# Self Defence or Murder .. a fine line.



## K-man (Oct 19, 2014)

I was about to post this in the anti-grappling thread but  it deserves a life of its own.

The details are a little sketchy but what we have here is a mixture of alcohol and testosterone. Also a salient lesson to those who say martial art techniques whether used by a martial artist or an untrained person don't cause death. 

In this instance a young man who had drunk too much on his way home stopped for some takeaway food. He bumped into another person who pushed him away. The next details are unknown until it gets to court but the young man ends up on the ground. A third man, friend of the guy who was bumped, intervenes and stomps on the guy on the ground killing him. He is now charged with murder.

No Cookies | Herald Sun


What I would like to point out is ..

* Being under the influence of drugs and alcohol, especially in public, is a bad choice.
* If you do knock into someone, apologise and move on. 
* Being on the ground, one way or the other, is not a good place to be.
* If you are in an altercation with one person you need to be aware of whether his friends are likely to become involved. 
* If a friend is in an altercation and you intervene you must only use 'reasonable force'.

The guy who was pushed is not being charged, his friend who jumped in using lethal force is charged with murder and a very talented young man is dead. Two lives destroyed, two families devastated and all over an incident that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 19, 2014)

He got thrown to the ground, and the friend came up and stomped him on the head.

Its pretty clearly murder, since once the guy hit the ground, he was no longer a threat to either of them. Also the martial art move didn't kill him, the blows to the head did.

Why were you going to post this in the anti-grappling thread? Knowing some grappling (counter throws, break falling, etc.) might have saved his life.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 19, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> He got thrown to the ground, and the friend came up and stomped him on the head.
> 
> Its pretty clearly murder, since once the guy hit the ground, he was no longer a threat to either of them. Also the martial art move didn't kill him, the blows to the head did.
> 
> Why were you going to post this in the anti-grappling thread? Knowing some grappling (counter throws, break falling, etc.) might have saved his life.


A friend of mine, his son was killed this way. There were too much blood in his son's skull even the ER doctor gave up.

This is why when you fall, not only you need to protect your head from hitting on the hard ground, you also need to protect your head from someone who may kick you from on top. If you can curve your body into a small area, you can reduce your body area that may be exposed to be attacked by your standing up opponent. But compare to your body, your head is much more important than your body.

Unfortunately, this is the opposite of the "pull guard" and "jump guard" that are popular in today's modern trend. Also the normal Judo break fall may not save your head from being kicked either.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 19, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> He got thrown to the ground, and the friend came up and stomped him on the head.
> 
> Its pretty clearly murder, since once the guy hit the ground, he was no longer a threat to either of them. Also the martial art move didn't kill him, the blows to the head did.
> 
> Why were you going to post this in the anti-grappling thread? Knowing some grappling (counter throws, break falling, etc.) might have saved his life.



Because grapplers are bullies, duh.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 19, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> Because grapplers are bullies, duh.


Not sure who is more bully, the striker or the grappler?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2014)

That street fighting is dumb. Leave it for the ring.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ghVfU_xo4


----------



## K-man (Oct 19, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> He got thrown to the ground, and the friend came up and stomped him on the head.
> 
> Its pretty clearly murder, since once the guy hit the ground, he was no longer a threat to either of them. Also the martial art move didn't kill him, the blows to the head did.
> 
> Why were you going to post this in the anti-grappling thread? Knowing some grappling (counter throws, break falling, etc.) might have saved his life.


You must know more than me as what you have stated hasn't been in any of our papers. As far as I know he was pushed or thrown to the ground. There is nothing to say he hit his head. There is nothing to say whether there was any altercation on the ground so obviously again you know more than anyone here. There is nothing to say anyone was trained as a martial artist. It *was *the martial art move that killed him, that is the stomp. You say it was to the head, I might have suspected the neck but either way it is a standard technique in Karate and Krav. I am suggesting you need to be very sure of what you are doing in any street fight and be clear as to whether fighting can even be justified.

It had been stated many times on this forum that people would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. Here is a guy that shouldn't have even been involved ending up charged with murder. According to you it is "pretty clearly murder" so I suppose there is no reason to even have a trial. I would suggest that the charge is murder because of this state's crackdown on sucker punches. By the time it comes to trial it may well be a lesser charge.

Why the anti-grappling thread? Purely because it was there and it was an instance where the guy on the ground was attacked by a second person with devastating consequences. The ground is not a good place to be.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 19, 2014)

K-man said:


> You must know more than me as what you have stated hasn't been in any of our papers. As far as I know he was pushed or thrown to the ground. There is nothing to say he hit his head. There is nothing to say whether there was any altercation on the ground so obviously again you know more than anyone here. There is nothing to say anyone was trained as a martial artist. It *was *the martial art move that killed him, that is the stomp. You say it was to the head, I might have suspected the neck but either way it is a standard technique in Karate and Krav. I am suggesting you need to be very sure of what you are doing in any street fight and be clear as to whether fighting can even be justified.
> 
> It had been stated many times on this forum that people would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. Here is a guy that shouldn't have even been involved ending up charged with murder. According to you it is "pretty clearly murder" so I suppose there is no reason to even have a trial. I would suggest that the charge is murder because of this state's crackdown on sucker punches. By the time it comes to trial it may well be a lesser charge.
> 
> Why the anti-grappling thread? Purely because it was there and it was an instance where the guy on the ground was attacked by a second person with devastating consequences. The ground is not a good place to be.



No it really won't get downgraded. You go to court on a  drunk violence charge you are pretty much done.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> You must know more than me as what you have stated hasn't been in any of our papers. As far as I know he was pushed or thrown to the ground. There is nothing to say he hit his head. There is nothing to say whether there was any altercation on the ground so obviously again you know more than anyone here. There is nothing to say anyone was trained as a martial artist. It *was *the martial art move that killed him, that is the stomp. You say it was to the head, I might have suspected the neck but either way it is a standard technique in Karate and Krav. I am suggesting you need to be very sure of what you are doing in any street fight and be clear as to whether fighting can even be justified.
> 
> It had been stated many times on this forum that people would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. Here is a guy that shouldn't have even been involved ending up charged with murder. According to you it is "pretty clearly murder" so I suppose there is no reason to even have a trial. I would suggest that the charge is murder because of this state's crackdown on sucker punches. By the time it comes to trial it may well be a lesser charge.
> 
> Why the anti-grappling thread? Purely because it was there and it was an instance where the guy on the ground was attacked by a second person with devastating consequences. The ground is not a good place to be.



