MULTIPLE OPPONENTS

(This article appeared in July 2003 issue of Blitz Martial Arts magazine).

The Paradox of Multiple Opponent Training

Why does the multiple opponent problem receive so little attention?

It is common these days for businesses to be regularly audited not just on their financials but also on their structure and operations. Imagine an auditor walking in to a martial art school, one that advertises that it teaches self-defence, and starts off the audit process with the instructor as follows.

"You advertise yourself as a business that teaches paying members of the public self-defence. These consumers are entitled to expect that your teaching program aligns with the nature and prevalence of actual crime. Given that could answer the following questions for me:
1. Approximately what proportion of crimes against the person involves multiple assailants?
2. What is the justification for your answer (what crime statistics are they based on)?
3. What proportion of crimes against the person involve knives or edged weapons?
4. Similarly, what is the justification for your answer?
5. Given the above, can you please justify the proportion of time spent on single versus armed versus multiple assailant training in your self defence classes."

I would expect such auditors to have a field day.

The relevant crime statistics are available on the Internet for all to see and are depicted in the table. I've chosen three countries for comparison.

The figures need some qualification. The Scottish figures only give total weapon use as 30% with no breakdown by weapon type. The low multiple assailant figures for the US are due to it being a count of all crime across the US including such incidents as domestic violence. Hence the contrast with the expected high Inner Sydney figures given multiple assailant crimes are concentrated in population dense areas.

So multiple assailant crimes occur anywhere between 20% and 40% in all crimes against the person (depending on geography), and are 2 to 4 times more common than those involving an edged weapon. But this isn't reflected in what we see in martial arts classes around the country.

You see training almost exclusively spent in one-on-one situations. On the odd occasion where there is 2 or 3 versus one sparring the attackers seem to take it in turns and they attack using the method of the system, not as it would be on the street. And an examination of lesson or grading sheets shows little or no mention of multiple opponent training at all.

Only three reasons seem possible to explain this.
1. Dealing with multiple opponents is so easy little practice is required.
2. The instructor is not aware of the prevalence of this form of crime so little time is devoted to it.
3. The system taught has no method for dealing with the multiple opponent problem.

Reason 1 is of course nonsense. Reason 2 raises questions about the instructor given crime information is readily available. Reason 3 raises questions about the system taught given multiple assailant crimes are clearly common.

To strengthen my assertion that this problem is overlooked, perform an Internet search for all books and videos whose subject matter is edged weapons defence. Count the number of titles found. Do the same for books and videos on multiple opponent defence. In light of the crime statistics I have quoted note the discrepancy between these counts.

And that is the paradox. A significant form of crime is largely ignored by an industry that derives a major portion of its income from teaching people to defend themselves. And a less common form of crime (use of edged weapons) receives more attention.

Why?

REFERENCES

[1] Jochelson, R. (1997). "Crime and Place: An Analysis of Assaults and Robberies in Inner Sydney". New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
[2] Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (2002). Violence in Scotland: Findings from the 2000 Crime Survey.
[3] U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2001 Statistical tables, Tables 49 and 66 online.

{photo5}