|
|
Post by howler on Jul 25, 2017 8:40:48 GMT
As far as taking on multiple people, it depends on the group. A well trained to work together group will beat a single person virtually 100% of the time. Beating multiple people relies a lot on good positioning. Teams used to working together know how to move together and attack during periods that are not able to be responded to reasonably. Not to mention, if the team aims not to kill right away but to wear down the lone person, they will almost assuredly outlast the long person due to total amount of stamina. I find it difficult to believe in general that a lone person of nearly any skill level could beat a group of advanced swordsman who have had some training as a group consistently, two swords or not. Better be in a narrow hallway or at least have a back to a wall. In open (360), you would have the hounding effect from all sides. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiyoshi on Jul 25, 2017 8:55:33 GMT
A poorly composed team can be "stacked" if they think sticking together 100% of the time is a good idea. Two people are easier to stack and deal with than 3+ but if they can move and coordinate well, that hallway better be narrow and you better hope they both have short weapons. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jul 25, 2017 9:14:18 GMT
(aside from punching, is that allowed in hema?). Some competition rules allow punches. Don't know how common it is. Some competition rules allow pommel strikes and shield strikes, which hit harder than fists. On a more serious note, do you know many twin dao forms that use both sword from different angles? I think there are some taiji dao forms that have some decent techniques where both are utilized but I don't know much about dao (and have never used twin dao) tbh, I was more of a jian and gun guy when it came to kung fu. :\ I don't know of any forms where simultaneous or nearly-simultaneous attacks from different angles are common. Attacks by both swords from the same angle, but at different heights, are common. These are usually simultaneous. I like to let one sword lead the other by a little, to encourage a commitment to block the first one. They should be simultaneous enough to use the same body motion for power. Body motion for power makes simultaneous attacks from different angles a bit tricky. Some forms have attacks from different angles in quick succession, e.g., right downwards diagonal by the right-hand sword followed quickly by left downwards diagonal by the left-hand sword. |
|
|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Jul 25, 2017 12:07:50 GMT
Kyoshi: nice point you raise because there's basically zero martial arts or discipline that actually teaches you how to fight as a group. Those would be military drills at the time. Martial arts as it is taught nowadays is meant to be an individual pursuit.
Having multiple attackers who dont know how to work together can be an advantage if you have good positioning, as they can get in the way of each other. This is the principle of aikido training.
Remember that scene from a Tom Cruise movie when he was surrounded? "You're gonna kill me, but the first guy who comes at me will be dead, and the second guy wounded. The third will get me. So, who's first"? It's this pyschological warfare, if well employed, will carry the day.
If I remember correctly even the contemporary samurai has limited group training. It's more about every one for himself winning his own glory in combat. Formation and drills are for ashigaru.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 14:59:20 GMT
Kyoshi: nice point you raise because there's basically zero martial arts or discipline that actually teaches you how to fight as a group. Those would be military drills at the time. Martial arts as it is taught nowadays is meant to be an individual pursuit. Having multiple attackers who dont know how to work together can be an advantage if you have good positioning, as they can get in the way of each other. This is the principle of aikido training. Remember that scene from a Tom Cruise movie when he was surrounded? "You're gonna kill me, but the first guy who comes at me will be dead, and the second guy wounded. The third will get me. So, who's first"? It's this pyschological warfare, if well employed, will carry the day. If I remember correctly even the contemporary samurai has limited group training. It's more about every one for himself winning his own glory in combat. Formation and drills are for ashigaru. If you have kata that involves facing multiple opponents, then those multiple opponents should also be learning something. It isn't only there to teach the one who "lives", everyone should be getting something out of the experience no matter which role they are serving. |
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Jul 25, 2017 16:29:33 GMT
Remember that scene from a Tom Cruise movie when he was surrounded? "You're gonna kill me, but the first guy who comes at me will be dead, and the second guy wounded. The third will get me. So, who's first"? It's this pyschological warfare, if well employed, will carry the day. That is an awesome quote. What movie? |
|
|
|
Post by Kiyoshi on Jul 25, 2017 17:05:06 GMT
Remember that scene from a Tom Cruise movie when he was surrounded? "You're gonna kill me, but the first guy who comes at me will be dead, and the second guy wounded. The third will get me. So, who's first"? It's this pyschological warfare, if well employed, will carry the day. That is an awesome quote. What movie? The Last Samurai, the first fight he has with the samurai when his army gets destroyed and he gets captured. I suppose that must be why we were taught some, my teacher was ex military and police. He taught us some of the martial arts they teach in both alongside traditional martial arts. It is good to get both perspectives along with the training against modern weapons. As for kata with multiple attackers, they are more or less learning what not to do. The attackers only attack in a way that can be defended, allowing the solo guy to learn instances in which that particular technique could be used. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 17:14:20 GMT
There isn't really an attack that can't be defended, but that aside the teachings wouldn't be especially valuable if they only function in contrived scenarios. If one person is "phoning it in" they are robbing their partner. But this is getting way off track of the thread premise. I just thought it would be worth pointing out that in two or more person exercises, everyone should be able to get value and not just "the hero of the story".
