# Do most fights really go to the ground?



## geezer (Nov 12, 2008)

Over on FMAtalk a guy justified his post with the old cliche, "...after all, most fights go to the ground" (meaning that _both _fighters end up on the ground grappling). Well that's the way it is a lot of times in UFC. And that's the way it was when I got into fights as a kid...but I was a wrestler and that's all I knew then. But when you are talking about life-or-death self defense, and not brawling "duels" fueled by alcohol and ego, I'd rather put the other guy on the ground and _stay standing _myself. Especially now that I'm in my mid fifties. I really don't want to be rolling on the pavement, grappling with a gang banger whose 30+ years my junior.  I figure that I don't fight anymore, so if I do get into it, it's because I have absolutely no choice. In that case, I will try to end it quickly and get out alive.

So here's my question. When you are talking real _self-defense_...do most encounters actually go to the ground? What is the reality here?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Nov 12, 2008)

From fights I have been in and seen It does not go to the ground that oftencompared to the ole' 90%or whatever the stat was. I would say there is more clinches than ground fighting.

However during a clinch it can go to the ground or someone take another to the ground with a slam or trips.


----------



## Carol (Nov 12, 2008)

Last thing I want to be doing in a bad situation is rolling around on the ground.  If I'm fighting, that is.  :uhyeah:

Rhee Bok Do.  He who fights and runs away, lives to fight and run away, another day.


----------



## Nolerama (Nov 12, 2008)

Every fight I've ever been in has gone to the ground... Or at least includes someone going to the ground.

Ideally, I'd like to stay standing myself, with the other guy on the ground, but I'd like to prepare for different ranges.


----------



## zDom (Nov 12, 2008)

How many fights go to the ground is a subject that can be debated without end. A lot of it depends on the intentions of those involved and their skill sets.

One thing I'm sure very few people will argue, however, is that nearly all fights begin standing up


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 12, 2008)

And end that way for one of the participants .


----------



## morph4me (Nov 12, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> And end that way for one of the participants .


 
Not all the time my friend, I've been in a few where the winner was the first one able to stand up, and that took awhile


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 12, 2008)

:lol:  I included that scenario in my mind when I posted .

On serious note, I have never witnessed a fight that 'went to the ground' since I was in Primary School.  Guess I hang around too many people who grew up watching Westerns full of manly fistfights ROFL.


----------



## kuntawguro (Nov 12, 2008)

From my personal experience , most of the fights ended with someone on the ground- usually the guy who got cold cocked. Most fights don't follow rules so if the guy  is blabbing how bad he is and catches a haymaker- he is down for the count. 
 I personally do not want to roll around on the ground with someone trying to "submit " him.  While that is happening  my back, head, and extremities are  open targets to one of his buddies. 

The last time I saw a fight go to the ground is when  a guy got tackled from behind in a parking lot. He got to his feet quite quickly and nailed his attacker in the crotch while fakeing a boxing stance. Fight over.

I do not like leg hugging by any means tho I do know how to fight on the ground.


----------



## DavidCC (Nov 12, 2008)

I thought we had all realized that this statement was a mis-interpretaion of LAPD statistics; that 90% of their "encounters" went to the ground because that was what the officers were trained to do so they could cuff the bad guy.

Now, if one of the fighters is trained and aiming to take the fight to the ground (MMA bouts), I bet 90% of THAT GUY's fights will go to the ground.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 12, 2008)

DavidCC said:


> I thought we had all realized that this statement was a mis-interpretaion of LAPD statistics; that 90% of their "encounters" went to the ground because that was what the officers were trained to do so they could cuff the bad guy.
> 
> Now, if one of the fighters is trained and aiming to take the fight to the ground (MMA bouts), I bet 90% of THAT GUY's fights will go to the ground.


Trying to extrapolate "real" street fights from police encounters and uses of force is treacherous ground.  A cop's job is to contain, control, and arrest the suspect.  For that reason, many police fights do end up on the ground.  When we take someone to the ground, we deprive them of a lot of mobility and a lot of ways to resist us while we put the cuffs on.  Sometimes, the simple fact of taking them down takes the fight out of them...

Most of the real attacks I've responded to or investigated have had a few things in common:
*Surprise*; the victim often didn't realize the attack was coming until it was too late.
*Violence*; the attack was executed with almost shocking brutality.
*Speed*; the attack took place quickly -- and ended almost as quickly.  Typically with someone badly hurt.
*Weapons*; yep, most real attacks aren't fair fights!  

From my personal experience and observations -- the victor in a real attack is quite often the one who struck first, hardest (including with the best weapon), and most brutally.  Fights that degenerate to a couple guys rolling on the ground are more in the category of a "friendly bar fight" or mutual combat, what Rory Miller calls the "monkey dance."  Not serious attempts to hurt someone.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 12, 2008)

Growing up I got into a lot of fights. more than 10, we'll say. Only 2 of them ever went to the ground. So in my experience, no.


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2008)

geezer said:


> Over on FMAtalk a guy justified his post with the old cliche, "...after all, most fights go to the ground" (meaning that _both _fighters end up on the ground grappling). Well that's the way it is a lot of times in UFC. And that's the way it was when I got into fights as a kid...but I was a wrestler and that's all I knew then. But when you are talking about life-or-death self defense, and not brawling "duels" fueled by alcohol and ego, I'd rather put the other guy on the ground and _stay standing _myself. Especially now that I'm in my mid fifties. I really don't want to be rolling on the pavement, grappling with a gang banger whose 30+ years my junior. I figure that I don't fight anymore, so if I do get into it, it's because I have absolutely no choice. In that case, I will try to end it quickly and get out alive.
> 
> So here's my question. When you are talking real _self-defense_...do most encounters actually go to the ground? What is the reality here?


 
IMO, that statement is a bit over rated.  I've asked this question before and was told that many of those stats, especially ones used by the Gracies, were mostly referring to LEOs, and bringing the bad guy to the ground to cuff him.  However, this isn't to say that in a street fight, it couldn't end up there, but I don't feel that is the best place, and certainly if it did end up there, the goal should be to escape and get back to your feet, instead of rolling around for 30min, trying to look for a submission.

The UFC opened the eyes of alot of people to the importance of ground work.  However, it isn't the end all, be all of SD, like it is often billed.

Mike


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 13, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Trying to extrapolate "real" street fights from police encounters and uses of force is treacherous ground.  A cop's job is to contain, control, and arrest the suspect.  For that reason, many police fights do end up on the ground.  When we take someone to the ground, we deprive them of a lot of mobility and a lot of ways to resist us while we put the cuffs on.  Sometimes, the simple fact of taking them down takes the fight out of them...
> 
> Most of the real attacks I've responded to or investigated have had a few things in common:
> *Surprise*; the victim often didn't realize the attack was coming until it was too late.
> ...



These are all good solid points from someone who has been around the block and seen some real world violence.  The initial quote of percentage that the Gracies used was from those LAPD statistics. (excellent marketing for a grappling system)  That is what LEO's generally do in violent encounters so that they can contain, control and eventually cuff someone.  Those statistics though are misleading for all real world violence.  ie. knife attack, shiv from behind, blunt object attack, sucker punch, etc.  Sure grappling can and does happen but it is not always going to happen.  *However, everyone should train in some grappling because there always is a chance in the moment that you may end up on the ground.*






  I would hate to be clueless on the ground and find myself there. :erg:


----------



## morph4me (Nov 13, 2008)

I had to fight quite a bit while growing up, and a couple of times after that. I estimate that about 20% of the time I ended up on going to the ground, and then bounced up as fast I could, it's not somewhere I want to be, because I want the ability to escape when I can and I don't want to be a sitting duck for an attackers buddies, been there, done that.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 13, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> These are all good solid points from someone who has been around the block and seen some real world violence. The initial quote of percentage that the Gracies used was from those LAPD statistics. (excellent marketing for a grappling system) That is what LEO's generally do in violent encounters so that they can contain, control and eventually cuff someone. Those statistics though are misleading for all real world violence. ie. knife attack, shiv from behind, blunt object attack, sucker punch, etc. Sure grappling can and does happen but it is not always going to happen. *However, everyone should train in some grappling because there always is a chance in the moment that you may end up on the ground.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Just to add on to that post.  It was a good marketing tool for the Gracies.  But, since most people are aware of where they got the statistic I would like to see it at least changed to "A high percentage of fights go to the ground when someone wants to take it there".

There are also two different ways to look at "going to the ground".  There is the "grappling method" which is one fighter takes down the other person down to have the fight there (To me this also includes both people clinching and then falling to the ground).  The other is one person ends up on the ground due to being struck, falling etc. and the other person stays standing and just stomps or kicks you.

