On the battlefield different than one on one?

[Frederico Martins]

Really like how he teaches there the way the opponents should move.

Silver takes advantage of the huge range and weight of his staff for this situation, the montante authors do the same, since they would be fighting people with shorter weapons. I think that shows a respect for the situation that you require a, in some tearms, superior weapon to face a situation like that.

Can you please tell me if Silver deals with multiple opponents on other places? with other weapons?

In jogo do pau everyone had staffs about the size of a montante, but the range would still avoid a worst situation for the lone fighter, that would be a knife fight against multiple opponents (not talking about messers or small swords or long knifes,no one had that at the time here, but everyone would have small pocket knifes, and that would be a much harder situation to get out of)

[Sean LeMay]

Director Clements does a much better, cleaner job of isolating and finishing one opponent then turning to do the same to the other opponent.

To use the tactics of creating multiple fights you have to go fighting multiple opponents with this assumption:

You can win all small fights you create, and for that you must be a supertior fighter to each of your individual opponents. And not only win but you must win almost instantly and go for the next one or else the others will get you.

I don't think that is impossible, you can face multiple opponents that are much inferior fighters than yourself and win with that strategy. That would be great.

However, if you assume among your opponents, might be one that could not be so easy to beat, then that starts to sound like a not so good of a strategy.

Edit: I assume we are talking about the use of heavy weapons, staffs, swords or even batons and baseball bats for example. With this weapons you are able to manage distance safely with the rotational strikes. With lighter weapons, daggers or one handed lighter or piercing swords, that might not be possible and the only way out probably is to just engage in many fights, simply because you don't have other options. But It is preferable to have a longer weapon, to avoid being forced into that situation if you can.(unless your opponents are much weaker than yourself, in that case you can do what you want with them. but in that case, the situation is not so threatening anyway).

So your solution is what? Attack, or defend, an entire group of opponents of unknown skills? The only way to survive is to isolate and win, or isolate and run. Every other option this side of choreographed fights is defeat and/or death. This applies to any fight, with any weapon or no weapon-up to and including firearms.

I apologize Frederico, I am not trying to harp on you or this subject but any "multiple opponent" encounter where anyone not in Hollywood tries to engage all of their attackers is destined for a bad end. You simply must isolate your opponents and use the buildings/furniture/geography to limit their access to you

[Frederico Martins]

Sean, what I say is that you should manage distance, with the sweeping strikes, and in that way you avoid being attacked by all at the same time (you keep them at distance).And there you do kind of isolate one for an instant I just dont think it is enough most of the time to create a small fight, when you have an enemy on your back.

Only if you see an opening, if you are lucky, then you can go to take down one oponent. but your focus should be to not allow them to fall all on you at the same time, and that is hard enough.

I think that is very different from what you are sugesting. I just don't think it is reasonable to believe you can Isolate and defeat your opponents one by one. that is idealistic , can happen, but that is what I think is an heroic feat, like what you see in hollywood.(but there the opponents usually wait for each fight to end and go one by one)

I really think it is weapon dependent, if you have a long heavy weapon you can keep them at distance, if not, then as you say, or you can actually run, or if not you do have to engage them, and try to win one by one as fast as you can, but then that do is an heroic feat. and with a long weapon you do have a safer option.

[Sean LeMay]

I understand what you're saying Frederico, and in a limited way I agree.

What I'm saying isn't heroic. It's simply using what is available to limit the ways in which you can be attacked. By moving quickly to interpose an attacker on the flank between you and the other attackers, say. Or by attacking one because he is standing between you and an alcove (or doorway, or potted plant, or couch or whatever) so that you may take advantage of what the ground offers.

At any rate we can agree to disagree. I probably should study the source materials so I can offer a better arguement.

[Frederico Martins]

well, I guess I can agree to disagree but also agree to some point

I do think what you describe is very reasonable thing to do if you can do it, that is, the isolation of a member, I just don't think it is often possible, for enough time to make it a safe and common approach.

Luis preto made a video of jogo do pau tactics (that is Godinho's too) for when you weren't able to avoid being surrounded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6WqNHeRpIk