I got the information from the article you posted. The article said that he was flipped "upside down" and landed on the ground. The second guy then came up and stomped his head in over and over again.

Head stomping on the ground is seriously considered a martial arts move that you teach? Your students better be very careful with that. That's a quick way to end up in jail for a very long time.

As for being on the ground, every situation isn't a multiple assailant situation...

Five Reasons to Grapple in a Streetfight | Grapplearts


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Head stomping on the ground is seriously considered a martial arts move that you teach?


Why wouldn't you teach it?  It's in Naihanchi so if you teach Naihanchi you teach the application.

Practical Kata Bunkai: Naihanchi / Tekki Shodan - YouTube

Teaching it in the dojo, and using outside the dojo however are two *completely* different things.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> Why wouldn't you teach it?  It's in Naihanchi so if you teach Naihanchi you teach the application.
> 
> Practical Kata Bunkai: Naihanchi / Tekki Shodan - YouTube
> 
> Teaching it in the dojo, and using outside the dojo however are two *completely* different things.



Stomps can be allowed in MMA fights, some promotions don't allow them, some  still do.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> Why wouldn't you teach it?  It's in Naihanchi so if you teach Naihanchi you teach the application.



Because there's little reason to ever stomp someone in the head.


----------



## Buka (Oct 20, 2014)

My opinion - second degree murder. A stomp to the head? I can't even come up with a scenario where I'd do that. A kick, maybe, but a stomp? I consider that a finishing blow. I teach a lot of things, but I never taught a stomp, never will, either. (Tactically, I don't think it's even needed, it's instinctual)

Also, I don't think anything whatsoever about this incident belongs in anything that has to do with grappling in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Because there's little reason to ever stomp someone in the head.


There's little reason to cut someoen in half, doesn't stop people enjoying Iaido.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> There's little reason to cut someoen in half, doesn't stop people enjoying Iaido.



There's way more to Iado than cutting people in half.

Stomping someone on the head really serves no purpose beyond trying to kill someone. The person is already on the ground, and probably no longer a threat to you. It would be like me not releasing a choke after the guy has already passed out.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 20, 2014)

Yes of course, but it was an example to illustrate the point that just becasue something has no place or no purpose outside the dojo it doesn't stop you practising it inside the dojo.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> Why the anti-grappling thread? Purely because it was there and it was an instance where the guy on the ground was attacked by a second person with devastating consequences. The ground is not a good place to be.


I don't know a lot about the legal implications and there is surely a lot we don't know about what happened, so whether he'll get charged with murder is beyond me.  

But, this last statement is interesting to me.  Somehow, the implication of your statement is probably different for me than what you intend.  A statement like this in a situation like this, and my first thought was, "It's a shame that the victim wasn't a better grappler than the guy who took him down."  


Paul_D said:


> There's little reason to cut someoen in half, doesn't stop people enjoying Iaido.


You understand that by saying that the head stomp is like cutting someone in half with a sword in iaido (a martial art style using swords), you are drawing a host of unintended conclusions with which I doubt k-man or any of the rbsd guys here would agree.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> Yes of course, but it was an example to illustrate the point that just becasue something has no place or no purpose outside the dojo it doesn't stop you practising it inside the dojo.


Oh, I stand corrected.  It seems like you are doing it on purpose.  I'm very interested to know whether the RBSD guys around here agree that a head stomp has no place or purpose outside the dojo.  

When I talk to Iaido guys about why they train in that martial art, I hear reasons relating to culture (i.e. samurai culture, japanese culture, asian interest), or historical (interest in swordplay, in that era of Japan, etc).  Of course, there are other benefits as well, the same as with pursuit of any hobby or interest.  But, culture and history are very common.  Same as with Kyudo.

Conversely, guys who train in RBSD or styles such as Krav Maga seldom talk about history or culture.  The emphasis is always practical self defense  and real world application.  Based upon what I've learned here over the years, I gather the head stomp is considered a practical, viable self defense technique.   

I have to be honest, we've talked about whether the triangle choke is a "dojo only" technique.  Kong Soo Do and others have been hammering that point home for weeks now.  I'm thrilled to learn that they also teach impractical, dojo only techniques.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Oh, I stand corrected.  It seems like you are doing it on purpose.  I'm very interested to know whether the RBSD guys around here agree that a head stomp has no place or purpose outside the dojo.
> 
> When I talk to Iaido guys about why they train in that martial art, I hear reasons relating to culture (i.e. samurai culture, japanese culture, asian interest), or historical (interest in swordplay, in that era of Japan, etc).  Of course, there are other benefits as well, the same as with pursuit of any hobby or interest.  But, culture and history are very common.  Same as with Kyudo.
> 
> ...



I don' think there's anything here to imply that KSD and others teach impractical dojo only techniques. I don't think you can get that from Paul's post.

I also don't get from the newspaper article that any of them are martial artists so being a 'better' grappler than the attacker would be academic. Being able to drop someone on the floor is something that can come from a couple of sports, the two codes of rugby and Aussie rules.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I don' think there's anything here to imply that KSD and others teach *impractical dojo only techniques. *I don't think you can get that from Paul's post.
> 
> I also don't get from the newspaper article that any of them are martial artists so being a 'better' grappler than the attacker would be academic. Being able to drop someone on the floor is something that can come from a couple of sports, the two codes of rugby and Aussie rules.


You're right.  Maybe they don't teach a head stomp, which Paul D asserts is an impractical, dojo only technique much the same as a sword cut in Iaido.

Regarding the "better" statement, I don't know what you're getting on about.  It's very simple.  If he had been a better grappler than the other guy, he would have stayed on his feet AND/OR regained his feet.  Unfortunately for him, he was not.  

Or, are you suggesting that there are times when anyone could find themselves on the ground in a bad situation?  Because that could also be an interesting line of discussion, echoing some points I've made in other threads.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 20, 2014)

*There are times when it is very important to teach someone how to effectively stomp or kick a downed person*.  I regularly have military people training with me that are deploying over seas in very dangerous areas.  They need certain skill sets.