In either case, you need to know how to get back up as fast and as safely as possible.  To me, the ground fighting should only be used when you CAN'T quickly get up or disengage and you have to end it right then and now.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2008)

It might be just me, but, I can't help but, think, in response to the question "Do most fights go to the ground?" Ideally, for one participant. Or, as an alternative, only if BOTH are doing it wrong.


----------



## Drac (Nov 13, 2008)

During my bouncer all the altercations I witnessed* ALL* of them went to the ground..While on duty I have been pulled off balance and down to a knee but have never wound up on the ground..


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2008)

One reason why I said that I feel that statement is over rated is because so many of the fans of MMA, BJJ, Gracie, etc., see their idols doing it, so they figure that it must be ok.  What they're not seeing is the fact that the 1 on 1 situation in the ring, may not play out the same in the real world. 

Like I said, I enjoy rolling.  Its very important to know.  But its also important to know that its not the end all be all.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 13, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I had to fight quite a bit while growing up, and a couple of times after that. I estimate that about 20% of the time I ended up on going to the ground, and then bounced up as fast I could, it's not somewhere I want to be, because I want the ability to escape when I can and I don't want to be a sitting duck for an attackers buddies, been there, done that.



Exactly.

If I'm taking a bad guy to the ground to increase my control of him -- why would you want to end up on the ground for long in a fight for your life?

Though, as Brian said, IF your training is about defending yourself, you really need SOME groundfighting skill and knowledge, for lots of reasons.


----------



## sjansen (Nov 13, 2008)

Black Belt magazine had an article on this not too long ago and it said that 70% of the time one person goes to the ground and 46% of the time both. I can't remember what month it was, but it was supposed to be a research based article. I think it had the same as the title as this thread.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 13, 2008)

I've yet to see any definitive research on the topic. 

The only thing I've ever dug up is a report done by the L.A. police concerning how many apprehensions ended up going to the ground. And even then the percentage was somewhere in the 60-70% range. 

A "fight" is much different than trying to "cuff" someone. 

LE's have rules they must follow (or at least are supposed to follow) geared toward the safety and well-being of the person they're arresting. They also have to be concerned with possible law suits. 

There are no rules in a fight or self-defense situation. 

Common sense dictates that the last place you want to be in a self-defense scenario is tied up on the ground. 

However, even if there were only a 1% chance that you would end up on the ground in a confrontation, I'd say that's reason enough to train to know what to do if you wind up in that situation. 

I think the primary difference in training ground fighting between sport and reality enthusiasts is that from a sport aspect, your goal is to jocky for a superior position and work it into a possible submission. From a reality based life or death perspective, the idea is regain one's footing as quickly as possible (the ulitmate goal being self-preservation which in many cases means doing what is necessary to leave the situation {ike running away the first chance you get!} vs adding another tick to your win column.) 

Anyway...forget the whole ground vs standing argument...bottom line is if you want to be well-rounded and prepared you should probably train all possible ranges...including the ground game.


----------



## allenjp (Nov 13, 2008)

I always find it interesting that most responses to the "ground fight" question start out with what the person WANTS to do. "I don't want to be on the ground..." Well, DUH! Of course you don't want to be rollin' around in some dude's BO. In fact, I'd bet that most of you, given your druthers, don't want to be in a violent encounter in the first place.

The problem is when you CAN'T stay on your feet. In violent encounters, often things are very off balance, and a lot of thugs tend to bumrush you, grab onto a shirt while trying to hit you etc...and it's not easy to stay standing. In fact, just ask yourself this: how many times have you seen someone fall down just because they stepped a little wrong coming off of a step or even just trip over the smallest thing on the ground and end up on their big duff? We see that stuff on America's Funniest Videos all the time. It's a lot harder to stay on one's feet in a violent encounter than some people think. And if you're against someone bigger and heavier, and stronger than you, and you end up on the ground without knowing what to do, you will be hurt very badly, or yes, even possibly killed.

As fas as the groundfighting implying mutual combat thing, I've heard a lot of people say that they won't fight unless they truly are attacked, or feel that their life is in danger. In principal I agree with this. But do you really think that it is ALWAYS practical, or even possible to avoid the average low life fight picker, who gets in your face shouting obscenities and threats? Do you think that guy is NEVER going to throw a blow at you because you haven't hit him first? And do you really think that his intent is ALWAYS to kill you? The truth is sometimes you just have to fight, or else you'll just be running whenever someone gets mildly upset at you. There are times when you have to stand your ground, and with that kind of fight, probably with an untrained attacker, odds are you may end up on the ground DESPITE your best efforts to the contrary.

I do agree that groundfighting is not the end all be all to self defense. Not even close. But if you ignore the possibilty of ground combat in ANY violent encounter you do so at your peril.

Just my .02. Ok, maybe that was .04...


----------



## allenjp (Nov 13, 2008)

Oh and BTW...

I've also heard a lot of people knock the act of "going for a submission" in a real fight. A "submission" IS NOT a move, or technique. It is the act of one opponent asking for mercy because they realize that they are about to suffer very painful or debilitating damage or even death at the hands of the person they are fighting. In sport situations, of course the requested mercy is always granted, and the fighter lets go after the "tap out". In a real fight, if I can apply a choke or joint lock on the guy, who says I am going for a "submission"? I may be getting ready to knock him out. Only my method of doing it is with a choke instead of a punch. Or I may just not let go of that kimura lock, and if I don't, once I finish it I can let go and I GUARANTEE he ain't fighting me anymore.

And about ground fights taking a long time...that is usaully only if both fighters are equally matched on the ground. Either they both don't have a clue what they are doing, or the are both good. UFC style 15 minute ground fights don't usually happen that way in a real fight. A skilled ground fighter whose opponent is not as good as him can finish his opponent VERY quickly...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2008)

What goes on in the UFC and every other MMA promotion is a sport, tactics are played out so the fight may go to the ground or not. The two fighters know the strengths and weaknesses of each and plan accordingly. their aim is to win the fight not destroy each other. How often can you say that about a fight outside the ring/cage! I do wish people would stop comparing MMA with how you would fight someone attacking you! 
that's not to say MMAers can't fight outside, they can but they won't fight the same way.

Here's a stupid pub fight filmed by a bystander.

http://www.fight-factory.co.uk/2008/11/05/lowestoft/


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 13, 2008)

RE: submission locks.

A lot of submission locks that work great in the ring, with a single opponent, leave you very vulnerable if you have several opponents because your efforts and limbs are tied up with the guy you're trying to hold.  Now, take that same lock and break the limb or choke the guy out completely, and it's a bit of a different situation...  But you still have the initial period of vulnerability.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 13, 2008)

geezer said:


> Over on FMAtalk a guy justified his post with the old cliche, "...after all, most fights go to the ground" (meaning that _both _fighters end up on the ground grappling). Well that's the way it is a lot of times in UFC. And that's the way it was when I got into fights as a kid...but I was a wrestler and that's all I knew then. But when you are talking about life-or-death self defense, and not brawling "duels" fueled by alcohol and ego, I'd rather put the other guy on the ground and _stay standing _myself. Especially now that I'm in my mid fifties. I really don't want to be rolling on the pavement, grappling with a gang banger whose 30+ years my junior.  I figure that I don't fight anymore, so if I do get into it, it's because I have absolutely no choice. In that case, I will try to end it quickly and get out alive.
> 
> So here's my question. When you are talking real _self-defense_...do most encounters actually go to the ground? What is the reality here?



My personal opinion on this has always been that mileage varies. Different situations will occur in different environments, so to have one "usually" catch all rule is BS. The MMA'ers can have the unfortunate habit of not seemingly seeing past their own rules of engagement.


----------



## allenjp (Nov 13, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> RE: submission locks.
> 
> A lot of submission locks that work great in the ring, with a single opponent, leave you very vulnerable if you have several opponents because your efforts and limbs are tied up with the guy you're trying to hold.  Now, take that same lock and break the limb or choke the guy out completely, and it's a bit of a different situation...  But you still have the initial period of vulnerability.



I understand what you are saying. But think about it: when I am in a tourney or in the ring, I apply the lock slowly, with slowly increasing pressure until I get the tap. But if instead I grab and rip as quick and violently as possible, that guy is now out of commission and I can focus on the next guy. And remember that not all "submissions" have to be performed on the ground, some can be done standing just fine. Sometimes locks and chokes can put someone out of commission a lot faster than punches can. I'm not saying it's the best way, just one way. Anytime you are fighting multiple opponents, the goal is not to be on the ground, the goal is to run! You are already at a huge disadvantage.


----------



## allenjp (Nov 13, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Here's a stupid pub fight filmed by a bystander.
> 
> http://www.fight-factory.co.uk/2008/11/05/lowestoft/


 
Uh, yep, that was stupid.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 13, 2008)

Strange. Of all the fights I had in high school, and even the resistance of the purse snatcher in the Virgin Islands, never once did it 'go to the ground'.

