PDA

View Full Version : SEAL or Gurkha vs normal people


FlikTheBlue
08-30-2011, 10:51 AM
Inspired by the other threa of a SEAL against a Gurhka. I have read that numbers are a huge advantage in an unarmed fight. I can't remember where, but I recall reading somewhere that 4 or 5 average, untrained, but physically fit people would be able to beat 1 highly trained fighter like a SEAL or even a top martial artist in unarmed combat. How true is this? Let's say it's like the mma octagon and you have 1 highly trained and in top physical shape SEAL against 5 ordinary guys who are untrained and in fair but not exceptional physical condition. Who would win?

BrainGlutton
08-30-2011, 11:15 AM
I'd say the SEAL. His training probably includes techniques for fighting more than one person at a time. And he only has to hit each guy once.

yojimbo
08-30-2011, 11:21 AM
I would guess if the 5 guys get lucky they could win by managing to get hold of the trained guy or hit him in the back of the head or take a knee out but I'll say the traiined guy gets more than a 50% chance and that raises signifigantly if the 5 untrained guys hold back and don't try to mob the trained fighter.

Are they in a hall way, does the guy have a hammer ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufss5ot_vGE&t=0m26s <---- violence in the clip. It a link to a epic one on many fight from a movie called Oldboy

Ravenman
08-30-2011, 11:30 AM
As a black belt myself, but not a SEAL, I'd say it gets exponentially harder to defend yourself against more people. Unless 4 people are attacking you one-at-a-time kung fu-movie style (which is possible if the 4 people don't really want to be in the fight, if they're scared, or drunk), I think it would be exceptionally difficult for anyone to fight off 4 or more dedicated, aggressive attackers.

One key is mobility, and not getting in the middle of several people where you cannot attack whomever is in front of you and defend against whomever is behind you. When you start talking about more than three people, if one attacker grabs your arm or leg and holds on for dear life for more than a couple seconds, it's a huge window of vulnerability for the others to exploit. So long as the four or five people are actually being aggressive and taking the fight to the one, I would bet that the mob would win consistently.

Bryan Ekers
08-30-2011, 02:38 PM
If the five "normals" are hesitant, to the point of watching one of their number enage the SEAL and get clobbered before moving in, I'd give it to the SEAL. If they swarm, the SEAL has no chance.

Now, how many angry five-year-olds can a SEAL handle?

smiling bandit
08-30-2011, 04:53 PM
I would be somewhat leery of even saying a SEAL would defginitely be all that good in hand-to-hand. I 'm sure they're competent. But solduiers, even really dedicated ones, generally practice techniques that involve lethal weapons, like guns or (at worst) knives. Not hand-to-hand. I've no doubt that some of the MMA champions would crush a SEAL, unless that SEAl is extremely proficient as a personal matter.

Kobal2
08-30-2011, 05:28 PM
I'd say the SEAL loses. In hand to hand ? Definitely. Consider the real life events portrayed in Black Hawk Down: at one point, a pair of Deltas opt to go down on the ground and defend one helicopter crash site against the mob for as long as possible. In real life, the two of them managed to kill around 25 militias with their automatic weapons - then one of them caught a random bullet in the dome, and that was that. The other was overrun, then killed.

If you make the scenario pure hand-to-hand, where technology and professionalism matters much less than sheer physics, then it becomes even more lopsided. The seal might immobilize or even incapacitate one, two of his aggressors. The mob will do him in, training or no training.

BMalion
08-30-2011, 07:30 PM
Didn't one Ghurka recently take on 40 bandits?

Evil Economist
08-30-2011, 07:37 PM
I used to train with a couple of SEALS who joined one of my old martial arts (BJJ) schools. They were very fit, but no better at fighting than any other very fit person. As a matter of fact I was joking with one of them about it once and he said something like "we only train to shoot people." So I wouldn't expect too much more out of a SEAL than out of any other person, unless guns were involved.

silenus
08-30-2011, 08:11 PM
Didn't one Ghurka recently take on 40 bandits?

