the application it is not worth my time to teach it to you.
|
|
odee
Global Moderator
Kyokushin 10 years - Brazilian Jujitsu 3 years - Muay Thai 2 years.
Posts: 1,286
|
Post by odee on Sept 15, 2012 6:56:46 GMT -5
Broad turning slashes for one. Yes there is the distinct possibility one person will avoid it completely, block it or stop it dead but any experienced fighter expects things to go up s##t creek at any given moment, might be the first guy who stops it, might be the last but techniques like that are meant to harm more than one person. The chance of actually slashing ten guys down are one in a hundred at best but that's at least a hundred times better than the chances of doing it with bare hands or feet. There are whole sword patterns dedicated to perpetual motion and absolute minimum effort usage, with a sword like a sabre or a rapier the main attack is the thrust but in broad strokes the idea is to cut your targets, not to cleave or chop or slice like you would with a katana or a long sword, one particular pattern moves about in a clover shape and the sword passes through areas that usually have no armour covering. If someone steps into you and you hit bone the sword will stop there but just like any form it's an ideal not an absolute.
It's not the training I lack confidence in it's my ability to avoid being grabbed or to get free of that grab quickly enough that I question. Like I pointed out to Judomofo, I rarely question technique, I question the ability required to apply that technique. I know I can beat most people in close range, I question my ability to do it fast enough to stay out of trouble's reach.
Give and take, if you want to use someone as a training dummy you have to spend time as a training dummy. That's common courtesy.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Sept 17, 2012 1:55:19 GMT -5
I agree. I have always called whatever weapon I had in my possession my equalizer. In my opinion it equals the odds. The jack handle in my car before we were allowed to carry a forearm was my equalizer if I ever needed it. Gratefully I never needed it. In my home there is some type of weapon in every room just in case I ever need to equal the odds are put the odds in my favor. Even as a teen I had tools in different parts of my yard that I could grab and use as a weapon if I ever came home at walked into something. I wasn't a big guy, but back then I would never back away from any confrontation. I was book smart and street smart, but I lacked maturity and my ego was too big and could have gotten me killed. Somehow i survived.
|
|
|
Post by Glutton4Punishment on Oct 11, 2012 4:07:09 GMT -5
There's video footage we can regularly watch to see that one man can take out 4-5 guys with his bare hands, but on that same note 2 nurses of average height and weight can also easily restrain even the best fighters in the world with minimal training. It's about knowing what to do and how to go about doing it. Hospital staff members restrain violent patients every single day and of all skill levels and body types and they just plain know how to hold them down. Can 1 man defeat 10? Sure, it's possible, especially if those 10 don't have the same knowledge as that 1. However, I don't think even Musashi could have fended off 10 nurses without a weapon.
|
|