Do some go to the ground? Oh yea. But I really doubt 'most' go except for whomever gets decked. After all, I do want my opponent to go to the ground... and not get up!

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> My personal opinion on this has always been that mileage varies. Different situations will occur in different environments, so to have one "usually" catch all rule is BS. *The MMA'ers can have the unfortunate habit of not seemingly seeing past their own* *rules of engagement.*


*

Really? and how many MMAers have you seen fight outside the cage/ring? I can assure you that while as with TMAers there are some who are blinkered by their style the majority are not.
Why do debates like this always have to have an MMA bashing thing in them?*


----------



## Todd (Nov 14, 2008)

In the outdoors, I wonder about an awkward fall on concrete or asphalt.  Landing hard on your head, shoulder, hip, or knees could seriously injure.  There may be a curb, broken glass, or a fire hydrant to contend with.  There may be a knife, club, or multiple attackers.  Even indoors there can be objects in the room that could be very bad to fall on.  It may be extremely difficult to avoid falling in every circumstance, but it sounds like something you'd want to try very hard to avoid.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2008)

allenjp said:


> I always find it interesting that most responses to the "ground fight" question start out with what the person WANTS to do. "I don't want to be on the ground..." Well, DUH! Of course you don't want to be rollin' around in some dude's BO. In fact, I'd bet that most of you, given your druthers, don't want to be in a violent encounter in the first place.


 
On the other end of the spectrum, I find it interesting that so many people assume that there is such a high probability that it will go there.  I never knew there were so many mind readers in the world. LOL!   Of course, the reality of it, is that we don't know what will happen.



> The problem is when you CAN'T stay on your feet. In violent encounters, often things are very off balance, and a lot of thugs tend to bumrush you, grab onto a shirt while trying to hit you etc...and it's not easy to stay standing. In fact, just ask yourself this: how many times have you seen someone fall down just because they stepped a little wrong coming off of a step or even just trip over the smallest thing on the ground and end up on their big duff? We see that stuff on America's Funniest Videos all the time. It's a lot harder to stay on one's feet in a violent encounter than some people think. And if you're against someone bigger and heavier, and stronger than you, and you end up on the ground without knowing what to do, you will be hurt very badly, or yes, even possibly killed.


 
True, however, I think the difference lies between things that are unavoidable vs just wanting to go there.  Look at Royce for example.  How often did he stand and fight vs. clinching and pulling the person down?  So, yes, it is possible to end up there, but the goal IMHO should be to not stay there.



> As fas as the groundfighting implying mutual combat thing, I've heard a lot of people say that they won't fight unless they truly are attacked, or feel that their life is in danger. In principal I agree with this. But do you really think that it is ALWAYS practical, or even possible to avoid the average low life fight picker, who gets in your face shouting obscenities and threats? Do you think that guy is NEVER going to throw a blow at you because you haven't hit him first? And do you really think that his intent is ALWAYS to kill you? The truth is sometimes you just have to fight, or else you'll just be running whenever someone gets mildly upset at you. There are times when you have to stand your ground, and with that kind of fight, probably with an untrained attacker, odds are you may end up on the ground DESPITE your best efforts to the contrary.


 
Good points.  As I said above, it may happen, but the goal should be to get back to your feet, as soon as possible.



> I do agree that groundfighting is not the end all be all to self defense. Not even close. But if you ignore the possibilty of ground combat in ANY violent encounter you do so at your peril.


 
Agreed.  I for one, think that having some ground skill is key.



> Just my .02. Ok, maybe that was .04...


 
Toss in as much as you'd like.  Your opinion is always welcome.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2008)

allenjp said:


> Oh and BTW...
> 
> I've also heard a lot of people knock the act of "going for a submission" in a real fight. A "submission" IS NOT a move, or technique. It is the act of one opponent asking for mercy because they realize that they are about to suffer very painful or debilitating damage or even death at the hands of the person they are fighting. In sport situations, of course the requested mercy is always granted, and the fighter lets go after the "tap out". In a real fight, if I can apply a choke or joint lock on the guy, who says I am going for a "submission"? I may be getting ready to knock him out. Only my method of doing it is with a choke instead of a punch. Or I may just not let go of that kimura lock, and if I don't, once I finish it I can let go and I GUARANTEE he ain't fighting me anymore.


 
Perhaps I'm missing something, and forgive me if I am, but it seems to me that they are all one in the same.  Anything you do, regardless of whether or not its on the ground or standing, could be classified as a technique.  

Now, just like with a standing lock flow series, people often say that they'd never use all of those locks in the series, and yes, they're right.  Its designed to teach a flow, and give options. So, I don't look for locks, but if an arm is there, I may be able to pull off lock 6 from that series, because that is what presented itself to me.  

My thought is...sure, if that arm, leg, ankle or neck presents itself, fine, take advantage of it, but I certainly wouldn't sepcifically stay there waiting and hoping for it.  My main goal should be getting back to my feet.  




> And about ground fights taking a long time...that is usaully only if both fighters are equally matched on the ground. Either they both don't have a clue what they are doing, or the are both good. UFC style 15 minute ground fights don't usually happen that way in a real fight. A skilled ground fighter whose opponent is not as good as him can finish his opponent VERY quickly...


 
I'm sure this is true, however, to intentionally take the person there...well, I think you know my thoughts on that.   Of course, under the optimum conditions, anything is possible.  I wouldn't expect someone to take me down in a crowded bar, anymore than I'd expect someone to do a jump spinning back kick.  

In the end....I love BJJ.  I enjoy rolling, I enjoy the kick butt cardio it gives you.  I think that its very important to know the ground game, even if its the basics.  I just feel that if there are other means to finish something, why put yourself in a potentially worse position than if you were standing?


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> What goes on in the UFC and every other MMA promotion is a sport, tactics are played out so the fight may go to the ground or not. The two fighters know the strengths and weaknesses of each and plan accordingly. their aim is to win the fight not destroy each other. How often can you say that about a fight outside the ring/cage! I do wish people would stop comparing MMA with how you would fight someone attacking you!
> that's not to say MMAers can't fight outside, they can but they won't fight the same way.
> 
> Here's a stupid pub fight filmed by a bystander.
> ...


 
Not sure if you saw the full show, but I'm sure if you went to youtube, you could pull up some episodes of Fight Quest.  2 episodes come to mind, the Krav Maga and Kajukenbo.  In both, we saw two MMA fighters, Jimmy and Doug, go to the ground.  Both commented that its their instinct to take the person down, yet, when we saw Jimmy try this while sparring a guy in the Kajukenbo episode, he took an elbow to the back as he attempted a double leg, and Doug was getting overwhelmed in the Krav Maga show.

I have nothing against MMA, Jim or Doug.  I enjoyed watching them train in those shows, and IMHO, they showed a fantastic attitude.


----------



## morph4me (Nov 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Really? and how many MMAers have you seen fight outside the cage/ring? I can assure you that while as with TMAers there are some who are blinkered by their style the majority are not.
> Why do debates like this always have to have an MMA bashing thing in them?


 

I don't think it's MMA bashing Tez, I think it's not understanding that different MMA fighters have different strengths and not every MMA fighters first instinct is go go to the ground. 

People fight the way they train, so if a fighter trains to take his opponent down because he's strong on the ground, that's what he'll do in a self defense situation.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 14, 2008)

allenjp said:


> Oh and BTW...
> 
> I've also heard a lot of people knock the act of "going for a submission" in a real fight. A "submission" IS NOT a move, or technique. It is the act of one opponent asking for mercy because they realize that they are about to suffer very painful or debilitating damage or even death at the hands of the person they are fighting. In sport situations, of course the requested mercy is always granted, and the fighter lets go after the "tap out". In a real fight, if I can apply a choke or joint lock on the guy, who says I am going for a "submission"? I may be getting ready to knock him out. Only my method of doing it is with a choke instead of a punch. Or I may just not let go of that kimura lock, and if I don't, once I finish it I can let go and I GUARANTEE he ain't fighting me anymore.


 
Just to point out, now you have escalated an assault and battery (misdemeanor) to a felony.  In most states if you choke someone out or start the choke it is considered deadly force.  If you break the limb you are also committing a high end felony (states vary as to what it is called, in Michigan it would probably be an aggravated/felonious assault or even assault with intent to do great bodily harm).

To claim self-defense you have to make an attempt to get away from the situation.  Just some thoughts to consider.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 14, 2008)

Just wanted to throw in my $.02...

Now, it should be noted that I've never been in a "real" fight before (knock on wood!!), but I've seen a few.