*There are some really good points on this thread*.  One of the most important was made by K-man in that being drunk or intoxicated in public is generally not a good idea.  You can cut down a lot of potential problems by simply just eliminating this from your routine!


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> You're right.  Maybe they don't teach a head stomp, which Paul D asserts is an impractical, dojo only technique much the same as a sword cut in Iaido.


Don't ever recall using the word impractical, or even implying it.  In fact it's highly practical, as the sad news story clearly illustrates.  It's just not legally defensible,  morally acceptable or necessary.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 20, 2014)

*In regards to a head stomp being instinctual* I would say that in order to do it effectively you have to get into position which requires footwork and moving around a body which is not instinctual but takes training to get good at.  Actually lots of training.

What if the person on the ground pulls out a hand gun?  What if they pull out a knife?  In both situations they have brought a weapon into the encounter and because of that weapon it is now a potential lethal encounter.  Just some food for thought!


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *There are some really good points on this thread*. One of the most important was made by K-man in that being drunk or intoxicated in public is generally not a good idea. You can cut down a lot of potential problems by simply just eliminating this from your routine!


I would agree with this completely. 



Paul_D said:


> Don't ever recall usign the word impractical, or even implying it. In fact it's highly practical, as the sad news story clearly illustrates. It's just not legally defensible, morally acceptable or necessary.


If it's a "dojo only" technique, in my mind how can it be practical for self defense? 

It may be effective, but that it is not legally defensible, morally acceptable or necessary are exactly why it is impractical for self defense. Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I also want to clarify that I completely understand that there might be times where a head stomp is the appropriate response. 

What interests me is the shoe is now on the other foot. There has been such a concerted effort recently to "prove" that BJJ is inneffective for self defense. I'll be honest, this stood out to me because it was an acknowledgement that a staple of RBSD training was referred to as a "dojo only" technique. I think one lesson here is that there is a time and place for everything.

The other is above, written by Brian. Being grossly impaired by alcohol in public is seldom a good idea. Maybe that's lesson number one in self defense.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> You're right.  Maybe they don't teach a head stomp, which Paul D asserts is an impractical, dojo only technique much the same as a sword cut in Iaido.
> 
> Regarding the "better" statement, I don't know what you're getting on about.  It's very simple.  If he had been a better grappler than the other guy, he would have stayed on his feet AND/OR regained his feet.  Unfortunately for him, he was not.
> 
> Or, are you suggesting that there are times when anyone could find themselves on the ground in a bad situation?  Because that could also be an interesting line of discussion, echoing some points I've made in other threads.




You said '_better _grappler' which implies he *was* a grappler and they *were* grappling. There's nothing to say they were grappling. That's all.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> It may be effective, but that it is not legally defensible, morally acceptable or necessary are exactly why it is impractical for self defense.  Sorry if I wasn't clear before.


Oh, I'm with you now, sorry. Yes, I would agree then.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> You said '_better _grappler' which implies he *was* a grappler and they *were* grappling. There's nothing to say they were grappling. That's all.


Everyone who grapples is a grappler in that moment. They were grappling, ergo, they were grapplers. And one was better at it than the other.

Edit:  Not sure if this was implicit, so just want to add that training could have helped.  i think the confusion is that when I say that they are grapplers, I'm not necessarily suggesting that they are trained grapplers.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Everyone who grapples is a grappler in that moment.  They were grappling, ergo, they were grapplers.  And one was better at it than the other.




It doesn't say they were grappling though. The deceased bumped/tripped into one of the guys, who then shoved him. The deceased was dumped on the ground, the accused stomped on his head. Doesn't say they were grappling at all. 
_"Mr Hardy was allegedly flung to the ground and stomped on after getting into an argument with Mr Zandipour and his friend on St Kilda Rd just after midnight on &shy;Saturday morning._
_The Herald Sun has been told the fight began when an intoxicated Mr Hardy tripped Mr Zandipour&#8217;s friend, who &shy;retaliated with a push.Police allege Mr Zandipour then &shy;intervened with deadly force."_


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> It doesn't say they were grappling though. The deceased bumped/tripped into one of the guys, who then shoved him. The deceased was dumped on the ground, the accused stomped on his head. Doesn't say they were grappling at all.
> _"Mr Hardy was allegedly flung to the ground and stomped on after getting into an argument with Mr Zandipour and his friend on St Kilda Rd just after midnight on &shy;Saturday morning._
> _The Herald Sun has been told the fight began when an intoxicated Mr Hardy tripped Mr Zandipour&#8217;s friend, who &shy;retaliated with a push.Police allege Mr Zandipour then &shy;intervened with deadly force."_


Was the guy "flung to the ground" by way of telekinesis? You clearly have a different idea of what grappling entails than I.  I think it very clearly says that they were grappling.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Because there's little reason to ever stomp someone in the head.



Agreed. Nor do I consider it a "martial arts move." Any sixth grader with no training can stomp on someone's head. It's just stomping.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Agreed. Nor do I consider it a "martial arts move." Any sixth grader with no training can stomp on someone's head. It's just stomping.


Well, now this is interesting.  I respect your opinion, Daniel.  You're a knowledgeable, level headed guy.  And I also respect Brian vanCise who says exactly the opposite in post 23.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Was the guy "flung to the ground" by way of telekinesis? You clearly have a different idea of what grappling entails than I.  I think it very clearly says that they were grappling.



Well no, you can be standing still and someone fling you to the ground without you having grappled with them or by grappling with them on the ground. You are reading into it more than is written, it's very easy to read between the lines but all we have to go on it's what is written here, _'He was flung to the ground'_, nothing more, nothing less. It also uses the word allegedly which means it's unproven at this moment so no proof is being offered that is what happened, that is the correct procedure for what the police tell the media. Evidence is kept for court when we will hear what all sides have to say. It could be they were grappling or it could be that the deceased was shoved then picked up and dumped on the ground but for the moment all we have to go on is that the deceased was flung on the floor, no grappling.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Well, now this is interesting.  I respect your opinion, Daniel.  You're a knowledgeable, level headed guy.  And I also respect Brian vanCise who says exactly the opposite in post 23.


I do agree with his statement, actually. I almost went back and deleted my comment after reading it, but I opted not to. There is teaching people to stomp in the context of a particular art. I teach it as a kick, though the intended target is not the head.