One at a time, in very tight quarters (on a train), against untrained and unmotivated attackers. Which gave him a great advantage, and one big handicap: he only had to deal with one attacker at a time, but the narrow aisle meant he kept getting his big brass Gurkha balls stuck. :D

Evil Economist
08-30-2011, 08:17 PM
One at a time, in very tight quarters (on a train), against untrained and unmotivated attackers. Which gave him a great advantage, and one big handicap: he only had to deal with one attacker at a time, but the narrow aisle meant he kept getting his big brass Gurkha balls stuck. :D

And he was armed with a kukri, which is basically a machete, while his opponents were armed with fake guns (really!). And he was only facing 40 of them in the retelling. This is in no way intended to disparage the man, who did a seriously brave thing, but this probably isn't a good indicator of how an unarmed fight against a Gurkha would go.

FlikTheBlue
08-30-2011, 10:18 PM
What if I rephrase the OP to include not professional soldiers, but professional fighters like Randy Couture or Georges St. Pierre? The reason I ask is this makes me wonder about the utility of martial arts training if being a highly trained fighter will not really give someone enough of an advantage to take on more than two or three opponents at once. Specifically I'm thinking about the scene from the original Karate Kid where Mr. Miyagi wipes the floor with all the kids that are beating up Daniel. How unrealistic is that scene?

mac_bolan00
08-30-2011, 10:21 PM
i will say that no MMA technique in regular use/practice is good for fighting multiple opponents.

Evil Economist
08-30-2011, 10:30 PM
What if I rephrase the OP to include not professional soldiers, but professional fighters like Randy Couture or Georges St. Pierre? The reason I ask is this makes me wonder about the utility of martial arts training if being a highly trained fighter will not really give someone enough of an advantage to take on more than two or three opponents at once. Specifically I'm thinking about the scene from the original Karate Kid where Mr. Miyagi wipes the floor with all the kids that are beating up Daniel. How unrealistic is that scene?

i will say that no MMA technique in regular use/practice is good for fighting multiple opponents.

You mean like the punching (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-5_2aWoOg)techniques in MMA? They won't work against a crowd?

MMA fighters would do much better against a crowd (in an unarmed fight) than anyone else on the planet.

Evil Economist
08-30-2011, 11:01 PM
Boxer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T3X8hESLuA&feature=related)beating two opponents in a street fight. My personal opinion is that judo throws would be very effective, but haven't found any videos yet. And don't forget, the odds are against the single guy, no matter what he studies.

Kobal2
08-30-2011, 11:54 PM
Boxer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T3X8hESLuA&feature=related)beating two opponents in a street fight. My personal opinion is that judo throws would be very effective, but haven't found any videos yet. And don't forget, the odds are against the single guy, no matter what he studies.

Personal anecdotal data suggest that judo throws, while pretty damn efficient against one guy, absolutely suck when you're against two or more.

I can break your ribs if we fall together the right way. I can put us in a position where I can easily dislocate your shoulder, or break your arm, or even convincingly threaten to snap your neck.
But by that time we're on the ground and your buddy can kick me in the head to his heart's content.

I suppose you could just use regular throws that put the opponent on his back (IPPON !), but that doesn't accomplish much without following through on the ground - he'll just be back on his feet 5 seconds later. Especially considering sport throws are designed to let Uke (or was it Tori ? I always get those two mixed up) fall "right", in a manner that doesn't hurt, and it's pretty tough to do away with that conditioning entirely.

Alessan
08-31-2011, 01:25 AM
I'd say the best fighters are those crazy motherfuckers who fight with their elbows, knees and teeth, and just - don't - stop. Since most dojos don't let you really practice eye-gouging and groin-twisting, the most effective training is given on the streets and in prison yards.

Tamerlane
08-31-2011, 02:08 AM
I'd say the best fighters are those crazy motherfuckers who fight with their elbows, knees and teeth, and just - don't - stop. Since most dojos don't let you really practice eye-gouging and groin-twisting, the most effective training is given on the streets and in prison yards.

So what you are saying is dirty Dan Dority (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeS6y6mbUzY) has the edge over both Mr. SEAL and Mr. Gurkha :p?

Triskadecamus
08-31-2011, 02:23 AM
In 1966 a Special Forces instructor taught me hand to hand combat. (Just to be up front about it, I sucked at it.) We had specific lessons for one opponant, two opponants, and more than two opponants. After the last one, he said, ok, now forget all that crap. Just shoot the sunsabitches, and if you can't shoot 'em, you should have been running from the start.