The fights that I've seen, even with experience fighters, trained and untrained, don't look like they do in practice.  The adrenaline starts pumping and the fists start flying.  All of the fights that I've witnessed either had both fighters who were untrained or there was only 1 trained fighter.  In either case, from just watching the fight, you wouldn't be able to tell who was trained or not.

A few of the fights did end up on the ground with both individuals rolling and jockying for position and the upper hand.  Those were fights in highschool, though, and were not, technically, in a "real" situation.  What I mean is that the typical circle was formed around the 2 guys fighting and nobody was jumping in to help one or the other...not until somebody decided to break it up.  So that gave both guys time to roll...by the way, it was a terrible fight, and it was obvious that neither individual had any kind of training.

I know it's already been said in previous posts, but I think it's worth saying a few times over:  cross training in both striking and grappling arts is the best way to go.  You truly never know how a fight is going to go.  

It doesn't matter if you plan to stay on your feet the whole fight...the truth of the matter is that the other guy could trip as he's rushing you, grab your shirt and pull you off balance....any number of scenerio's could play out that result in you being on the ground.  I think everyone should at least know how to defend from the ground against an opponent standing and/or on the ground.  This should be in addition to striking abilities.

The bottom line is, what is it going to hurt to cross train?  I know there are a lot of TMAists as well as MMAists out there that fight back and forth about which is better and blah blah blah.  In my opinion, *both* striking and grappling should be required elements for anyone who chooses to train in a martial art of any description.  Weapon training should be included as well...pratical weapon training, at the very least.

Again, that's just my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I don't think it's MMA bashing Tez, *I think it's not understanding that different MMA fighters have different strengths and not every MMA fighters first instinct is go go to the ground. *
> 
> People fight the way they train, so if a fighter trains to take his opponent down because he's strong on the ground, that's what he'll do in a self defense situation.


 
 You're right, I think people make a lot of assumptions about MMA, that fights always go to ground, that the point of the fight *is *to go to ground, that fighters only train takedowns and groundwork.
People who train MMA learn very quickly to change tactics while fighting and that taking someone down or going to the ground is not always the best idea. Sometimes if your opponent is more skilled than you on the floor you will stay standing.
The trick though that every MMA fighter learns though is to train *all* skills needed. One of their best skills is adaptability and being able literally to think on their feet to be able to change the style of fighting to suit the occasion as it were! People also assume that MMA fighters are stuck in the 'rules' mode and think they will automatically, if attacked, only do what they are allowed to in a competition, this is no more true than of any MA who trains. 
When you train SD you can't destroy all your training partners so that's what you can do outside if attacked, you have to pull your punches. If you are what you train does that then mean you pull your punches when attacked? 
I've said many times that MMA is physical chess, you have to be able to think while fighting, while under huge pressure, being hit, kicked etc and that is more likely to enable you to out of trouble than a thousand different techniques perfectly practised in a school/club.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 14, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I don't think it's MMA bashing Tez, I think it's not understanding that different MMA fighters have different strengths and not every MMA fighters first instinct is go go to the ground.
> 
> People fight the way they train, so if a fighter trains to take his opponent down because he's strong on the ground, that's what he'll do in a self defense situation.


I agree; I didn't read Zeeberex's post as bashing MMA, but simply commenting on what he's seen in the MMA fighters talking about self defense.

I think the reality is that a street fight just has too many dynamics to draw a simple rule and say "most go/don't go to the ground."  A very common tactic is some variant of grab & pound, whether that's a head lock and uppercuts, knocking 'em down and kicking 'em in the ribs & head, holding a shirt or arm while punching, or whatever.

A realistic approach to preparing for a real fight requires learning how to deal with 3 situations: both fighters on their feet; one fighter up, one down; and both down.  The exact way you deal with each situation depends on your training and your choice of style and tactics.  Me?  If I'm down, my actions are generally oriented around getting back to my feet as fast as I can.  Someone else may validly wait for their attacker to close in, and then bring them down...


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Why do debates like this always have to have an MMA bashing thing in them?



Why does it have to be bashing? It's a legitimate argument based on the statement in the first post or so, stating "Fights usually go to the ground", a biased remark made by an MMAer. Ie: A practicioner of a style that emphasizes ground work. The bias in the person's statement is obvious. Ground fighting is as legitimate as anything else, but to generalize such as that statement ignores a myriad of potential variables, and shows a limited point of view.

It's not bashing, just a simple observation.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 14, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I agree; I didn't read Zeeberex's post as bashing MMA, but simply commenting on what he's seen in the MMA fighters talking about self defense.



And thats all I meant


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Why does it have to be bashing? It's a legitimate argument based on the statement in the first post or so, stating "Fights usually go to the ground", a biased remark made by an MMAer. Ie: A practicioner of a *style that emphasizes ground work*. The bias in the person's statement is obvious. Ground fighting is as legitimate as anything else, but to generalize such as that statement ignores a myriad of potential variables, and shows a limited point of view.
> 
> It's not bashing, just a simple observation.


 

I didn't read the OP as an MMAer, he merely said 'that's what happens in UFC', if anything he's a fan of UFC. I certainly didn't see the OP as being biased, he was asking a question.
I would dispute that MMA is a style that emphasises groundwork, it includes groundwork along with a great deal of standup, the mix done correctly should be 50/50. The title Mixed Martial Arts says it all, it's not BJJ which does emphasis groundwork even though many BJJ classes will also teach striking and SD.


----------



## zDom (Nov 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't read the OP as an MMAer, he merely said 'that's what happens in UFC', if anything he's a fan of UFC. I certainly didn't see the OP as being biased, he was asking a question.
> I would dispute that MMA is a style that emphasises groundwork, it includes groundwork along with a great deal of standup, the mix done correctly should be 50/50. The title Mixed Martial Arts says it all, it's not BJJ which does emphasis groundwork even though many BJJ classes will also teach striking and SD.



From what I've seen (UFC, local-level MMA matches) it seems that MMA fighters (in general, not always) have solid ground skills &#8212; on par, say, with a good judoka or wrestler.

Their striking, on the other hand, to me usually appears to be a bit below par &#8212; not keeping eyes on target; beginner-level kicks, lack of timing (i.e. both guys flailing at the same time instead of slipping and picking a shot).

Again, there are exceptions &#8212; there are SOME good strikers. I'm just saying that it seems to ME that they are putting more eggs in the takedown+ground&pound basket than the avoiding takedown/precision striking basket.

Agree? Disagree?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2008)

zDom said:


> From what I've seen (UFC, local-level MMA matches) it seems that MMA fighters (in general, not always) have solid ground skills  on par, say, with a good judoka or wrestler.
> 
> Their striking, on the other hand, to me usually appears to be a bit below par  not keeping eyes on target; beginner-level kicks, lack of timing (i.e. both guys flailing at the same time instead of slipping and picking a shot).
> 
> ...


 

I think we have a cultural difference lol. Here our emphasis is more on striking because most of our fighters are standup people, TKD, karate or MT who've learnt ground skills. We don't have a tradition of wrestling you have so if ours are ground specialists they will be from Judo or BJJ and for some reason more stand up people go into MMA than ground guys. There are good No Gi grappling comps and fighters here which of course means no striking, they don't tend to filter so much into MMA. We have a guy who has done Olympic wrestling but he's from Iran ( I believe they have a big tradition of wrestling) but I can't think of any UK guy who came from wrestling.
The really good thing is that the up and coming teenagers are now well rounded in all skills.


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Nov 14, 2008)

I would have to say that most of the fights I've been in have gone to the ground.  Maybe *30%* have remained standing up.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2008)

JadeDragon3 said:


> I would have to say that most of the fights I've been in have gone to the ground. Maybe *30%* have remained standing up.


 
How many though, intended it to go to ground? Alcohol plays a large part in violent encounters and I think is also responsible for the fact that many protagonists end up on the floor.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

geezer said:


> Over on FMAtalk a guy justified his post with the old cliche, "...after all, most fights go to the ground" (meaning that _both _fighters end up on the ground grappling). Well that's the way it is a lot of times in UFC. And that's the way it was when I got into fights as a kid...but I was a wrestler and that's all I knew then. But when you are talking about life-or-death self defense, and not brawling "duels" fueled by alcohol and ego, I'd rather put the other guy on the ground and _stay standing _myself. Especially now that I'm in my mid fifties. I really don't want to be rolling on the pavement, grappling with a gang banger whose 30+ years my junior. I figure that I don't fight anymore, so if I do get into it, it's because I have absolutely no choice. In that case, I will try to end it quickly and get out alive.
> 
> So here's my question. When you are talking real _self-defense_...do most encounters actually go to the ground? What is the reality here?