But for stomping to be called a "martial arts move" without the rest of that context is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. I may have missed it, but was there any indication that the man who did the stomping was a trained fighter? Or just an opportunistic friend of guy on top who chose to stomp on the victim's head?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Was the guy "flung to the ground" by way of telekinesis?


Only if he was fighting George Dillman or Benny Hinn.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

This is flinging someone to the ground without grappling, the player is tackled and goes down, it is just one way you can 'fling' someone down, there's others, the deceased was drunk it wouldn't have been to hard to tip him onto the floor without any grappling taking place. 
Women&#39;s Rugby Takedown - YouTube


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 20, 2014)

I don't teach the head-stomp to a downed opponent because I consider the risk of someone using it inappropriately and killing someone in a situation which didn't require it to be higher than the odds of being in a situation where it was actually necessary. If you are standing and your opponent is down there are very few scenarios where lethal force on your part is justified.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Stomps to the head tend to not be so common in altercations I've found, 'soccer' kicks however are more common, usually not so much aimed at the head but can hit there when the victim moves to avoid the kicks. 'Soccer' kicking is an easy move to make by anyone, no instruction needed and is something to watch for always if on the ground surrounded by people.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Well no, you can be standing still and someone fling you to the ground without you having grappled with them or by grappling with them on the ground. You are reading into it more than is written, it's very easy to read between the lines but all we have to go on it's what is written here, _'He was flung to the ground'_, nothing more, nothing less. It also uses the word allegedly which means it's unproven at this moment so no proof is being offered that is what happened, that is the correct procedure for what the police tell the media. Evidence is kept for court when we will hear what all sides have to say. It could be they were grappling or it could be that the deceased was shoved then picked up and dumped on the ground but for the moment all we have to go on is that the deceased was flung on the floor, no grappling.


Tez, it really seems as though you have a different concept of what grappling means than I do.  Shoving, being picked up and them dumped on the ground IS grappling.  Being flung to the floor IS grappling.  Being able to get up from the ground (or not) is grappling.  

You're right to say that there is much we don't know.  However, I would say that of the few things we know for certain, one is that grappling was involved.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> This is flinging someone to the ground without grappling, the player is tackled and goes down, it is just one way you can 'fling' someone down, there's others, the deceased was drunk it wouldn't have been to hard to tip him onto the floor without any grappling taking place.
> Women's Rugby Takedown - YouTube


Tez, what's the test for whether something is grappling or not? What criteria do you use to determine whether a takedown is grappling or not? I'm genuinely asking, because you are drawing a distinction where I see none. I would consider ANY takedown, including a rugby style tackle or flinging someone to the ground or grabbing someone and dumping him on his head, to be grappling.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 20, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> Yes of course, but it was an example to illustrate the point that just becasue something has no place or no purpose outside the dojo it doesn't stop you practising it inside the dojo.




No stomping has a place outside the dojo. And that is to try to kill people when they are basically unable to defend themselves. And so maybe not the best thing to be drilling in to people.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Tez, what's the test for whether something is grappling or not? What criteria do you use to determine whether a takedown is grappling or not? I'm genuinely asking, because you are drawing a distinction where I see none. I would consider ANY takedown, including a rugby style tackle or flinging someone to the ground or grabbing someone and dumping him on his head, to be grappling.



Steve, I'm not drawing any distinction I'm drawing on the laws of evidence. You are reading between the lines using your experience, I'm sticking solely to what is written and nothing more. We can't assume anything at all, we don't know. You consider anything to be grappling because of your experience in grappling and I'm sure you would make an excellent expert witness but given what was written we cannot say whether it was even an actual fight let alone grappling. 
When it comes to court it will make a great deal of difference whether it was an unprovoked pick up and slam to the ground or whether they were in fact grappling as in both taking part in it which is why I prefer to stick to strictly what is written and will not speculate whether it was grappling or not. We may get to read more once a trial has begun. If the police find it was a slam down without any resistance or movement from the deceased the other chap may well also be charged, not with murder but certainly something.


----------



## Buka (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Tez, what's the test for whether something is grappling or not? What criteria do you use to determine whether a takedown is grappling or not? I'm genuinely asking, because you are drawing a distinction where I see none. I would consider ANY takedown, including a rugby style tackle or flinging someone to the ground or grabbing someone and dumping him on his head, to be grappling.



The OP said "flung to the ground" in one place and said "who retaliated with a push" in another. I'm not sure what the flung to the ground consisted of, but a push is pretty easy to figure. I don't think either is grappling in the sense that I know it. If the guy was trained in grappling, flinging or pushing, that's one thing, but if he wasn't, it was instinctual. Probably just semantics. And semantics aren't really important until you get to court.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2014)

The article says that the victim was "flung" to the ground.

Flung also means "thrown". So in other words, he was *thrown* to the ground.

What Steve, myself, and others are saying is that if this guy knew grappling, he'd have a better chance of not getting thrown to the ground, and if he landed, he would have had a better chance of reducing the damage when he landed via Breakfalling and other exercises.

Is anyone saying that he'd still be alive today if he was a black belt in Judo? No, but you ever try to push or throw a black belt in Judo?


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

I would say a trip, tackle or slam all qualify as grappling.  Whether trained or untrained.  

If you are on the ground by means of someone placing their hands on you and moving you there, you have been grappled.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Buka said:


> The OP said "flung to the ground" in one place and said "who retaliated with a push" in another. I'm not sure what the flung to the ground consisted of, but a push is pretty easy to figure. I don't think either is grappling in the sense that I know it. If the guy was trained in grappling, flinging or pushing, that's one thing, but if he wasn't, it was instinctual. Probably just semantics. And semantics aren't really important until you get to court.



Could be.  I'm not a lawyer, proud to say.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

Regarding the OP, yes, I would consider it murder. I'm not a lawyer, so take my opinion for what it's worth. 

Regarding this;


drop bear said:


> No stomping has a place outside the dojo. And that is to try to kill people when they are basically unable to defend themselves. And so maybe not the best thing to be drilling in to people.


Depending on the context, almost nothing outside of de-escalation, non violent escapes, rolling and falling has any place outside of the dojo.
Depending on the context, almost everything has a place outside of the dojo.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The article says that the victim was "flung" to the ground.
> 
> Flung also means "thrown". So in other words, he was *thrown* to the ground.
> 
> ...