Tris

mac_bolan00
08-31-2011, 03:12 AM
You mean like the punching (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-5_2aWoOg)techniques in MMA? They won't work against a crowd?

MMA fighters would do much better against a crowd (in an unarmed fight) than anyone else on the planet.
what you mean is a trained puncher will likely hit at least one face in several. that's the problem. the next two or three guys aren't going to play dumb and beaten. several oriental techniques, whether hard or soft, have multiple opponent drills (both kata and semi-kumite.) i had to spar with 5 guys (including the instructor) during one intermediate promotion in karate. but i would sooner challenge 5 guys to basketball than a fist fight.

but your claim that MMA punchers are in the best position is neither relevant nor (i think) correct.

Alessan
08-31-2011, 03:24 AM
So what you are saying is dirty Dan Dority (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeS6y6mbUzY) has the edge over both Mr. SEAL and Mr. Gurkha :p?

Pretty much.

Those are your top hand-to-hand fighters - not your martial artists or elite soldiers, but guys who are really good at hurting people and at getting hurt.

mac_bolan00
08-31-2011, 03:28 AM
but gurkhas are kinda small, aren't they?

mac_bolan00
08-31-2011, 03:36 AM
thus far (evidenced by youtube) boxing seems very effective. there's the "messed with the wrong guy" video (2 vs 1) and the "awesome streetfight" in india where i counted 4 knockdowns by just one fighter.

among the soft techniques, i'd favor aikido and i'm not thinking of any segal stuff: just move and prod to allow one to break through a circle and scamper the hell out of there.

Gary Kumquat
08-31-2011, 04:32 AM
i will say that no MMA technique in regular use/practice is good for fighting multiple opponents.

No idea about MMA, but Krav Maga explicitly trains for multiple attacker scenarios, right from the first lesson. Hell, the basic inside defence & counter is expressly aimed at getting you behind the first assailant, where you can see if there's any other attackers sneaking up (whilst giving you opponent number 1 as a rather spiffy shield)

I am told (no cite, purely comments from a chum who was a rupert in the gurkha rifles) that the close combat system Gurkhas are trained in is actually derived from the commando system that Fairbairn & Sykes derived during World War 2, with some custom techniques based around the khukri. I believe that this system also influenced the close quarter training used by the seals and other SF units, but again this is just anecdote. Either way, all military close combat systems rely on the principle that Fairbairn summarised as "no fair play, no rules except one: kill or be killed,”"

It can be reasonably claimed that if a person is well trained in an effective system based around such principles, whether KM, defendu, GRU or other, they will have a better chance against multiple attackers than an untrained person. They should be looking for other attackers, they should be working quickly to remove individual attackers as threats, and they should be using any available objects as either weapons or defensive items. All these points will improve their odds significantly.

But having said all of that, a single person facing multiple attackers, no matter what level of training, is always going to be the likely loser. I've never met any martial artist worth a damn who claimed otherwise. The best edge it'd probably give you is quicker assessment of the situation, that would give you a bit more time to get the hell out of there.

mac_bolan00
08-31-2011, 04:56 AM
my instructor, a rather eclectic guy, showed us a technique for taking down several opponents BUT with all their backs facing you. might be useful if you see a friend being creamed by several punks and you approach them unawares. he would bring both his palms down on their shoulders, startign with the nearest guy. the force of the slap reaches one's thighs and knees and you go down. it's the first movement in taichi-chuan.

Gary Kumquat
08-31-2011, 05:51 AM
my instructor, a rather eclectic guy, showed us a technique for taking down several opponents BUT with all their backs facing you. might be useful if you see a friend being creamed by several punks and you approach them unawares. he would bring both his palms down on their shoulders, startign with the nearest guy. the force of the slap reaches one's thighs and knees and you go down. it's the first movement in taichi-chuan.

If I've got several people with their back to me, unaware of my pending attack, I think the ancient technique of a 2by4 off the back of the head is a good starting point.

brocks
08-31-2011, 03:29 PM
I don't watch a lot of MMA, but in some of the fights I've seen with guys like the Gracies, they spend a hell of a lot of time on their back. They usually win by getting a submission, but if the guy they were fighting had a friend or two, they would get kicked in the head and that would be that.