 
Geezer,

In my experience, when I was facing 4 or more it went to ground as I could not stop the mass of taking me down or knocking me down. But I got up. To say that everyone out there is a good wrestler is saying too much. But it happens.

But in self defense with one or two or even three, it started with me standing end almost always ended with me standing. I hit hard and often, and use standing grappling to place the opponent into positions to thei bodies and head meet solid objects such as walls, cars, ground, etcetera. 


It happens. It should not be ignored. It should be reviewed, but does not require being an expert in grounf fighting. 


If you want to scare someone, take a training knife with you into a grappling situation and pull it. See how fast it all breaks down, and even if the person is really good, they are not used to dealing with that type of weapon on the ground. 

Thanks


----------



## zDom (Nov 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I think we have a cultural difference lol. Here our emphasis is more on striking because most of our fighters are standup people, TKD, karate or MT who've learnt ground skills. We don't have a tradition of wrestling you have so if ours are ground specialists they will be from Judo or BJJ and for some reason more stand up people go into MMA than ground guys.



I think you are correct. I seem to recall Bispin as being one of the better strikers I've seen in the UFC, for example.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2008)

zDom said:


> I think you are correct. I seem to recall Bisping as being one of the better strikers I've seen in the UFC, for example.


 
Yeah, he's not bad lol, He's TKD and kickboxing. Rosi Sexton is TKD, Neal Grove is karate ( blackbelt still trains karate)
Look out for this one in the States
http://www.knucklepit.com/mixed-martial-arts-paul_daley.htm
And Dan Hardy just signed to UFC. In his biog it says what I've been saying, groundwork tends to be the weaker of the guys here's disciplines. 
http://www.danhardymma.com/?pid=57

I think the TKD people will be pleased! many of ours come from that style.


----------



## geezer (Nov 14, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> Geezer,
> 
> In my experience, when I was facing 4 or more it went to ground... But in self defense with one or two or even three, it started with me standing end almost always ended with me standing...


 
What the h***! You have multiple experiences fighting "4 or more" as compared to only "two or even three" opponents. Are we talking real fights here, not just dojo sparring. Because if we are, I gotta hear the rest of the story!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2008)

geezer said:


> What the h***! You have multiple experiences fighting "4 or more" as compared to only "two or even three" opponents. Are we talking real fights here, not just dojo sparring. Because if we are, I gotta hear the rest of the story!


 

Geezer,

Stories. Plural. It was a miss spent youth of bouncing to help pay for college. Computer Programming paid $2.75 and hour and then $3.35 an hour. While Bouncing manytimes paid $6 to $10 an hour and many times under the table, but even for those one off gigs that did pay cash, most that paid in check and took taxes was twice as much as a programming job through the college co-op.

Central Michigan Football team - Most of the Front Line and starting backs

6 guys looking to hit one of my female employees 

A random fight or two

The standard Friday Night Fall Fight where a group of guys show up looking to have fun. 

The Mash Pit at an event, where they were on purpose targeting the security

and a few more. 

But the short, of the answer, is that it might start with one it soon has many. Some knew who to move together, while other times they just were a mob and no coordinating moves.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 14, 2008)

I wonder if there's ever been a real survey done to see how many fights really go to the ground. That would be interesting. Right now, the OP question can only really be answered speculatively, and through anecdotal evidence. 

Plus in my experience, roughly 78.2345% of statistics are totally made up. (even this one!)

But going to the ground is counter-intuitive to self defense. Who really wants to go to the ground when there's a knife in the mix? A gun? You can get stabbed or shot without ever seeing what got you. What then?
How about if there are multiple guys? You don't have time to grapple then. Even standing grappling should be done as little as possible.

I just did a class about bear hugs from behind. I wanted to see what my students would come with. One of my students is very strong, and given enough time can just muscle out of the bear hug by dropping and lifting the opponent's arms. But I threw him for a loop when I started asking him these questions:

1)What kind of guy would be trying to put you in a bear hug? Smaller than you, or bigger?

And

2) Why is the guy puttin you in a bear hug in the first place? What's his objective?


That stopped the whole class. 


When they started thinking on these terms, they realized that usually it would be a guy bigger than you, and he's either going to be trying to pull you somewhere or hold you down for another personto attack you.

This drastically changed everyone's response, naturally.



I think that rings true in ground fighting, too. Obviously, if you go to the ground and don't know what to do, you're toast. So you need ground fighting knowledge and experience. But in real situations I and others have been in, mobility is a high-value commodity. If I'm only fighting one guy and he tries to take the fight to the ground, it's in my best interest to let him. He can take the fight to the ground all he wants. I however, will stay on my feet and pummel him from above. 

Keep in mind I spent many years as a grappler and wrestler.

If there's a weapon involved, or more than one person, I just can't imagine a situation where me being on the ground can possibly be a good thing.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 14, 2008)

Some good points coming out of the mix, ladies and gentlemen.  

My own personal experiences are far too slender for me to speak with authority on the matter but the anecdotes of those who have 'seen the elephant', sometimes as part of their profession, have been most enlightening.


----------



## allenjp (Nov 14, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> Just to point out, now you have escalated an assault and battery (misdemeanor) to a felony.  In most states if you choke someone out or start the choke it is considered deadly force.  If you break the limb you are also committing a high end felony (states vary as to what it is called, in Michigan it would probably be an aggravated/felonious assault or even assault with intent to do great bodily harm).
> 
> To claim self-defense you have to make an attempt to get away from the situation.  Just some thoughts to consider.



Are you an LEO? If so, in what state? I am a court employee in CA. and I work with assault cases daily in open court and closely with both prosecuters and defense attorneys (and defendants, witnesses, victims) you name it.

The laws in CA. are not what you describe. Breaking a limb or STARTING a choke are not considered deadly force. Great Bodily Injury yes, (depending on how far you go with the choke) but not deadly force. Usually for deadly force there has to be a weapon involved, and that weapon must be used in a way that is "likely to produce death". (In other words you can't be charged with deadly force if you hit someone with a bat in the leg, but if you hit them in the head you can)

And you DO NOT have to make an attempt to escape in CA. You have the right to stand your ground, you just can't be the one to throw the first blow. And you better have a witness who will say that you didn't throw the first blow. 

Use of deadly force is justified if a reasonable person in the same situation would feel in fear that they were about to suffer death OR great bodily injury (which can be a broken arm etc...) Being attacked by multiple opponents is enough to justify deadly force in most cases...at least in CA. 

I would not break the limb of just one person fighting with me unless I was really convinced that he would kill me after I let go of him.

So, if I was attacked by multiple BG's, I would have no fear of the law over putting one guy out of commission quickly so that I could more effectively face the others. Even if I were to get in trouble...better to be tried by twelve than...well, you know the rest.


----------



## Bodhisattva (Nov 14, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> How many though, intended it to go to ground? Alcohol plays a large part in violent encounters and I think is also responsible for the fact that many protagonists end up on the floor.



Alcohol is not a necessary element for fights to go to the ground.

Fights go to the ground because there are three ways to fight - separated, clinched, or prone.

Groundfighting is a necessary skill.


----------



## Glycerine0160 (Nov 14, 2008)

Look

If you have two inexperienced fighters, it probably will go to the ground unless someone takes a good punch (by chance) but if some guy is taking a few hits and he knows it, he is going to tackle. its his only option because he obviously isn't winning it standing.

When you are talking experienced fighters I cannot see this happening. I presume it depends on your art/skill too. As a novice JKD user, I would only close real close when I am ready to finish. If a guy tackled me, it's possible he might get me. We go over drills to avoid it, but I think he would by pass this and I would be left with my wrestling instincts. That would be to thrust my hips into his head and slam his head into the floor.
If he did get me on the ground, I will rip his balls off or gouge out his eyes.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 15, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Alcohol is not a necessary element for fights to go to the ground.
> 
> Fights go to the ground because there are three ways to fight - separated, clinched, or prone.
> 
> Groundfighting is a necessary skill.


 

Just about every fight or altercation I deal with is caused by alcohol, that's what I meant, the fights are fuels by alcohol. Its not the reason they go to ground.


----------



## myusername (Nov 15, 2008)

TMA's and pure stand up striking arts have been unfairly over criticised and belittled in the recent past (one particular BS website springs to mind!) Obviously this is complete nonsense as some one in this thread has correctly pointed out all fights start standing up! However, the danger with this situation is that in an effort to defend ones self and art one can end up polarising oneself and moving to the other end of the spectrum by over criticising ground fighting and grappling arts. 

Just as many grapplers make assumptions that striking arts are some how unable to adapt to the street situation and assume that the striker will always be attempting high spinning head kicks rather than using powerful limb shattering strikes, knees and elbows, bites and gouges it is clear to me that some strikers seem to assume that the grapplers are unable to adapt to the street situation and will always be looking for a complicated leg lock or hold and, for some inexplicable reason, would not want to get up on their feet and run as soon as they can, rather than using powerful fast joint breaks, knees and elbows and bites and gouges!