By the account in the newspaper he was very intoxicated so it's doubtful he could intelligently defend himself. Alcohol can make the best fighter in the world useless. Has anyone noticed that the article doesn't say exactly who put him on the floor? We are left to assume it's the guy who pushed but it doesn't say so.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> By the account in the newspaper he was very intoxicated so it's doubtful he could intelligently defend himself. Alcohol can make the best fighter in the world useless. Has anyone noticed that the article doesn't say exactly who put him on the floor? We are left to assume it's the guy who pushed but it doesn't say so.


We know what the senior detective said:  



> "Sen-Det Salerno said a fight broke out between Mr Hardy and Mr Zandipour, during which the latter *&#8220;used his arm to hook the deceased under his armpits and flip him&#8221; upside down*.
> 
> When Mr Hardy landed on the concrete, Mr Zandipour allegedly kicked him several times and stomped on his head."


I don't know, guys.  Whether trained or not, that sounds a LOT like grappling to me.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> I don't know, guys.  Whether trained or not, that sounds a LOT like grappling to me.



I agree; you can strike or grapple without any training whatsoever. Training simply (hopefully) makes you better at doing so.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> We know what the senior detective said:
> 
> I don't know, guys.  Whether trained or not, that sounds a LOT like grappling to me.



Steve, if you witnessed the altercation and was asked to make a statement what would you say, would you say they 'grappled' or would you describe exactly what you say leaving out what you considered it was? If you say 'grapple' to a jury you are leading them to believe they were wrestling, that both men were taking part in the action. If you describe it exactly as happened without saying grappling you give the jury a much clearer idea. 
If the deceased was stood and was flipped by the other man, that's what it was. Your opinion that it was grappling is a subjective one that will be overruled by the judge. it doesn't matter what you and I think it was. It has to be described as it has been in the newspaper, besides I'm not sure one person doing all the moves is real grappling, like sex it really has to have more than one to make it realistic.

I know you guys like to turn nouns into verbs ie to medal, to podium though. The guy who slammed the deceased down did a grappling movement he didn't actually grapple.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Head stomping on the ground is seriously considered a martial arts move that you teach? Your students better be very careful with that. That's a quick way to end up in jail for a very long time.
> 
> As for being on the ground, every situation isn't a multiple assailant situation.


I can't understand where you are coming from. In previous posts you have said that there are no rules in NHB competition so all the talk about too deadly is rubbish, now you say that you are surprised I teach a stomp. Well you might be surprised that I teach a number of lethal techniques as do most TMA schools. That is what we have been talking about in other threads. 

Why do people in the US carry guns. Funny thing, to kill people. So what is the difference? You have to learn what is and what isn't appropriate force.

As to teaching the stomp. Who said it has to be to the neck or head? In my teaching it is mainly to the ankle so you can run away and not have someone chase you. On other occasions it might be to the chest. But in the situation where you may be traveling in a relatively lawless environment and are set upon by a gang or even the threat of kidnap or worse there are no rules. You do what you need to do to save your life. 

My training sounds very much like Brian's. That's why I would love to have the opportunity to train with him. We don't spend hours training with weapons to fight in the ring. We train that if a situation was to arise in which you are fighting for your life you have a reasonable chance of going home.

So in answer to your question, yes, a head stomp is certainly part of RBMA training. Of course, that is tempered with teaching of when martial art techniques are appropriate.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Steve, if you witnessed the altercation and was asked to make a statement what would you say, would you say they 'grappled' or would you describe exactly what you say leaving out what you considered it was? If you say 'grapple' to a jury you are leading them to believe they were wrestling, that both men were taking part in the action. If you describe it exactly as happened without saying grappling you give the jury a much clearer idea.
> If the deceased was stood and was flipped by the other man, that's what it was. Your opinion that it was grappling is a subjective one that will be overruled by the judge. it doesn't matter what you and I think it was. It has to be described as it has been in the newspaper, besides I'm not sure one person doing all the moves is real grappling, like sex it really has to have more than one to make it realistic.
> 
> I know you guys like to turn nouns into verbs ie to medal, to podium though. The guy who slammed the deceased down did a grappling movement he didn't actually grapple.


Tez, I have to say, it's like you're trying to be intentionally offensive.  It's becoming harder and harder to presume good intent from you on this.  

First, it's my basic understanding of what grappling is or isn't.  Then it's my reading comprehension.  After I pointed out EXACTLY where the article says what happens in enough detail to fully support my statements, you suggest I just can't speak English because I'm American and we talk funny???  Come on.  Stop busting my balls.

I'm not a witness.  I'm also not in a courtroom.  I'm casually discussing the topic at hand with a diverse group of martial artists all with different professional and personal backgrounds.  I used a term.  I defined the term.  I clarified my meaning.  And I supported my statements with a quote directly from the article that is contrary to what you said.  I'm doing my best to be clear.  

For what it's worth, "grapple" is also a verb:  

[h=2]*Definition* of *grapple* (v)[/h]Bing Dictionary


*grap·ple*
[ grápp'l ]




struggle with somebody: to struggle with somebody in a close hand-to-hand fight
struggle to deal with something: to struggle to deal with or comprehend something
grab somebody: to grab hold of somebody


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Some more detail and more confusion.

The original report ..



> The Herald Sun has been told the fight began when an intoxicated *Mr Hardy tripped Mr Zandipour&#8217;s friend*, who *retaliated with a push.





> An out-of-sessions court session heard Mr Hardy &#8220;staggered&#8221; to the pair&#8217;s outside table, appearing to be drunk as he struck up a conversation with the men. *Mr Hardy appeared to try to trip Mr Zandipour as he left* and a fight broke out, in which Mr Zandipour allegedly flipped Mr Hardy on to the concrete, kicked him and stomped on his head.
> Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian


How do you trip someone as you are leaving and what does 'appeared to trip' imply?
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Tez, I have to say, it's like you're trying to be intentionally offensive.  It's becoming harder and harder to presume good intent from you on this.
> 
> First, it's my basic understanding of what grappling is or isn't.  Then it's my reading comprehension.  After I pointed out EXACTLY where the article says what happens in enough detail to fully support my statements, you suggest I just can't speak English because I'm American and we talk funny???  Come on.  Stop busting my balls.
> 
> ...


