Urban combatives & Fightsport

[sharky]

ça ce n'est pas un gros méchant...c'est un GRAND méchant  

On peut être grand et gros

[Gros Calou]

Ouai, je l ai un peu moins par la suite!...

Va falloir que vous m'en dédicaciez un 

[** Serge **]

Je ne sais pas si je t ai bien compris Serge, mais pour ma part, il s'agit bien de "contourner l agresseur", afin de faire face à ce qui était "notre dos".
Après, pour ce qui est de "gérer" de multiples agresseurs, on est d accord sur le fait de toujours se déplacer afin "d empiler" les mecs. Cad, moi contre 1+1, plutôt que moi contre 2 !

Un échange intéressant à ce sujet :

Mick, what's your view on grabbing an attacker in a group attack scenario and trying to use him as a shield?

I have never tried or actually thought of doing so as it would seem more inclined to tie up my primary tools and slow me down at the very least, not to mention being very tiring surely?

Not that I have been subject to loads of group attacks all the time I hasten to add.

Chris,

This is a very commonly advocated tactic - but I personally feel that it's misplaced in a close-combat context...and dogmatically wheeled-out without any objective consideration for what it entails, or actually achieves real-time.

Before even getting into the effectiveness - or lack of - regarding using one person as cover and fighting another, or several others, just consider the actual mechanics of trying to actually grab and secure that person initally.

As with many fashionable 'force disparity' options, such as those 'special' methods of dealing with really big adversaries, or persons armed with knives, etc, just ask that one question - if it were possible to achieve something so apparently effective in the face of overwhelming odds...then why wouldn't you utilise such an amazingly effective method all the time as a default - surely it'd be a piece of cake against just one man, or someone not wielding a knife, etc?

The classic 'flanking' move to seize and secure one person tends to be practiced in a manner that starts to stretch the limits of reality in my opinion - something I demonstrate often at seminars and workshops - so this has to be taken on-board when any such tactic is wheeled-out as a solution to just a two-on one encounter. Just trying to hard-flank someone who is mobile is akin to trying to side-step an active adversary - sure it's possible, but it tends to be practiced against relatively 'dumb' adversaries that don't constantly realign themselves to your movements the way actual adversaries tend to. Think, if that cool 'sidestep-stuff' were really that effective, why doesn't it make more of an appearance in the ring for example? I'm certainly not suggesting that if it hasn't been proven in a combat-sports then it isn't valid, but I am suggesting that surely it'd make an appearance more often, since it'd be real useful and well within the rules mostly.

A common observation regarding the 'live drills' I utilise is 'why don't they just step off the line of attack, and engage from the flank...?' amidst other such cunning plans, like maybe stamping to the knee, etc - as if nobody has ever thought of it! The answer is that it 'just' isn't that easy, at such close proximity, since real adversaries tend not to act like rolling juggernauts in such situations, but are capable of turning to match any such manouever in the blink of an eye - maybe a different scenario with someone charging full steam ahead from across the street, or a training partner who knows how to behave...

Grabbing someone and utilising some variety of push/pull 'spin' tactic, with a little additional flanking movement, is quite effective - should you be able to actually execute it physically...and when people don't really fancy it much, it's easier said than done... Personally I feel like such tactics are somehow accepted as the 'done thing' and expected almost, but when a little critical thought is applied...to realistic usage...don't actually make that much sense.

Certainly you can 'spin 'a subject - I've done it more times than I can remember - but it is, like everything else, highly circumstantial and there are times when it absolutely is the last thing I would try to do... In the case of this particular tactic, these 'no-go' circumstances are plentiful - anyone other than a non-to-mildly resisting subject tends to get a negative result. For someone who is downright 'active-combative' it may be - is - possible, but then so is everything, but just not probable...

So anyway, maybe the stars aligned, the wind blew in just the right direction, and it's your birthday...you managed to secure one of your adversaries in front of you, as cover of sorts.

Now discounting a firearm scenario, where in extremis you might 'staple' this individual to neutralise any threat he may pose, and utilise him as additional temporary body-armour whilst engaging successive threats - unarmed, just what are you really going to achieve vs. the effort expended, by having a violently struggling person as some form of cover from just one additional adversary, keen to unload on you with all manner of punches and kicks?

Just consider that this individual isn't just going to play along like a training partner in a drill, but is going to a real handful on his own, never mind his buddy trying his very best to cave your head in. If you are that good, or you know some special method, that you can get to a fully-active, fully-resisting hostile person's 'six' and secure him, manhandle him, so effectively that you can additionally fight someone else at the same time...one-handed! I reckon there will be a whole load of pro-fight camps willing to sign you up as a coach, since that would be very useful to anyone stepping into an Octagon...against just one opponent...