I really don't think it matters if most fights go to the ground or not. What matters to me is that it is a possibility. I think most sensible people would agree it is not the place you want to be and no matter what your system is, striking or grappling, you need to adapt your training to this situation and use what ever means or techniques that enable you to get back on your feet and escape as quickly as possible.

Being a bit of a fan I always like to throw in a relevant article by my chief jujutsu instructor Kevin O'Hagan! Here are two on adapting grappling arts to the street situation....

http://www.kevinohagan.com/Webpages/Pages/Articles_Grappling_Realistic.htm

http://www.kevinohagan.com/Webpages/Pages/Articles_Grappling_Combat.htm


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 15, 2008)

myusername said:


> TMA's and pure stand up striking arts have been unfairly over criticised and belittled in the recent past (one particular BS website springs to mind!) Obviously this is complete nonsense as some one in this thread has correctly pointed out all fights start standing up! However, the danger with this situation is that in an effort to defend ones self and art one can end up polarising oneself and moving to the other end of the spectrum by over criticising ground fighting and grappling arts.
> 
> Just as many grapplers make assumptions that striking arts are some how unable to adapt to the street situation and assume that the striker will always be attempting high spinning head kicks rather than using powerful limb shattering strikes, knees and elbows, bites and gouges it is clear to me that some strikers seem to assume that the grapplers are unable to adapt to the street situation and will always be looking for a complicated leg lock or hold and, for some inexplicable reason, would not want to get up on their feet and run as soon as they can, rather than using powerful fast joint breaks, knees and elbows and bites and gouges!
> 
> ...


 


Good post and good articles!!! I've heard a lot about Kevin O'Hagan, all good I should add!
My instructor also comes from Bristol, must be something in the water down there lol! It's Angrrr Management country too, I've trying to come down for the next one.


----------



## MattJ (Nov 18, 2008)

OP - 

Do most fights really go to the ground? These studies seem to say yes, although not to the 90% level that has been claimed before:

http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html

http://jiujitsu365.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/do-most-fights-go-to-the-ground-research-i-conducted/


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 18, 2008)

MattJ said:


> OP -
> 
> Do most fights really go to the ground? These studies seem to say yes, although not to the 90% level that has been claimed before:
> 
> ...


I don't have time at the moment to read each article closely -- but the first is really a reference back to the orginal LEO related research, and another study/poll that took place at a CalibrePress Street Survival (a law enforcement seminar) class.  So, it's really still looking at LE fights, not "regular" fights -- with an inherent bias I discussed earlier. 

The second is interesting, in that it looked at YouTube videos of fights to try to answer the questions -- but I question the validity of the sample using YouTube videos.  How many real acts of violence, rather than staged matches, are filmed?


----------



## zDom (Nov 19, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> How many real acts of violence, rather than staged matches, are filmed?



Hard to claim "self defense" if you have a guy following you around with a camera to get footage of you fighting.

On the other hand, as the quality of security cams goes up and the price comes down, I think we will be seeing more and more footage of violence captured  for example, look at all the "store clerk fights of a robber" clips that we've seen on the news in the last year or so.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 19, 2008)

zDom said:


> Hard to claim "self defense" if you have a guy following you around with a camera to get footage of you fighting.
> 
> On the other hand, as the quality of security cams goes up and the price comes down, I think we will be seeing more and more footage of violence captured  for example, look at all the "store clerk fights of a robber" clips that we've seen on the news in the last year or so.


 
Don't forget that some people just carry the things around, as weird as that is...also, cellphones can record video...don't want to count those out.


----------



## MattJ (Nov 19, 2008)

jks9199 - 



jks9199 said:


> So, it's really still looking at LE fights, not "regular" fights -- with an inherent bias I discussed earlier.


 
I don't see the difference. LE fights are not "real"? You may wish to read the article a bit closer, as it notes that a good deal of the time _the perp is taking the officer down_ - negating your 'control' argument. 



> The second is interesting, in that it looked at YouTube videos of fights to try to answer the questions -- but I question the validity of the sample using YouTube videos. How many real acts of violence, rather than staged matches, are filmed?


 
What do you mean by staged? Again, you seem to want to parse the meaning of 'real' quite a bit. A fight is still a fight, even if the participants agree to _some_ terms ie; "Meet me outside, MFR!" and the like. Unless you are strictly counting blind assaults?


----------



## zDom (Nov 19, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> Don't forget that some people just carry the things around, as weird as that is...also, cellphones can record video...don't want to count those out.



True, and as more and more people DO start carrying cameras around, be it small vid cameras or phones with vid capability, we will be seeing more and more violence captured on video.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 19, 2008)

MattJ said:


> jks9199 -
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the difference. LE fights are not "real"? You may wish to read the article a bit closer, as it notes that a good deal of the time _the perp is taking the officer down_ - negating your 'control' argument.


I know exactly how real a law enforcement officer's fight is -- but there is an inherent bias in the tactics chosen.  When we cops fight someone, we are generally seeking to control and arrest the person, not simply escape or do harm to them.  That shapes the tactics, strategies, and methodologies used.  



> What do you mean by staged? Again, you seem to want to parse the meaning of 'real' quite a bit. A fight is still a fight, even if the participants agree to _some_ terms ie; "Meet me outside, MFR!" and the like. Unless you are strictly counting blind assaults?



A boxing match or MMA fight is a "real" fight in the sense that the two fighters are going out to hurt each other, within the rules of the game.  But I'm distinguishing many street fights from violent assualts for a very simply reason:  they ARE different.  Rory Miller coined an excellent term to describe many fights, the Monkey Dance.  They're about demonstrating and proving status, not as much about harming the other person.  And, when there's no status at risk, there won't be a Monkey Dance.  A violent attack is all about harming the other person; it may be a means to an end like rape or robbery, or it may be plain cussed evilness and all about inflicting harm on the other person.  In any case, a violent assault is almost invariable viciously violent, faster than anyone expects, and will frequently use weapons, numbers, and/or surprise to gain and advantage over the victim.  

Many of the YouTube fight videos depict backyard boxing and similar events; these are really categories of Monkey Dances in my opinion.  Some videos available on the internet do indeed depict attacks, from various sources.  A few that purport to depict "real attacks" are, when you consider the clarity and convenience that underlie the filming and outcome, almost certainly staged events for the camera.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 19, 2008)

If you want to watch real fights on UTube the best bet would be to look for CCTV footage if any is posted up. Most of our big cities and towns have CCTV, if you can watch the fights etc you'll see why we have it. people say it's infringing human rights but when you watch how quickly altercations can turn into very nasty violence you see why we need to be able to get police officers to the scene fast. 
It's educational watching CCTV footage, you can see how the fights start, who joins in, who's egging people on, what weapons they use and how they fight. You can also watch how the police deal with situations. If you can find any videos do watch them.


----------



## SamT (Nov 19, 2008)

I've recieved a bit of BJJ training, and honestly, if I knew more, I would be taking people down to the ground, it's much easier to control them down there.


----------



## MattJ (Nov 19, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I know exactly how real a law enforcement officer's fight is -- but there is an inherent bias in the tactics chosen. When we cops fight someone, we are generally seeking to control and arrest the person, not simply escape or do harm to them. That shapes the tactics, strategies, and methodologies used.


 
I take it you did not read my post. The perps are the ones taking _the officers_ down. Please read. 





> Many of the YouTube fight videos depict backyard boxing and similar events; these are really categories of Monkey Dances in my opinion. Some videos available on the internet do indeed depict attacks, from various sources. A few that purport to depict "real attacks" are, when you consider the clarity and convenience that underlie the filming and outcome, almost certainly staged events for the camera.


 
All well and good, but the Monkey Dances are still fights, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. Them being staged or not does not mean the violence is any less real - it just means that one party wanted to film it. You haven't seen gang-fights on Youtube? You don't think those are real?


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 20, 2008)

I wonder if you realise how 'snippy' the tone of your posting is, *Matt*?  

I'm assuming that you don't mean to sound so rude, especially as you're not a newly signed up member.  A little tact can go a long way .


----------



## MJS (Nov 20, 2008)

I think we should look at this from 2 different view points.  First, from the LEO standpoint and the second from the civilian viewpoint.  Now, regardless of which one, in either case, I don't feel that being on the ground, especially for an extended period of time, is wise and I don't think that I should have to list the reasons why.

For the LEO, regardless of how he got there, either by taking the bad guy down or being pulled down, the idea is to control the bad guy.  Also keep in mind that the bad guy is probably going to be trying very hard to reach for the LEOs weapon.  I would think that at that point, getting up is more important then staying on the ground.