So let's make it clear. Your definition of grappling had nothing to do with grappling in an MMA sense. That is what is confusing the is due.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> In my teaching it is mainly to the ankle so you can run away and not have someone chase you.


That is the context in which I teach it.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> Some more detail and more confusion.
> 
> The original report ..
> How do you trip someone as you are leaving and what does 'appeared to trip' imply?
> :asian:


Honestly, the picture I have in my head, after having read the account, is that the guy sat down with these other two dudes at the McDs.  He didn't know them, and was drunk.   One of the two friends stood up to leave, and the drunk guy stuck his leg out to trip him.  They scuffled.  Drunk guy was thrown.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> As to teaching the stomp. Who said it has to be to the neck or head? In my teaching it is mainly to the ankle so you can run away and not have someone chase you. On other occasions it might be to the chest. But in the situation where you may be traveling in a relatively lawless environment and are set upon by a gang or even the threat of kidnap or worse there are no rules. You do what you need to do to save your life.



It's the head-stomp that I have objections to, not kicks or stomps elsewhere. I'll frequently teach a quick kick to the groin of a downed attacker (if the target is readily available) before running away, as that will slow him down if he gets up to give chase. The head stomp is not only potentially lethal - it's lethal force applied to someone who is probably not an immediate threat.

Are there theoretical scenarios where lethal force against a downed opponent could be justified? Yes. However the odds of most people ever being in one of those scenarios are lower (IMO) than the odds of someone using that force where it is not justifiable if that's the way they've trained.


----------



## Balrog (Oct 20, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *There are some really good points on this thread*.  One of the most important was made by K-man in that being drunk or intoxicated in public is generally not a good idea.  You can cut down a lot of potential problems by simply just eliminating this from your routine!


This, more than anything.  

As martial artists, we are supposed to control our environment.  Being drunk or wasted on drugs allows our environment to control us, and that ain't good.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> So let's make it clear. Your definition of grappling had nothing to do with grappling in an MMA sense. That is what is confusing the is due.


I know that this question was directed to Steve, but I'm going to answer because internet.

Lots of arts have grappling incorporated into them, but grappling is grappling and can be done outside of the context of being trained in a particular system. Grappling encompasses everything from wristlocks to armbars to throwing to groundwork. 

An untrained person can (and in this situation, apparently did) grapple. Some untrained people are just good at it to, either through intuitive getting it or through years of trial and error (having siblings can be helpful in that process).

_"Using his arm to hook the deceased under his armpits and flip him upside down"_ is grappling. The fact that it was not in an MMA context or even an MA context does not alter that.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> We may get to read more once a trial has begun. If the police find it was a slam down without any resistance or movement from the deceased the other chap may well also be charged, not with murder but certainly something.


I think it's pretty clear this guy is off the hook.


> Police said a second man who was questioned by detectives over the attack was released and would not face any charges.
> Man charged with murder over attack outside Melbourne fast food restaurant remanded in custody - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


:asian:


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> So let's make it clear. Your definition of grappling had nothing to do with grappling in an MMA sense. That is what is confusing the is due.


My definition of grappling is the definition of grappling.  I'm not in the habit of changing the definitions of words arbitrarily. 

But saying it has nothing to do with grappling in an MMA sense is irrelevant.  Grappling in an MMA sense is grappling.  So is you putting your hands on me and tossing me to the ground on my head.  They are both grappling.   

I'm usually perfectly happy to accept full responsiblity for a misunderstanding, but this one isn't on me.  As I just said, I used, defined, clarified, re-defined and supported my use of the term.  I am satisfied that I've done everything I could.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> So let's make it clear. Your definition of grappling had nothing to do with grappling in an MMA sense. That is what is confusing the is due.



I'm with Steve on this one. "Grappling" is a generic term for any kind of struggle which involves grabbing, shoving, pulling, holding, tripping, etcetera. _Trained _grappling is a subset of grappling. _MMA-style_ grappling is a subset of trained grappling. Why would you assume Steve was referring to a particular subset of a subset of the category in this context?


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I know that this question was directed to Steve, but I'm going to answer because internet.
> 
> Lots of arts have grappling incorporated into them, but grappling is grappling and can be done outside of the context of being trained in a particular system. Grappling encompasses everything from wristlocks to armbars to throwing to groundwork.
> 
> ...


I agree totally. Just that in other threads my 'grappling' is not grappling because I am not rolling on the ground. To me it is grappling from the very first grab. 
:asian:


----------



## Mephisto (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> It had been stated many times on this forum that people would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. Here is a guy that shouldn't have even been involved ending up charged with murder. According to you it is "pretty clearly murder" so I suppose there is no reason to even have a trial. I would suggest that the charge is murder because of this state's crackdown on sucker punches. By the time it comes to trial it may well be a lesser charge.
> 
> Why the anti-grappling thread? Purely because it was there and it was an instance where the guy on the ground was attacked by a second person with devastating consequences. The ground is not a good place to be.



The ground is not the best place to be, you realize the guy in this incident was put on the ground against his will. If anything this proves that fights can go to the ground. It is a valuable skill to be able to gain a dominant position once on the ground. Once you're down anti grappling goes out the window and you have to play the ground game, if you're untraned this means you'll be flailing and panicking because you're in unfamiliar territory. It's ignorant to ignore the value of ground fighting skills. It's equally as ignorant to have the "better tried by 12 than carried by 6 mentality". It's not better to spend your life in prison than to die. Many might consider death better than prison. Neither would be the best option and the best way to do that is to know law and have a skillet that offers a less than lethal option. This is why the "deadly" systems that hate on sport are missing out. Not every physical altercation justifies killing or maiming a man. If you've got no base in non lethal options you just might end up in prison. That's why I advocate trainibg both methods, a base in an alive training system and some combative skill as well.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> I agree totally. Just that in other threads my 'grappling' is not grappling because I am not rolling on the ground. To me it is grappling from the very first grab.
> :asian:



Just curious - in the other threads, who denied that your grappling was grappling? Aikido is primarily a grappling art and Goju Ryu contains grappling.  They aren't ground grappling - but that's just another subset of the category.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 20, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> ...Neither would be the best option and the best way to do that is to know law and have a skillet that offers a less than lethal option. ...



