Can fighting in a confined space be a realistic strategy?

Question

I've been watching the following breakdown of Jet Li's famous final fight in the Kiss of the Dragon, and it made me question whether if you're being attacked by a certain type of opponent if a viable strategy would be to use a confined space to your advantage in a similar way?

Specifically what kind of attacks would be harder for the opponent to use against you (kicking is featured in the clip), and how would you have to fight to make sure you get the most out of the confined space? For example I would think using a bladed stance would make movement easier in a long confined space such as this since it is ideal for moving forward and backwards, and it is easier to slip through narrower areas when more sideways.

In another fight scene (also with Jet Li) a different type of confined space is used which I feel is quite interesting in that in the first clip ground grappling would probably not work very well, yet in the low clearance clip it could be very effective.

What is a more viable strategy? Is it always better to fight in an open space, or can luring an opponent into a confined space also be a good strategy?

Answer 1

It really depends on who you are fighting and why. Most people don't get into fights much. In any self defence situation the last thing you want to do is get into a confined space. This is because injuring the attacker is not your goal. Your goal is to avoid harm. Usually the best way to avoid harm is to escape (ie get as far away from the source of harm as is practical). Similarly there is no reason to do this in a situation involving weapons (any war/military situation). In combat sports it's obviously not possible either unless you are doing Car Jujitsu or similar.

Much as I love Jet Li films they are not at all realistic in terms of what violence looks like... Just look at how contrived the plot has to be to make him fight at all.

That said... Using a doorway or narrow corridor to your advantage is a viable self defence strategy against multiple attackers. So long as one is available and so long as there are no better escape options.

Answer 2

From an armed fighting, specifically Historic European Martial Arts, "HEMA," perspective, opting for a limited space is a totally valid choice. Context is important here!

Limited space allows for you to fight multiple opponents by simply limiting the number of people you must engage at once. When you see one person fighting multiple opponents in open spaces, this is the exact reason there is so much movement. An narrow ally or doorway produces the same effect.

Additionally, certain weapons do better or worse in certain environments. Spears may be the king of the open battlefield, but a dagger or short sword will serve you better indoors. Confined spaces also affect things like grappling: the wall is a reasonably hard surface one can use for support or to smash enemies against.

As a final note about confined spaces, they are great to enter when attempting to counter ranged or mounted foes. The word mounted will also apply to vehicles here.

Tanks could burst through houses like they are made of paper, but a humble root cellar will trap them. A car may drive through a wall, but it is unlikely to go much further. A horse could go into a city, but it's not going down steps or into too-narrow doorways.

Limited sight and maneuverability in cities are still a bane to modern militaries trying to move through them, as one can easily be flanked or ambushed. This applies to most ranged weapons at the individual level, too. It doesn't take much imagination to see why a dagger is as good or better than a gun in an apartment or home.