So it depends what you mean by "normal." If you mean they kidnap a bunch of accountants and drop them in a pit with an MMA fighter, then they will likely be afraid to mix it up, and will get picked off one at a time. But if you mean untrained but aggressive guys, like bar fighters, then one against three is probably going to lose unless he's really good or really lucky.

Capitaine Zombie
08-31-2011, 04:44 PM
So what you are saying is dirty Dan Dority (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeS6y6mbUzY) has the edge over both Mr. SEAL and Mr. Gurkha :p?

Darn Deadwood was such a good show, really blows that they cancelled it.
And I agree with Alessan, I think a street maniac would pound the pavement with the skull of a martial artist. While the martial artist's training will enable him to reach his inner self and stuff, the street manac will reach for his entrails (and spread them on the pavement as well. They're heavy onto that pavement thing).

Chronos
08-31-2011, 05:09 PM
If we're talking untrained opponents, I doubt there's any number that would be adequate to take out an elite trained fighter. Yeah, the crowd could have a lot of advantages from their numbers, but they'd have to coordinate well to use those advantages, and I don't think most untrained folks have the skill to do that. Or, heck, even many trained folks, since team fighting isn't something that's taught much.

This is especially true if there's any sort of terrain at all. If the trained fighter can back up against a wall, or better yet a corner, there's just no chance. And it's not like walls or corners are all that rare.

Triskadecamus
08-31-2011, 05:31 PM
Or, heck, even many trained folks, since team fighting isn't something that's taught much.Hmmmm. The pedagogical reflex in me wants to know why the hell that is true. We got a whole lot of guys who are organized into groups, and trained in combat. We even train them in individual unarmed combat. Why the hell isn’t there military training, hell even a military research effort in how cooperating unarmed combatants can maximize their effectiveness against armed opponents? (I do think that the first goal in such a combat strategy would be to turn at least one of your team members into an armed opponent, but that seems a given.)

If I knew twenty “plays” for doing that exact thing, and knew that my associates also knew those plays, there seems to me to be a very large increase in how effective prisoners of war would be in resisting, and escaping.

Tris

brocks
08-31-2011, 06:31 PM
If we're talking untrained opponents, I doubt there's any number that would be adequate to take out an elite trained fighter. Yeah, the crowd could have a lot of advantages from their numbers, but they'd have to coordinate well to use those advantages, and I don't think most untrained folks have the skill to do that. Or, heck, even many trained folks, since team fighting isn't something that's taught much.

This is especially true if there's any sort of terrain at all. If the trained fighter can back up against a wall, or better yet a corner, there's just no chance. And it's not like walls or corners are all that rare.

I respectfully disagree. All you need are guys who are willing to take some punishment. If the pro has his back to a wall then, he's trapped.

One-punch knockouts are not that common outside of movies. If two guys tackle a pro at once from opposite sides, it would be pretty hard for him to deliver crippling blows to both of them, and if one of them can tie him up for a second, a third guy should be able to take him off his feet. As I said in a previous post, all those ground techniques you see in MMA would not be as effective when a third or fourth party is kicking the pro in the head.

Mgalindo13
08-31-2011, 06:47 PM
I used to train with an ex-special forces guy who was an expert in unarmed combat and BJJ black belt. One day he offered to take on his class of six all at once. We were all physically fit, mildly trained and in our 20's & 30's (he was in his 40's) and he tapped us all out in just a few minutes.

It wasn't full contact, but we went at him pretty hard. I have a feeling that it was to our benefit that it wasn't full contact.

China Guy
08-31-2011, 09:08 PM
American Kenpo was developed to take on multiple attackers at once. Ended in tears though as James Mitose (?) died after being stabbed.

american Kenpo definate trains for multiple attackers. In such a scenario, you don't fuck around, broken knee caps and running like hell are par for course.

Snarky_Kong
08-31-2011, 09:35 PM
what you mean is a trained puncher will likely hit at least one face in several. that's the problem. the next two or three guys aren't going to play dumb and beaten. several oriental techniques, whether hard or soft, have multiple opponent drills (both kata and semi-kumite.) i had to spar with 5 guys (including the instructor) during one intermediate promotion in karate. but i would sooner challenge 5 guys to basketball than a fist fight.

but your claim that MMA punchers are in the best position is neither relevant nor (i think) correct.