Good comment, but it took a moment to parse the typo and realize that you meant skillset. I was trying to figure out how hitting someone with a frying pan was the less lethal option.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just curious - in the other threads, who denied that your grappling was grappling? Aikido is primarily a grappling art and Goju Ryu contains grappling.  They aren't ground grappling - but that's just another subset of the category.


The same person who claimed none of my training was effective.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> The ground is not the best place to be, you realize the guy in this incident was put on the ground against his will. If anything this proves that fights can go to the ground. It is a valuable skill to be able to gain a dominant position once on the ground. Once you're down anti grappling goes out the window and you have to play the ground game, if you're untraned this means you'll be flailing and panicking because you're in unfamiliar territory. It's ignorant to ignore the value of ground fighting skills. It's equally as ignorant to have the "better tried by 12 than carried by 6 mentality". It's not better to spend your life in prison than to die. Many might consider death better than prison. Neither would be the best option and the best way to do that is to know law and have a skillet that offers a less than lethal option. This is why the "deadly" systems that hate on sport are missing out. Not every physical altercation justifies killing or maiming a man. If you've got no base in non lethal options you just might end up in prison. That's why I advocate trainibg both methods, a base in an alive training system and some combative skill as well.


There is nothing in the article that says anyone had any martial art background and in this instance the fight did not, by any account, go to the ground. One person, was 'flipped' to the ground and then was kicked to the head and stomped. Now what I teach is exactly for this scenario which is when you are on the ground and your opponent is standing or worse still kicking. That is not 'ground game', at least not for me. Ground game for me is when both are on the ground.

Reality based systems don't 'hate on sport'. That is rubbish. Sport MA is as valid as any other MA. Some of us are saying that sport based sparring has little if any value in our training. That is not anti-sport and we are not missing out on anything. I have three principal styles. Karate, Krav and Aikido. In each of those styles you have a full range of techniques from the fence where you don't want to engage, to the locks and holds which are restraints, to joint destruction and finally lethal technique. Your statement, "Not every physical altercation justifies killing or maiming a man", is quite correct but totally out of context. You don't need to train a sport based system to have non-lethal techniques. I would suggest my training is both alive and combative and quite capable of a wide range of applications. 
:asian:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> Now what I teach is exactly for this scenario which is when you are on the ground and your opponent is standing or worse still kicking. That is not 'ground game', at least not for me. Ground game for me is when both are on the ground.



For what it's worth, a lot of time in BJJ competition is spent with one player standing and the other on the ground. If that doesn't count as the ground game, then I guess sport BJJ players have a greater repertoire than they are often given credit for.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> For what it's worth, a lot of time in BJJ competition is spent with one player standing and the other on the ground. If that doesn't count as the ground game, then I guess sport BJJ players have a greater repertoire than they are often given credit for.


As most people would know, my knowledge of BJJ could be written on the back of a postage stamp.   I have unashamedly pinched different things from BJJ to add to my repertoire. I was just differentiating between one on the ground and both on the ground. I know that BJJ has a huge repertoire, absolutely no arguement there. 
:asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 20, 2014)

in the OP it was stated the person killed had way to much to drink.  What makes anyone think he could have defended himself if he had training he was drunk.  Had he ever practiced drunk?
How long after he hit the ground befor he was kicked and was the kick from an angle he could see it coming?
All this debate on BJJ , ground fighting, etc. is useless in the case stated unless we know more about the case.  lets not use a tragic event that  we do not know all the facts about  to promote our side of the ground fighting, vs anything


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> in the OP it was stated the person killed had way to much to drink.  What makes anyone think he could have defended himself if he had training he was drunk.  Had he ever practiced drunk?
> How long after he hit the ground befor he was kicked and was the kick from an angle he could see it coming?
> All this debate on BJJ , ground fighting, etc. is useless in the case stated unless we know more about the case.  lets not use a tragic event that  we do not know all the facts about  to promote our side of the ground fighting, vs anything


Exactly right. The important thing to note is that there is nothing anywhere to suggest that any of the people involved had any martial art training, so it is nothing about practising drunk. It's not about practising at all. 

In my OP I was actually alluding to the stomp when I named the thread. To me the stomp is a legitimate technique in self defence. Stomping on someone's ankle can be temporarily debilitating and to my mind is appropriate in most SD scenarios. Stomping on someone's head may be appropriate in certain situations but is likely to cause serious injury, hence the title "a fine line". One side is self defence, the other side is murder. 
:asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> in this instance the fight did not, by any account, go to the ground.


I must respectfully disagree with you, and your next sentence is why:



K-man said:


> One person, was 'flipped' to the ground and then was kicked to the head and stomped.


It is at this point that the fight went to the ground. Even if the opponent remained standing, at this point, the victim was on the ground and in a position where, for him, he was fighting on the ground.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> I agree totally. Just that in other threads my 'grappling' is not grappling because I am not rolling on the ground. To me it is grappling from the very first grab.
> :asian:



I've never used the term grappling to mean only rolling on the ground and I don't think hanzou has either.  Could be wrong on that last, but I really don't think so.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I must respectfully disagree with you, and your next sentence is why:
> 
> It is at this point that the fight went to the ground. Even if the opponent remained standing, at this point, the victim was on the ground and in a position where, for him, he was fighting on the ground.


I know it's semantics but there is nothing to indicate that the guy on the ground was fighting at all. 
:asian:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> I agree totally. Just that in other threads my 'grappling' is not grappling because I am not rolling on the ground. To me it is grappling from the very first grab.
> :asian:



Because through the whole discussion, we don't have enough wrestlers, Judoka, Aikido guys, ... in those discussion. It's quite amazing that after 30 pages of "anti-grappling", nobody has ever mentioned about how to anti "hip throw" (the mother of all throws) yet. 

To me, the grappling starts from the first grab too.



K-man said:


> I know it's semantics but there is nothing to indicate that the guy on the ground was fighting at all.
> :asian:



I'll call this the guy on the ground is still fighting.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> I've never used the term grappling to mean only rolling on the ground and I don't think hanzou has either.  Could be wrong on that last, but I really don't think so.