Now, exactly what kind of cover is he going to provide? Don't forget that almost by default those punches that are going to be incoming, thick and fast, are going to be 'hooking' or just plain 'swinging' in format, and not really obstructed by a person held in front of you. What real concern is his 'friend' actually going to have anyway, regarding accidentally hitting your new 'shield' in the heat of the moment?

Maybe if they are/were not really committed to knocking seven-bells out of you, it might work - but then this begs the question, why did you feel the need to execute such a tactic in this case? There seems to be a lot of material heartily recommended as being effective, but only upon those that it needn't be used on! Makes for fun and satisfying training I suppose...

So, back to effort vs. result - rapidly positioning yourself out of what would be termed 'interlocking arcs of fire' into a location that might temporarily lessen the immediate threat to your person is certainly a sound tactic...but to then expend a whole load of effort to somehow attempt to control a resisting person, whilst affording the other person the opportunity to reposition himself and attack you...not so valid in my experience. If you could grab and spin - whatever - the person, could you instead immediately engage using blunt trauma? Would this afford a better effort vs. result payoff?

Also, it might be worth considering what your 'end-game' might actually, realistically, be once you somehow achieve this 'body cover' perhaps - since this tends to be rather important...and often overlooked. Just how are you going to resolve that situation exactly, in the highly restricted circumstances you have just created for yourself? Will it be a rather Hollywood threat of "...back-off or I'll break his neck..." or do you reckon you can keep the other person at bay, and hold onto the person you have, long enough for someone to help you out? That's not just optimistic...but downright ambitious...

In my opinion, one of the major flaws with regards to training for situations involving a major force disparity is to seek some guaranteed solution - that elusive 'third option' I am fond of referencing, where the 'fire' goes out and you don't get hurt, rather than the actual options of jump or stay...

I suggest that if you really believe that grabbing someone for cover is the best practice in a two-on-one situation - never mind a three/four/five-on-one nightmare version - then put aside the lame training drills that somehow are manipulated to validate the notion, and simply step into a boxing ring with just two guys...who don't know you, don't like you, and who have no desire to make you look good at all. Make sure they are wearing the the biggest, softest, gloves you can get your hands on, because you are going to get hit - a lot.

http://www.corecombatives.com/

[stetin]

C'est çà, non?



La classe Djédjé

le jour de cette photo vous n etes pas passer au magasin bio  de jourdain par hasard ? car j ai eu la surprise de voir Mr morisson dans mon magasin il y a pas longtemps

[djedje94]

le jour de cette photo vous n etes pas passer au magasin bio  de jourdain par hasard ? car j ai eu la surprise de voir Mr morisson dans mon magasin il y a pas longtemps

Ouai, ct effectivement bien ce jour la.

[Bois San]

Donc imaginer que pour le cas où ça ne se passe pas trop mal on ait la lucidité et le loisir de faire une zoulie PLS relève du fantasme pur et simple caractéristique des situations traitées hors contexte et souvent sans expérience.

Je viens de lire ça dans l'introduction du site de l'ACDS:

Ainsi une réaction saine à une agression doit suivre le schéma suivant :

       la riposte doit être proportionnelle à l'attaque;
       stopper la riposte lorsque l'attaque est brisée;
      être en mesure de porter assistance à l'agresseur;
       prévenir les secours et les forces de l'ordre.

 

[Patrick]

Et oui, tu viens d'illustrer que je ne suis pas d'accord avec tous les principes de l'ACDS, mais avec les plus importants.

[djedje94]

Encore une fois, c'est une question de point de vu. Dans la mesure ou les conditions le permettent, pourquoi pas

Mais si tu t'as deja vecu une confrontation réele...Je suis sur que tu seras d'accord avec moi pour dire que ça n'est certainement pas la premiere chose à laquelle tu penses.

[Bois San]

Mais si tu t'as deja vecu une confrontation réele...Je suis sur que tu seras d'accord avec moi pour dire que ça n'est certainement pas la premiere chose à laquelle tu penses.

Tout à fait 

 mais le but d'un entraînement est peut être là , réussir à faire , au mieux, ce que ne ferait pas un individu lambda.

[mrmagoo]

être en mesure de porter assistance à l'agresseur

"Porter assistance" ça veut pas dire obligatoirement "PLS". Dans les principes du secourisme on répète notamment que en l’absence de risque vital, il est préférable de laisser une victime dans la position où elle se trouve plutôt que d’essayer de la déplacer sans avoir le personnel et le matériel nécessaires.