Twenty minutes later...

thus far (evidenced by youtube) boxing seems very effective.

mac_bolan00
08-31-2011, 10:11 PM
how serious is the contradiction?

pravnik
08-31-2011, 10:21 PM
American Kenpo was developed to take on multiple attackers at once. Ended in tears though as James Mitose (?) died after being stabbed.Mitose died in prison, from complications of diabetes. You might be thinking of Joe Emperado, brother of Kajukenbo founder Adriano Emperado. Joe was stabbed several times in the back and chest while trying to break up a bar fight.

TruCelt
08-31-2011, 10:39 PM
The first guy becomse the weapon with which the SEAL bludgeons the others into submission.

Gary Kumquat
09-01-2011, 07:19 PM
I used to train with an ex-special forces guy who was an expert in unarmed combat and BJJ black belt. One day he offered to take on his class of six all at once. We were all physically fit, mildly trained and in our 20's & 30's (he was in his 40's) and he tapped us all out in just a few minutes..

With the best will in the world, that is a group of people sparring with a single person - with all of them trying not to deliberately hurt the other side.

I have never seen that scenario played out in brawls.

Snarky_Kong
09-01-2011, 07:42 PM
how serious is the contradiction?

Well, the latter statement is directly contradicting the former. So as serious as an internet discussion about fantasy battles can be.

StusBlues
09-02-2011, 10:41 AM
In 1966 a Special Forces instructor taught me hand to hand combat. (Just to be up front about it, I sucked at it.) We had specific lessons for one opponant, two opponants, and more than two opponants. After the last one, he said, ok, now forget all that crap. Just shoot the sunsabitches, and if you can't shoot 'em, you should have been running from the start.



Thank you for the voice of sanity in this thread. Yes, some disciplines like Kempo and Krav Maga do have "more-than-one-attacker" facets, but their success in the real world is predicated on:

1. Being able to hold attackers off for a few seconds while attracting attention for someone to come help you, and

2. Straight up luck. If you can take out three guys before they know what's happening (and for some of the better Muay Thai guys I know, this is a real possibility), then you can get out of a four-on-one situation. If one of them can take your back while two or three of the others are still up and swinging, though, you're toast. I don't care if you're Bruce Lee, Anderson Silva, Junior Dos Santos, or one of these legendary guys from the SEALS or Mossad; you're still toast.

Chronos
09-02-2011, 02:36 PM
Quoth China Guy:
American Kenpo was developed to take on multiple attackers at once. Ended in tears though as James Mitose (?) died after being stabbed.Back when I was studying kenpo, almost none of the training was based on multiple opponents. I think there might have been one or two techniques for very specific situations, but most of it was based on the assumption of 1-on-1.
Quoth Triskadecamus:
Hmmmm. The pedagogical reflex in me wants to know why the hell that is true. We got a whole lot of guys who are organized into groups, and trained in combat. We even train them in individual unarmed combat. Why the hell isn’t there military training, hell even a military research effort in how cooperating unarmed combatants can maximize their effectiveness against armed opponents? (I do think that the first goal in such a combat strategy would be to turn at least one of your team members into an armed opponent, but that seems a given.)As I understand it, unarmed combat training in the military isn't primarily intended to increase capability in unarmed fighting itself (since soldiers are so seldom unarmed), but to teach aggressiveness.

And I'd also like to emphasize here that this thread is about elite fighters vs. normal, untrained people. Even if one-strike knockouts are rare, an elite fighter will generally be able to take an untrained opponent out of the fight with a single blow, somehow or another. Maybe it's not a knockout: Maybe it's knocking the wind out of the guy. Maybe it's breaking a bone. Maybe it's going for the eyes. Maybe it's just causing enough pain that the other guy gives up. Now, a trained opponent will be able to make it through most of those things and fight on, but against an ordinary schmo, there are a lot of options.

Mgalindo13
09-02-2011, 06:33 PM
With the best will in the world, that is a group of people sparring with a single person - with all of them trying not to deliberately hurt the other side.

I have never seen that scenario played out in brawls.

