Close Range Opponents

Hi Lee

Just finished your safe on the doors book (a great book and very informative BTW).

Just wondered when you were working security what was your preferred method of dealing with multiple troublemakers at close range when they began to close you down. Blast through the middle/hit and move, etc.

More importantly how did you work your tactics into your own training.

Cheers

DA

Hi mate
if I found myself having to deal with someone in the physical sense, it was highly probable that someone else was also close enough to get involved. So reliable was this fact that we should always asume that there is more than one problematic subject to deal with along with the asumption that either party could be armed.

When dealing with anyone I will always place them (where possible) in more or less a line by moving to the flank of the guy closest me. Now if its going to go off I have a brief window of opportunity to deal with one then the other. I never fancied the idea of having to break through the middle, which suggests that it is you that has been flanked.

As you will note from my book Safe on the Door, I would often make use of my envirionment, particularly on the door where I can use it in such a way that my flanks are covered and the only way to me is frontal. What I can tell you from my own experience of this, is that so far I have been met with 3 responses during a (for arguments sake) 2 on 1 potential threat, any more than this starts to call for immediate mobility on your part, pre-emption as the vital requisite and above MINDSET.

But back to what I said, if you have say 2 guys in front and you have already attempted to control the situation by moving to the flank of one of them and this is then met with another attempt to close you down, well I ask you, how much more information than that do you need to know you need to ACT and fast?

In such a case I would strive to clinically drop the most prominant threat with a main artillery shot. This is where I have been met with the said 3 responses.

1. the second subject will momentarily freeze to the spot in shock, in which case if he is still close enough to attack me, I would blitz him.

2. the second guy will spring back and away from me like he's been hit with a cattle prod and clearly show that he doesnt want any, in which case I might posture, employing a verbal and physical boundary. This was often the case when I was particularly demonstrative when I dropped his mate, which I always would be and

3. the second I hit the first subject, the second one would just drop his head and wail in on me (attack) in which case I would either cover or as is often likely, eat a shot on the way in from where he would be dispatched ASAP.

The 3rd option sucks the most, but atleast here you have gone 1 on 1 then 1 on 1, much better than 2 on 1 with you in the middle wouldnt you agree?

I hope this answers your question.
Peace...L.M

Hi Lee

Thanks for that - yeah, that answers my question.
So its the use of tactical movement, lining them up.....followed by "shock and awe" techniques.

good stuff

cheers

DA

When dealing with anyone I will always place them (where possible) in more or less a line by moving to the flank of the guy closest me. Now if its going to go off I have a brief window of opportunity to deal with one then the other. I never fancied the idea of having to break through the middle, which suggests that it is you that has been flanked.

I definitely need to get some practise in with this.

The breakdown of the 3 subsequent reactions was excellent!
Can I ask whether you have a different vocab than Geoff or did you mean 'sniper shot' when you said 'main artilliary'??

clinically drop the most prominant threat with a main artillery shot.

Its always been my understanding that a sniper shot is a non sportive technique designed to get lots of bang for your book from a non-telographic natural posture whereas a main artilliary strike is used just afterwards when, as you say, the opponent(s) are stunned and this is sportive in the sense that it requires each shot to setup the next e.g. a strongjab then cross OR cycling hammerfist into flail.

I guess the mian difference in my mind is that a siper is a sneaky shot done from a (fence) natural conversation stance where as a main artiliarry has lost the element of surprise, a natural posture is unessessary and it get be sportive in the sense of an athletic base.

Im just curious whether you have a different terminology or perhaps a different striking strategy.

Also, am I right in saying any more than 2 and you're thinking Rugby player mindset -- just breakthrough and make it to that door/exit/safe spot and dont even think about engaging in strikes with anyone (other than strips) for fear of becoming drawn into a fight and having the other 3 jump on your back.

Thanks in advance.

Lee Morrison wrote:3. the second I hit the first subject, the second one would just drop his head and wail in on me (attack) in which case I would either cover or as is often likely, eat a shot on the way in from where he would be dispatched

Lee, just as a follow up point, if he did go for a leg grab would it end up being a "sprawling" technique, the use of impactive strikes or would it be a combination of both from yourself.

Cheers

DA

Hi Ben
nice to hear from you, sorry for the late reply. In regards to the terminology, by main artillery I mean my favoured or most practiced shot. For me on the doors during the first 8 years at least, this was a left cross and a right hook, which where possible was always employed pre-emptively from a natural non-telegraphic position (like a sniper shot)

I made the transistion to open hands, namely left palm strike and right hand slap during the last 4 years of my door term, mainly due to the fact that I was fed up with plunging my hands into the ice bucket at the end of the night. When it was clinical from an almost static position, I would target fine, but as soon as it became one of those situations where it just goes off, i.e if you both take initiative at the same time, then my targetting ability would just fall out my arse and I'd end up hitting anything that moved, consequently hurting my hands post event.

I changed to open hands also on the advice of my first Combatives instructor the late Pete Robins, at a time when I was lucky enough to be training with him, whilst working in venues that I was getting to apply everything on practically a nightly basis. Kind of like a testing laboratory if you like.

I could come back to Pete and say, yeah, that works great, or to make that work I had to do it like this etc. Although I changed the tools applied from fists to open hands, I still employed the same delivery system so the same stucture or main artillery remained in play, as for me personally this was the most successful for the majority of the time. But of course my support skills were strong also.

In regards to dealing with more than 2 subjects, i.e. 3 or 4 the simple fact is that it is relatively easy to manage 2 by flanking once during the pre-fight dialogue, from where, once I'd move I am ready to go in a physical sense and usually from a natural, unobtrusive position cause I really dont want them to see it coming, from here I was always first regardless of what happened next.

With more than 2 it is more difficult to keep to the outside, without making it obvious, to cover all the angles whilst trying to break tunnel vision, requires that you move and quickly. If its gonna go off, then the very first thing you do needs to be significant towards ending the problem, in which case all such concepts relating to multiples apply, keep moving, be first, use subject to cover, throw one into the other etc.

Of course even with two, if they have initiative or you've been ambushed, then you will find the whole affair a moving struggle, so pre-emption is everything, get the odds down quick by dropping the closest subject as clinically and demonstratively as possible.

In regards to the tackling your legs question, well I have had that happen once from a fair distance, where to be honest luck rather than judgement allowed me to move and re-direct his head into the bar. Another time I knee'd someone and immediately snatched him down, then mistakenly went to kick his head from a frontal position, he panicked and shot in for the tackle. Lucky for me I had a wall right behind which kept me up on my feet, then I flanked and cycled his head off.

If I'd of gone down there would definately have been a grapple, not the ideal as there were other doormen and some of his mates, I'm sure that could have gone tits up for me. Other than that I did find on one occasion that when I hit someone from a fence perspective, with say a linear shot, the normal trajectory would be for him to reel back a couple of feet then drop, on this occassion there was a wall behind him so he crashed back into it, then kind of bounced forward and attempted to grab/hold onto my waist as he fell, more of a damage limitation on his part than a tackle I'd say, but here the sprawl worked ok even if distance was tight.

I hope this answers your questions
Peace...

Thanks Lee

Cheers

DA