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiyoshi on Jul 25, 2017 17:34:47 GMT
I thought you were referring to the attackers learning how to move as a group, in which case it isn't very useful to learn that as an attacker in a kata. And against multiple people, there is very much such a thing as an attack that can't be defended against. However,the idea is that the likelihood of someone making a mistake against multiple people who know how to fight in a group increases significantly as the defender would have to split focus and that will increase their chance of error. Letting an opponent, for the most part, 1v1 multiple times decreases those chances. So the defender's goal is to preserve this structure via positioning and psychological combat and the group's goal is to destroy this structure and cause a fatal mistake/set up a rare but possible situation where the defender can't defend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 19:26:35 GMT
I thought you were referring to the attackers learning how to move as a group, in which case it isn't very useful to learn that as an attacker in a kata. And against multiple people, there is very much such a thing as an attack that can't be defended against. However,the idea is that the likelihood of someone making a mistake against multiple people who know how to fight in a group increases significantly as the defender would have to split focus and that will increase their chance of error. Letting an opponent, for the most part, 1v1 multiple times decreases those chances. So the defender's goal is to preserve this structure via positioning and psychological combat and the group's goal is to destroy this structure and cause a fatal mistake/set up a rare but possible situation where the defender can't defend. No, that is where I was coming from on that point. For a while it really baffled me why there weren't "group tactics" until I realized they are contained in the multiple attacker forms. It isn't spelled out explicitly which is why I failed to notice it for a long time. It was shortly after realizing that a number of "one on one" forms aren't necessarily actually one on one thats just what is presented. The "losing" side isn't just what not to do. |
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Jul 25, 2017 19:28:36 GMT
(aside from punching, is that allowed in hema?). Some competition rules allow punches. Don't know how common it is. Some competition rules allow pommel strikes and shield strikes, which hit harder than fists. On a more serious note, do you know many twin dao forms that use both sword from different angles? I think there are some taiji dao forms that have some decent techniques where both are utilized but I don't know much about dao (and have never used twin dao) tbh, I was more of a jian and gun guy when it came to kung fu. :\ I don't know of any forms where simultaneous or nearly-simultaneous attacks from different angles are common. Attacks by both swords from the same angle, but at different heights, are common. These are usually simultaneous. I like to let one sword lead the other by a little, to encourage a commitment to block the first one. They should be simultaneous enough to use the same body motion for power. Body motion for power makes simultaneous attacks from different angles a bit tricky. Some forms have attacks from different angles in quick succession, e.g., right downwards diagonal by the right-hand sword followed quickly by left downwards diagonal by the left-hand sword. Simultaneous attacks, with swords from angles was not practiced for, I think because sword fights were normaly duels. One on one. So i dont think it entered the schools, in the same way that we dont box on a battlefield, or in skirmishes. Sword duels were a way of setling fueds betwen individuals, jostling for rank, where elite sword ability was a currency of status. I think swords have become such a fetish, that we forget that, outsiide of cavalry, theynwere useless in war, especialy the long ones. They were a symbol of rank. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 20:36:07 GMT
I doubt it was unheard of, I'd bet that the time a gang from the Yoshioka clan supposedly showed up en masse to do away with Musashi it wasn't the first or last time somebody thought to gang up and use numerical advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Jul 25, 2017 20:56:22 GMT
I doubt it was unheard of, I'd bet that the time a gang from the Yoshioka clan supposedly showed up en masse to do away with Musashi it wasn't the first or last time somebody thought to gang up and use numerical advantage. It was surprisingly rare I think, certainly in terms of recording such incidents, maybe it was common place but whitewashed into fairer fights via the recording process.. I cannot think of a fight, of the top of my head, where multiple swordsmen have attacked a single swordsman and it has been recorded, or the lessons preserved for posterity. Although I think it did happen, it is mentioned in go rin no sho, but the kata and descriptions of techniques never deal with multiple opponents, maybe it is beyond the "event horizon" of such writing, schools-of-thought, and so on. The main large attack on musashi, as legend has it, was by a group with bows and spears, samurai from a disgraced family, apparently musashi ran at them, made some kills and then hid in a temple. The legend insists that he actually arrived very early, hid, and watched them set up. His charge surprised them, rather than vice versa. They were "rank and file", no match for him and his strategy, even in numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 25, 2017 21:16:19 GMT
A poorly composed team can be "stacked" if they think sticking together 100% of the time is a good idea. Two people are easier to stack and deal with than 3+ but if they can move and coordinate well, that hallway better be narrow and you better hope they both have short weapons. XD Agreed. |
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Jul 25, 2017 21:55:55 GMT
