Simultaneous techniques: Part 3 - a case study
Introduction
Following my previous article about late, simultaneous and pre-emptive initiative, I thought I'd examine a real-life civilian defence encounter caught on video between a person obviously trained in boxing facing multiple attackers.
Given the argument that "late initiative isn't as effective/important as simultaneous or pre-emptive initiative", I thought I'd count the number of times the late, simultaneous and pre-emptive initiative were used and also note the circumstances in which the strategies were employed.
If my theory is right, the initial part of an attack is going to occur in what I have called the melee range. It will initially feature late initiative because the defender will, to some extent, be surprised by, and responding to, the aggression (he won't be initiating the aggression). This will be despite the fact that the defender knows from an early stage that a fight is likely; not being the aggressor means he will not launch the first attack, hence he will be "second cab off the rank" and "playing catch-up" - at least initially.
While I wouldn't expect a boxer to use traditional "karate-style blocking", I would expect to see late initiative in the form of evasion and perhaps some parrying (which is how karate blocks should be applied anyway).
As the defender gains some control and puts himself outside the melee range he should then be able deal with his opponents in a more simultaneous or pre-emptive way.
A video of a boxer defending himself against a group of attackers
Attack 1
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/397a1/397a199e78bd87530cc5da1b2f1ab9cf9e27fd3c" alt="".jpg)
Note that apart from a token pushing action, he is not trying to counter attack at this point: he is simply too overwhelmed.
Comment: This is a case of late initiative and not simultaneous or pre-emptive initiative.
Attack 2
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4a696/4a696bbab3fc1b59238717c53d69e2b88fb6caa6" alt="".jpg)
Comment: This is a case of late initiative, not simultaneous or pre-emptive initiative.
Attack 3
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5c9c7/5c9c7d0cdc74a84edc68e940ac86ac16385711c9" alt=""
Comment: This is a case of late initiative, not simultaneous or pre-emptive initiative.
Attack 4
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/15f4e/15f4edb2ba9b1495d8dcf356de1b8840e4a61909" alt="".jpg)
Comment: This is the first evidence of simultaneous initiative, although it seems to be more a case of wild luck on his part and appalling fighting ability on the part of his opponents.
Attack 5
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/11a4a/11a4a78ceec3ba31be7bdfdeb9c5b6fa8260d9db" alt="".jpg)
However the left does not even come close to connecting. It does however deflect the attacker's punch quite neatly.
Comment: The defender's punch functions here as a deflection - not a counter. Accordingly this is a case of late initiative, not simultaneous or pre-emptive initiative.
Attack 6
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3898/b3898e606f5d01f6a948fb6eecb9d57990c30589" alt=""
The first attacker (in the white top) is first felled by a pre-emptive punch as he comes into range.
Comment: This is the first clear case of pre-emptive initiative.
Attack 7
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/daa9c/daa9cc8f4b3165f67afc47a9816767361f363057" alt="".jpg)
Comment: This is the second clear case of pre-emptive initiative.
Attack 8
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/484ea/484ea2542bd55cdccd6997ffeefbe32b9c341a48" alt="".jpg)
Comment: This is the third clear case of pre-emptive initiative.
Conclusion
Against the 8 attacks the defender -
- used pre-emptive initiative only 3 times, and each of these attacks were charges from outside the melee range;
- used simultaneous initiative only once, in the melee range, however the deliberate use of this strategy is doubtful and its success is partly attributable to the totally inept nature of the attack;
- used late initiative 4 times, 3 times in the melee range and once outside it.
In this analysis I'm not attempting to argue the effectiveness of block/counter combinations; the defender is clearly not trained in deflection but rather exhibits some training in boxing. All I'm trying to do is show that late initiative (in the form of evasion - and in one instance, an unintentional parry/deflection) is not to be dismissed as a strategy that is of lesser importance than simultaneous or pre-emptive initiative. Far from compromising the defender's game plan, the use of late initiative bought the defender valuable time and space so that he could resort to pre-emptive strategies. Furthermore, late initiative was probably his only option at the early stages when facing the chaos of the melee and multiple opponents.
In other words, a trained boxer who, it is clear, was quite used to, and intent on, using simultaneous and pre-emptive initiative, was forced by the pressure of circumstances to default to late initiative exactly half of the time in this fight (the first half).
It is no use arguing that the variables in this case were unique and that otherwise he would have been able to resort to simultaneous and pre-emptive initiative from the beginning: every civilian defence encounter is likely to have its own such variables. I think this underlines the fact that in any civilian defence system, your first priority should be defence - be it in the form of evasion, or evasion with deflection (the traditional martial arts alternative). "Attack as defence" isn't enough.
Copyright © 2010 Dejan Djurdjevic
Excellent articles :)
ReplyDeleteCheers mate!
ReplyDelete