The the average Joe who is in a fight...like I said, learn some basics, and try to get back to a standing position.  If a submission presents itself, and you feel confident in taking it, fine, but I would not stay there on purpose just for that goal.

And I know this always comes up in these discussions, and both sides of the fence argue their point, but I feel that the environment should also dictate what we do/don't do.  I havent seen a BJJ fight yet, where someone that is in the circle around the people fighting, jumps in to help.  That is a mutual agreement.  Yet in the real world, there is nothing to stop someone from joining in, kicking your head, punching you, or doing anything else.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 20, 2008)

MattJ said:


> I take it you did not read my post. The perps are the ones taking _the officers_ down. Please read.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think you're overthinking everything.  The title of the thread is "Do most fights really go to the ground?"....

The simple truth is that controlling an opponent in a 1 on 1 situation is much easier on the ground, provided that you have training in a grappling art.  There is less room to move, less move to run, and gravity has already taken effect.

If you are looking at facing more than one opponent, then going to the ground can still be an option, although it probably would be wise to not stay down for long.

Whether the fight is real, staged, completely fake, an MMA event, etc....the fact of the matter is that fights can and do go to the ground.  The best solution that I can think of is to be prepared for it if and when it happens.


----------



## MattJ (Nov 20, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I wonder if you realise how 'snippy' the tone of your posting is, *Matt*?
> 
> I'm assuming that you don't mean to sound so rude, especially as you're not a newly signed up member. A little tact can go a long way .


 
How am I being rude, *Sukerkin*? jks9199  _admitted_ not reading the studies I linked, and then completely ignored the point I tried to make in response, even though I highlighted it in my post. I did say "please read".

Brandon - I am confused. Were you directing your response to me? All I did was supply some studies - I haven't even given my opinion on grappling.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 20, 2008)

MattJ said:


> How am I being rude, *Sukerkin*? jks9199 _admitted_ not reading the studies I linked, and then completely ignored the point I tried to make in response, even though I highlighted it in my post. I did say "please read".
> 
> Brandon - I am confused. Were you directing your response to me? All I did was supply some studies - I haven't even given my opinion on grappling.


 
Yes, my response was directed at you.  Thank you for your links that you supplied, there is helpful information included in them. 

I'm not discussing anyone else's opinion on grappling...I'm merely stating my own opinion.  I'm saying that whether most fights go to the ground or not, it's best to be prepared in case they do.

And I agree with Sukerkin...try wording your responses in a "nicer tone".  There are better ways to get your point across.


----------



## MattJ (Nov 20, 2008)

Brandon - 

How am I over-thinking things when I haven't given an opinion? Everyone seems more concerned with my tone than the content of my original post. I simply let the studies stand for themselves.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 20, 2008)

MattJ said:


> Brandon -
> 
> How am I over-thinking things when I haven't given an opinion? *Everyone seems more concerned with my tone than the content of my original post.* I simply let the studies stand for themselves.


 
Because the tone puts off people reading anymore. If they believe you are being snippy with them they won't engage in further discussion and it kills the thread stone dead.


----------



## morph4me (Nov 20, 2008)

Can we please get this thread back on track.


----------



## zDom (Nov 20, 2008)

SamT said:


> I've recieved a bit of BJJ training, and honestly, if I knew more, I would be taking people down to the ground, it's much easier to control them down there.



While I think being *prepared* in case the fight goes to the ground is critical, intentionally taking it there would be a BIG mistake around here (where I live).

Around here (southeast Missouri) it almost ALWAYS escalates into multiple attackers. Not a matter of IF, a matter of WHEN.

And if they see you rolling around on the ground, they see it as an easy opportunity for free shots, as opposed to a guy on his feet who just dropped their buddy &#8212; that tends to discourage them.

Also, have you ever rolled around on concrete or even asphalt? Not fun. Even if the falls don't hurt or cause injury, abrasions are VERY painful (third only to childbirth and burns, if I recall correctly).


----------



## eggg1994 (Dec 4, 2010)

i take brazilian jiu jitsu and that 90 to 95% of all fights going to the ground is actually true because that's where most fights end up after they get in the clinch. i am an orange belt in bjj and if we go to the ground in bjj we are tought how to get back up on our feet properly. and no we don't pull guard or fall to the ground looking for all those submission's because that would just be plain stupied. we do ground work in my art but we also learn how to take the fight to the ground and then securing a joint lock or choke hold. too many people get confused with sport bjj and the self defence bjj. we also throw our attacker to the ground and either strike him or joint lock him. i have alot of background's i tried karate but didn't like it. i tried aikido but we didn't learn much joint locks and finally im in bjj which i found out was a very effective self defence art. now i train in a mixed martial arts self defence class
which i have expanded my self defence knowledge faster then in my bjj class. im still taking jiu jitsu but im also taking kickboxing not contact but shadowboxing which i think is pritty fun. im also a student assistent instructor in the kids class i work on their bjj skills and i help my instructors teach the techniques to them along with other assistent student instructors around me.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 4, 2010)

eggg1994 said:


> i take brazilian jiu jitsu and that 90 to 95% of all fights going to the ground is actually true because that's where most fights end up after they get in the clinch. i am an orange belt in bjj and if we go to the ground in bjj we are tought how to get back up on our feet properly. and no we don't pull guard or fall to the ground looking for all those submission's because that would just be plain stupied. we do ground work in my art but we also learn how to take the fight to the ground and then securing a joint lock or choke hold. too many people get confused with sport bjj and the self defence bjj. we also throw our attacker to the ground and either strike him or joint lock him. i have alot of background's i tried karate but didn't like it. i tried aikido but we didn't learn much joint locks and finally im in bjj which i found out was a very effective self defence art. now i train in a mixed martial arts self defence class
> which i have expanded my self defence knowledge faster then in my bjj class. im still taking jiu jitsu but im also taking kickboxing not contact but shadowboxing which i think is pritty fun. im also a student assistent instructor in the kids class i work on their bjj skills and i help my instructors teach the techniques to them along with other assistent student instructors around me.


Sorry -- but that's inaccurate.  I'm not going to rehash everything in this thread, but those figures came from a study of POLICE encounters which often go to the ground as a control measure, and have a different objective (control, subdue, and arrest the person) from self defense.


----------



## billc (Dec 5, 2010)

Try rolling around on Gravel.  That  wouldn't be any fun at all.  What happens if you fall on a sidewalk that is all broken up or half on a curb and half off.  Against multiple attackers being on the ground could be a bad place to be.    Multiple attackers kicking you when you are down there could really hurt.  Some people might kick at the head.  Getting punched in the head is no fun, getting kicked in the head when you are immoblile on the ground could be a lot worse.  Running is a good plan though.


----------



## Brother John (Dec 5, 2010)

The way I see it, I don't care that much about percentages. In my line of work as a corrections officer and in the years I spent as a bouncer in a college town "Club", I've been in and seen a great many fights and scrapes go down. Fighting is manifest chaos and beyond most quantifiable aspects. Fights happen when you're standing, seated, on the ground, from the back, multiple people, weapons (improvised and not).....You NEVER Know.  IF you train to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones, don't exclude anything. Train for it ALL. Ground is just one aspect, and one that's gained a lot of air time due to the popularity of fighting sports. The UFC/PRIDE/K1........whatever else, are FUN to watch....I'm an enthusiast myself!! They've also opened many eyes to the need to be well versed in many things!  But they're a sport, plain and simple. The chaos factors are taken out to a large extent, as they should be. REAL combat can't be adequately compared to any other thing. I personally think that anyone that says differently is THEORIZING. 

Your Brother
John


----------



## elder999 (Dec 5, 2010)

EVen in MMA, in bouts where one opponent is clearly _trying_ to go to the ground, *all fights do not* "go to the ground."

Pereira used to say about the streets of the Bronx,"_You see the crap that's down there? Broken glass, gum, cigarette butts, needles, dog ****! You don't wanna be down there....and what if he has friends?_"

Good to train for it, and to train to _avoid_ it. It's kind of hard to run once you've pulled full guard.....:lol:


----------



## Hudson69 (Dec 5, 2010)

This is based off of my LEO experience and is a little off track: When police have to take somebody into custody it will often end up on the ground but now adays that is the end of the fight; at least for my current agency and my past one.  The ending up on the ground part is the handcuffing that takes place after the H2H portion.

It did use to be par for the course to just grab, pull, pile on top.  That has been changing in Colorado for at least the last 10 years or so.  It is a safety issue to try and wrestle somebody to the ground.  Too many people are into UFC/MMA type fighting and have at least the concept behind ground fighting (the probably isnt a majority of the population but why risk it).