A poorly composed team can be "stacked" if they think sticking together 100% of the time is a good idea. Two people are easier to stack and deal with than 3+ but if they can move and coordinate well, that hallway better be narrow and you better hope they both have short weapons. XD True. If they all rushed in with equal length weapons, I can imagine at least one of them would land a fatal blow and it would leave you with only enough time to deal a fatal blow to one of them. If one were to use the multiple doorways and corners in a house... Maybe they can use this to their advantage. But if fighting trained opponents, I'm not sure how big an advantage that is |
|
|
|
Post by Kiyoshi on Jul 25, 2017 22:52:57 GMT
True. If they all rushed in with equal length weapons, I can imagine at least one of them would land a fatal blow and it would leave you with only enough time to deal a fatal blow to one of them. If one were to use the multiple doorways and corners in a house... Maybe they can use this to their advantage. But if fighting trained opponents, I'm not sure how big an advantage that is I was thinking more along the lines of a set up I had used before as a team. One person with a weapon like a spear that can poke from afar and close up and another with a more traditional dueling weapon like a sword. The person with the spear, even if it was 2v2 or more, can poke the opponent with a solid disabling blow from out of nowhere. No, that is where I was coming from on that point. For a while it really baffled me why there weren't "group tactics" until I realized they are contained in the multiple attacker forms. It isn't spelled out explicitly which is why I failed to notice it for a long time. It was shortly after realizing that a number of "one on one" forms aren't necessarily actually one on one thats just what is presented. The "losing" side isn't just what not to do. In that case, I'm not quite sure how you arrive at that. I can't think of any particular kata where I would, as a group, want to emulate the attacking side as far as group tactics go. Can you give me an example? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 23:30:41 GMT
Not really, because it is not fight choreography in the sense that it is meant to be reproduced beat for beat in application. I can't think of any kata where I would as an individual want to emulate either side. That is a little too video gamey for me. The discrete components and study of interactions and the results they yield is what I want to get out of it for application, and that comes from going through the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiyoshi on Jul 25, 2017 23:41:15 GMT
I understand this, I was referring to the tactics that was taught to those being the attackers, as in the principles. I can't think of any kata where I would want to learn and ingrain the principles the group uses. I can, however, do this as the solo defender and say that there are at least some principles that I actively try to ingrain in nearly every kata in the arts I've studied. As the defender, I can learn "this is the distance at which the opponent raising up to jodan causes them to be open for this and that" or "make sure you keep your elbow tucked when doing this technique because of this" or even something as basic as "this guard is good for offensive tactics, this for defensive," but I can't think of any instance, as an attacker, where I see what the group attacking is doing and think "hmm... that is a good tactic, I think I will keep this in mind." However, I have not studied every martial art and their kata, so it may just be what arts I study don't have much. If you have one where you can point out good lessons to the attackers on how to fight as a group, I'm interested in seeing the kata. I think it would be pretty great for a school to include things like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 1:05:42 GMT
I really wish I had something I could direct you to. The closest thing that comes to mind is a commercial DVD and I'd feel like a shill linking it up.
I have often thought about working out some accessible multiple person techniques, there's so much cool stuff to work on and unfortunately I have a full plate just trying to get what I need to do done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jul 26, 2017 1:26:54 GMT
I don't know of any forms where simultaneous or nearly-simultaneous attacks from different angles are common. Attacks by both swords from the same angle, but at different heights, are common. These are usually simultaneous. I like to let one sword lead the other by a little, to encourage a commitment to block the first one. They should be simultaneous enough to use the same body motion for power. Body motion for power makes simultaneous attacks from different angles a bit tricky. Some forms have attacks from different angles in quick succession, e.g., right downwards diagonal by the right-hand sword followed quickly by left downwards diagonal by the left-hand sword. Simultaneous attacks, with swords from angles was not practiced for, I think because sword fights were normaly duels. One on one. So i dont think it entered the schools, in the same way that we dont box on a battlefield, or in skirmishes. Sword duels were a way of setling fueds betwen individuals, jostling for rank, where elite sword ability was a currency of status. I think swords have become such a fetish, that we forget that, outsiide of cavalry, theynwere useless in war, especialy the long ones. They were a symbol of rank. The forms we have for two long swords are not for sword-vs-sword duels. Some of them were developed for military training. The Korean forms from Muyedobotongji were military for sure (2 forms, one on foot and one mounted). I don't know the ancestry of the various Chinese forms, but it could be military, at least for some. If not military, then (a) self-defence oriented, not duelling oriented, and assuming multiple opponents and including spear as an opposing weapon, or (b) basic training in movement, or (c) showmanship. Sword ability wasn't much of a sign of rank in China and Korea (ability with the pen, OTOH ...). |
|
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
