If you missed Part 1 of this series, be sure to check these out before continuing below…
———-
The three problems inherent in all multiple attacker self-defense situations are seemingly insurmountable.
There’s only one of you, and a bunch of them. If you go after one guy the rest just dog-pile you; and you’re stuck in the middle having to pay attention to the 360 degrees around you while they only have to look — and go — in a single direction… in a beeline after you.
These three problems — 1) outnumbered, 2) vulnerable, and 3) surrounded… can all be solved with the proper attitude, injury, and, most importantly, movement.
Just like the motivational workplace poster-kitten says, “Attitude is everything.”
Though it’s cliche, it holds true for self-defense against multiple attackers, too.
If you think in terms of being the one with the problem, then that’s you, stuck with solving multiple problems.
If, instead, you think in terms of BEING the problem and revel in making it as bad as possible for them, you’ll be giving the still-conscious ones second thoughts.
And that buys you the extra moment you need to bust something important inside another one of them.
As a wise man once said:
“I’m not stuck in here with all of you — you’re all stuck in here with me!”
Go on the hunt, go on the attack, and make them worry about making it out in one piece.
Case in point… this video…
(Warning: explicit lyrics; we strongly suggest you TURN OFF/MUTE the audio and pay attention only to the action):
———-
Like the guy in the video, when the five guys in the car let Will know what they intended, he didn’t see it as “5-on-1 beat-down,” but a “1-on-5 target-rich environment.” And that small change in perspective meant that he took it to them rather than waiting for them to bring it to him.
He turned a multiple-attacker self-defense situation for himself into a self-defense situation for the five in the car.
———-
The boxer in the previous post’s video had a similar-enough attitude, evidenced by the fact that he didn’t just bolt and take off running as far and hard as possible. He was willing to take on the crowd, just not from the middle and not more than one at a time.
We’ll get into more detail on that in the next installment.
And, of course, get the inevitable end of Will’s story, too.
-Chris Ranck-Buhr
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
And in this new video, more of the same. Some got called a name. So what? His male pride was injured. Nothing more. No criminal assault. He could have swallowed his stupid pride and walked away, unless he were attacked, in which case he could react differently. And who knows how it all started. Possibly more posturing.
Finally, it was a bore.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
There was no danger here. The group was not intent on hurting a stranger. A stranger was intent on beating some kids up so he could look like a bad ass. If a group of gang members were roaming about intent on causing harm to a single person, this video would have merit. One guy looking for softies to pick on so he can look like a hero is not noteworthy. Tim, Chris, you guys are better than this.
Reply to comment
1. A man breaks into a home and surprises a woman in the kitchen — he grabs a knife off the counter, stabs her in the neck and she bleeds out.
2. A man breaks into a home and surprises a woman in the kitchen — she grabs a knife off the counter, stabs him in the neck and he bleeds out.
In terms of social and legal considerations, right and wrong, and how we would personally feel about these two situations (cheering one and feeling sickened by the other), MECHANICALLY, THEY ARE IDENTICAL.
The best information in violence comes from the worst people; dismissing it because they are “evil” or “in the wrong” is what hamstrings us sane and social folk. I do not condone the social and legal conduct of the vast majority of the people in the videos we use for instructional purposes — but the fact of the matter is they are the winners.
You need to watch this stuff with the sound off and without reading ahead for details on the set up. Why or how it started doesn’t matter. What you need to see are the mechanics of violence working and ask yourself: ” Who’s winning?” “Why?” and “How can I improve on their process?”
We are not recommending that you aspire to live your lives like these people — only that you function like the winners do in the moment of violence.
Reply to comment
I think the point was to be the aggressor, to view yourself as the predator and not the victim. Mike V. is well known as a brawler, in fact his hot temper recently cost him his job with a major league hockey franchise, but that is beside the point. I get what Chris was meaning and I personally like the thought process. I’m no ex military or cop or anything else, just an average joe, but I have faced multiple attackers once and and walked away and I will attest that the TFT guys are dead on on this. You have to hunt targets, livers, bladders, necks, etc. and you have to be constantly gaining ground from the onset to the finish.
Reply to comment
I’m pretty sure he’s NOT a pro boxer.
As far as two-sport athletes go, that would be more impressive than Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson, I would have to say.
Reply to comment
Nice takedowns,but no emphasis on striking vital targets. It is just as well,because it was social violence,not a life or death situation. Please show more clips on a lone person being the intended target,or victim,and he or she applying what you guys teach Tim.Also, show videos of someone using the TFT system against a creep using weapons. Until Prince becomes an MMA fighter,take care,and be safe.
Reply to comment
Keep giving us this great information, eventually most will see what your main points are that lots of us are getting from you, be the aggressor, find the target area, walk away not being injured.
I am really enjoying my many free lessons you send me, I know I am more capable to defend myself than I have ever been, and as you also tought me, don’t be over confident.
God bless Tim, Chris, and TFT.
Reply to comment