My last agency got POST approval to develop our (I retired from there so I still say "our") own system of Defensive Tactics and I was lucky enough to be an instructor.  Ground fighting is a significant portion of it but not the goal; being a ground fighter, and the system itself got much more tactically "agressive."  

We now do not have to wait to get punched to respond to an aggressive situation: yelling, threatening, disregarding (lawful) commands, balling fists, pacing and more, if the situation warrants can lead to the Officer initiating hands on.  A lot of it is mental.

It is a very good system but now I have to deal with PPCT which seems to be based more around liability (CYA for the agency) than Agent/Officer safety...


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 5, 2010)

Brother John said:


> The way I see it, I don't care that much about percentages. In my line of work as a corrections officer and in the years I spent as a bouncer in a college town "Club", I've been in and seen a great many fights and scrapes go down. Fighting is manifest chaos and beyond most quantifiable aspects. Fights happen when you're standing, seated, on the ground, from the back, multiple people, weapons (improvised and not).....You NEVER Know.  IF you train to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones, don't exclude anything. Train for it ALL. Ground is just one aspect, and one that's gained a lot of air time due to the popularity of fighting sports. The UFC/PRIDE/K1........whatever else, are FUN to watch....I'm an enthusiast myself!! They've also opened many eyes to the need to be well versed in many things!  But they're a sport, plain and simple. The chaos factors are taken out to a large extent, as they should be. REAL combat can't be adequately compared to any other thing. I personally think that anyone that says differently is THEORIZING.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Great points.  The percentages were latched onto by the Gracies as part of promoting BJJ.  I'm not knocking BJJ -- it's an effective ground fighting system, and they've generally done a great job maintaining standards even as they hyped and promoted it heavily.  But they most definitely are about promoting their system, too.


----------



## MJS (Dec 5, 2010)

eggg1994 said:


> i take brazilian jiu jitsu and that 90 to 95% of all fights going to the ground is actually true because that's where most fights end up after they get in the clinch. i am an orange belt in bjj and if we go to the ground in bjj we are tought how to get back up on our feet properly. and no we don't pull guard or fall to the ground looking for all those submission's because that would just be plain stupied. we do ground work in my art but we also learn how to take the fight to the ground and then securing a joint lock or choke hold. too many people get confused with sport bjj and the self defence bjj. we also throw our attacker to the ground and either strike him or joint lock him. i have alot of background's i tried karate but didn't like it. i tried aikido but we didn't learn much joint locks and finally im in bjj which i found out was a very effective self defence art. now i train in a mixed martial arts self defence class
> which i have expanded my self defence knowledge faster then in my bjj class. im still taking jiu jitsu but im also taking kickboxing not contact but shadowboxing which i think is pritty fun. im also a student assistent instructor in the kids class i work on their bjj skills and i help my instructors teach the techniques to them along with other assistent student instructors around me.


 
There're orange belts in BJJ?  Anyways, no, sorry, I have to agree with those that've said it before...the 95% stats apply to certain groups only, not everyone.  I've got nothing against BJJ, as I've done it myself.  I would put BJJ in the same tool box that I put everything else in.  There's a time and a place for everything.


----------



## Steve (Dec 5, 2010)

MJS said:


> There're orange belts in BJJ?


Kids typically rank White -> Yellow -> Orange -> Green -> Blue.


----------



## kungfu penguin (Dec 5, 2010)

i know i hit someone once and they went to the ground [unconcious]  but i would say it is closer  to 65-35 [65 going to the ground] in my experiences


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 5, 2010)

Whereas in my experience, it is 100% not 'going to the ground'.  

If we could pool all the experiences of the people here at MT, that might approach being a statistically significant sample; tho' even that is doubtful, especially as most people who train as martial artists learn the prmary principle of avoiding having a fight in the first place .


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 6, 2010)

BJJ is fun but the ground is the last place I want to be if things get ugly.

Backyard fighting and "duels" go to the ground a lot. Real situations, not so much.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 8, 2010)

geezer said:


> Over on FMAtalk a guy justified his post with the old cliche, "...after all, most fights go to the ground" (meaning that _both _fighters end up on the ground grappling). Well that's the way it is a lot of times in UFC. And that's the way it was when I got into fights as a kid...but I was a wrestler and that's all I knew then. But when you are talking about life-or-death self defense, and not brawling "duels" fueled by alcohol and ego, I'd rather put the other guy on the ground and _stay standing _myself. Especially now that I'm in my mid fifties. I really don't want to be rolling on the pavement, grappling with a gang banger whose 30+ years my junior. I figure that I don't fight anymore, so if I do get into it, it's because I have absolutely no choice. In that case, I will try to end it quickly and get out alive.
> 
> So here's my question. When you are talking real _self-defense_...do most encounters actually go to the ground? What is the reality here?


 
Without putting a number on it, from my experience, most fights where BOTH parties are actively engaged, often do end up on the ground in some fashion..........either both parties going to the ground, or one ending up on the ground, while the other kicks, stomps, etc.

Many of the reasons things go to the ground, however, vary.....some folks do purposely take things to the ground, but more often, in my experience, they end up there becaise they got knocked to the ground by a punch.....or ended up there as a resulting of accidentally tripping over something in the environment, such as a water meter lid, a trash can or the curb. The chaotic environmental situation of a 'street fight' often comes in to play........it's hard to fight in a yard full of debris without tripping.

Then the question becomes do they stay on the ground? Again, this varies......quite often fights will go the ground more than once over the course of a fight, with the party ending up the ground scrambling to their feet to the continue the fight.

Moreover, most fights are rather mobile affairs, with one party retreating, and another advancing, and considerable ground may be covered in a running fight.

Now, of course, if one person is far more skilled and/or physically larger and/or stronger than his opponent, he can far more easily control whether he goes to the ground in a fight.  Two more or less equal opponents, however, are more subject to accidentally ending up on the ground in the dynamic pushing/pulling/bumping/slamming of a real fight.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Dec 8, 2010)

Majority of fights do end where at least one fighter ends up on the ground at some point.  They were either punched or pushed to the ground, taken down by a throw or tripped (tripping especially happens on street fights) etc.

Do not be the first person to hit the ground! The chance that both will end up on the ground is much less, but still high that's why learning how to grapple and apply and stop takedowns is vital.


----------



## Hapkidoman (Dec 15, 2010)

I could never understand how it would be possible to determine the answer to this question. What or where would the stats come from ??


----------



## MJS (Dec 15, 2010)

Hapkidoman said:


> I could never understand how it would be possible to determine the answer to this question. What or where would the stats come from ??


 
I believe the stats come from a) Law Enforcement and b) an attempt by the Gracies to market their art.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2010)

MJS said:


> I believe the stats come from a) Law Enforcement and b) an attempt by the Gracies to market their art.


 
I disagree........I do think the majority of fights between more or less equal opponents do end up on the ground.........trained or not, it's natural human nature to tie up and grapple, ineffectively if untrained, but tied up nonetheless results in tripping and both parties going to ground very quickly.

Watch any school yard fight.......the majority involve a very few long range punches, followed by grabbing each other, short arm punches, and someone trips on something, and both end up on the ground.

Anyone who doubts that it's human nature to tie up when getting hit needs only watching how many times in a boxing match the referee needs to seperate the fighters.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Dec 16, 2010)

Last thing anyone wants to be in but as anyone whos ever actually been in a fight will tell you, a lot of the time it ends up on the ground or at least includes someone going to the ground.


----------



## chinto (Dec 16, 2010)

If we are talking real self defense situations, then yes some one will end up on the ground. BUT... often not both.  

You DO NOT want to be on the ground in the street or in real fights. On the ground is where you tend to DIE!! literally here people!  First of all, they never seem to come as singles. So if you are rolling around on the ground with the first attacker, his buddy is going to be trying to kick your head, ribs or other vitals in while you do! ( where I grew up he may even be wearing cork boots { picture a combat type logging boot with steel track spikes on the sole } )

I am an ex EMT and can tell you people are much more fragile then you think, especially if they are being kicked while on the ground and can not move with the kick or strike as much.

Is ground fighting something a lot of older systems have some of in them?  Yes. many traditional Karate and other systems have some ground knowledge in them. But, they found that if you were on the ground your survival was much more in doubt. that is why standing techniques are much more common even in the samurai jujitsu systems then ones laying on the ground. ( most of the chokes and things were used while on one knee on the battlefeild and places so you could move and not get killed by a passing friend of the man you were dealing with as easily. )  { that is from a friend who studies a samurai jujitsu system and not BJJ)  

one last thought.  the cage matches and UFC have a lot of rules as to what you can strike, what joints you can manipulate, and what throws you may use.  this is called " Fighter safety" and is required from day one by the sanctioning authoritys for every UFC match from day one!


----------