I granted in my post that "it wasn't full contact."

The point is that both sides were not trying to seriously injure the other. Using his full faculties he could have easily snapped my ankle (as opposed to letting me tap out).

I'm not saying this anecdote guarantees that every trained individual would win out in a group scenario, but I can see how it is POSSIBLE.

Untrained individuals often don't understand the serious mistakes they make in a fight. For example, throwing that bar-brawl wind-up hay-maker can easily get someone knocked down (or out) by a trained individual. Or grabbing somebody from behind without the proper hand grip will last for all of about three seconds before they break free.

I remember the first few times I sparred, it was a serious blow to the ego how someone with just a few years (or even months of training) could easily put me in my place. In the years that have followed I have seen it happen with every newbie, even the ones who thought they were "street fighters" before.

Also, as other posters have said - when I say trained, I mean trained specifically in hand-to-hand combat (muay thai, BJJ, boxing, wrestling, etc.). Being special forces alone doesn't make you an unarmed combat expert.

slowlearner
09-02-2011, 06:53 PM
my brother was a crazed Dallas streetfighter back in the 60's and 70's when it was really fighting with no guns or killing and no assault charges or lawsuits, just a 32.50 fine for disorderly contact if you ever were arrested. you could even fight cops, but if you won they took you to the substation and beat the stink out of you, then locked you up til the bruises healed. nobody wins every fight, he was put in the hospital a couple times by a single guy, but there were several times he took out multiple opponents, most notably all four bouncers at the old Greenhouse Disco in Austin (i got him out of jail the next day for 32.50). what counts in a fight is pure unreasonable rage and a love of seeing blood spilled, even your own. watch out for the little guy...

BrainGlutton
09-02-2011, 07:37 PM
Wait, we are using "vs." in the sense of "Ron Jeremy vs. Ginger Lynn," right?

obbn
09-05-2011, 02:20 PM
Well, I think that the SEAL would stand a pretty good chance, especially if he distracted the 4 by doing that ball on the nose trick first!

Left Hand of Dorkness
09-05-2011, 03:01 PM
It seems to me that motivation is everything. If the scenario is an armed gunman coming into your college classroom, and you know that if you're passive you'll die in the next two minutes, you've got a different incentive to throw yourself at the attacker than if it's an asshole at the bar who's beating someone else up and you'd kind of like to break up the fight--or even if you're a member of a gang looking for retribution or whatever Hollywood cliche works.

I can imagine pretty easily how four suicidal-because-of-circumstances people could take out a single well-trained opponent. But if it's four people who can see another way to survive the situation, their morale is pretty likely to break along with the first guy's nose.

Cat Fight
09-05-2011, 03:04 PM
Let's say it's like the mma octagon and you have 1 highly trained and in top physical shape SEAL against 5 ordinary guys who are untrained and in fair but not exceptional physical condition. Who would win?

If the combatants are in standard MMA tiny panties? I'd say the audience.

LonesomePolecat
09-06-2011, 01:30 PM
And he was armed with a kukri, which is basically a machete, while his opponents were armed with fake guns (really!). And he was only facing 40 of them in the retelling. This is in no way intended to disparage the man, who did a seriously brave thing, but this probably isn't a good indicator of how an unarmed fight against a Gurkha would go. As I recall, he was armed with an edged weapon, his attackers could only come at him one at a time, he didn't actually fight more than six or seven of them, and the rest fled because they mistakenly thought that there was more than one Gurkha. The guy also suffered a pretty serious injury (to the hand, I believe).

He's still one of my heroes, though.

What Exit?
09-06-2011, 02:19 PM
For what it is worth, I witnessed 2 SEALS drop 6 Marines in a bar in no time flat. It was fast, ferocious and completed in what had to be under a minute. Contributing factors I know of were the Marines were drunk enough to pick a fight with one of my fellow sailors but not as drunk as my friend. No clue how much alcohol the SEALs had consumed

aruvqan
09-06-2011, 03:11 PM
Well, I know one Seal I could have killed very easily. *Everybody* has to sleep at some point in time, and he was in bed next to me for the time I was living with him ... easy peasy - was even my choice of knife or gun in the headboard :smack: Though I suppose I could have poisoned him with something since I did pretty much all the cooking.:D