I don't want to derail the thread but the difference arose in the sparring, non-sparring posts. I wanted sparring defined because sparring to me includes everything from the initial facing off to rolling on the ground. We do that in our training. Sparring to a lot of people is the multitudinous videos that have been posted of karate point sparring which we don't do. That then developed to where my training was said to be ineffective because I did not grapple (on the ground) when in fact I spend a huge amount of time grappling on my feet. 
:asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> Tez, I have to say, it's like you're trying to be intentionally offensive.  It's becoming harder and harder to presume good intent from you on this.
> 
> First, it's my basic understanding of what grappling is or isn't.  Then it's my reading comprehension.  After I pointed out EXACTLY where the article says what happens in enough detail to fully support my statements, you suggest I just can't speak English because I'm American and we talk funny???  Come on.  Stop busting my balls.
> 
> ...




Steve, I never understand why you think I'm trying to be offensive, you read into what I say nothing I mean when I write it. If you are determined to be offended I can't stop you.

There is a report in a newspaper about a crime, I don't read it as a martial arts issue at all, it's a legal and police article. You see it as something all about the grappling and I understand that however you refuse to see where I'm coming from and chose to see it as my being rude, well I'm not. 

K man is correct by the way on what is being meant by grapple here.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Because through the whole discussion, we don't have enough wrestlers, Judoka, Aikido guys, ... in those discussion. It's quite amazing that after 30 pages of "anti-grappling", nobody has mentioned about how to anti "hip throw" (the mother of all throws) yet.
> 
> *To me, the grappling starts from the first grab too*.


I think to most people, this is true.  I'm sure I've seen Hanzou and others echo this very same thought.  

In the anti-grappling thread, I think it's more the nature of "Anti-Grappling" that pigeonholes the conversation.  Anti-grappling in WC seems to really be Anti-BJJ techniques.  Or, at the least, the unwise, poorly conceived videos shown and the techniques discussed are specifically "anti-bjj."  Or being as generous as possible, anti-MMA if you consider wrestling takedowns different from BJJ.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> I know it's semantics but there is nothing to indicate that the guy on the ground was fighting at all.
> :asian:


No, there wasn't. And most likely, he had no 'fight' left in him at that point. But for him, the fight went to the ground, and for him, it ended on the ground.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'll call this the guy on the ground is still fighting.


No doubt in the world, but what you have shown is not what we are discussing. 

In this case the guy on the ground was drunk and by one account was thrown on his head. He was not fighting, he was defenceless by all accounts. That is why the guy who killed him is charged with murder.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> No, there wasn't. And most likely, he had no 'fight' left in him at that point. But for him, the fight went to the ground, and for him, it ended on the ground.


True, as I said, semantics.
:asian:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> No doubt in the world, but what you have shown is not what we are discussing.
> 
> In this case the guy on the ground was drunk and by one account was thrown on his head. He was not fighting, he was defenceless by all accounts. That is why the guy who killed him is charged with murder.
> :asian:


I fully agree with everything your saying. I do disagree with the conclusion that because he wasn't really fighting at that point that the altercation (fight) didn't go to the ground. 

As the victim was already inebriated, and probably either unconscious or stunned from landing on his head, any skills he might have had were moot at that point.

So while I would maintain that the fight went to the ground, most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of having the skills to fight on the ground are inapplicable to this scenario.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Steve, I never understand why you think I'm trying to be offensive, you read into what I say nothing I mean when I write it. If you are determined to be offended I can't stop you.


I'm determined NOT to take offense, but passive aggressive behavior is on my short list of buttons to push.  





> There is a report in a newspaper about a crime, I don't read it as a martial arts issue at all, it's a legal and police article. You see it as something all about the grappling and I understand that however you refuse to see where I'm coming from and chose to see it as my being rude, well I'm not.
> 
> K man is correct by the way on what is being meant by grapple here.


Couple of things.  1: Whether or not it's a martial arts issue, grappling was involved.  2:  Acknowledging that there was grappling involved doesn't make my position "all about the grappling."  That's just the part on which you chose to fixate.  And 3: Being rude is as much a cultural thing as language.  In my family, and in my community, your current behavior would be considered very rude.  

I understood your post the first time you posted it.  You asserted that the article didn't give enough information to conclude that they were grappling.  It did, and I pointed out specifically where.  You were incorrect.  You then argued that grappling isn't a verb.  It is, and I shared the definition with you.  And then you argued I was using the term incorrectly.  I wasn't, and now you acknowledge that I am using the term correctly, albeit via Kman.

don't get me wrong.  I like you.  i just wish you weren't so damned stubborn and obstinate.  It's worth it to get to the end, though, and usually we end up on the same side.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I fully agree with everything your saying. I do disagree with the conclusion that because he wasn't really fighting at that point that the altercation (fight) didn't go to the ground.
> 
> As the victim was already inebriated, and probably either unconscious or stunned from landing on his head, any skills he might have had were moot at that point.
> 
> So while I would maintain that the fight went to the ground, most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of having the skills to fight on the ground are inapplicable to this scenario.


I wholeheartedly concur.  Brian VanCise said it best, and this is certainly a strong argument against public intoxication and a cautionary tale about being out of control without being around people whom you trust.


----------



## Mephisto (Oct 20, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Good comment, but it took a moment to parse the typo and realize that you meant skillset. I was trying to figure out how hitting someone with a frying pan was the less lethal option.


haha, yeah just Reread that post, quit a few typos. That's whst I get for using my phone for this from work!



K-man said:


> There is nothing in the article that says anyone had any martial art background and in this instance the fight did not, by any account, go to the ground. One person, was 'flipped' to the ground and then was kicked to the head and stomped. Now what I teach is exactly for this scenario which is when you are on the ground and your opponent is standing or worse still kicking. That is not 'ground game', at least not for me. Ground game for me is when both are on the ground.
> 
> Reality based systems don't 'hate on sport'. That is rubbish. Sport MA is as valid as any other MA. Some of us are saying that sport based sparring has little if any value in our training. That is not anti-sport and we are not missing out on anything. I have three principal styles. Karate, Krav and Aikido. In each of those styles you have a full range of techniques from the fence where you don't want to engage, to the locks and holds which are restraints, to joint destruction and finally lethal technique. Your statement, "Not every physical altercation justifies killing or maiming a man", is quite correct but totally out of context. You don't need to train a sport based system to have non-lethal techniques. I would suggest my training is both alive and combative and quite capable of a wide range of applications.
> :asian:



As has been said at this point, it was a ground fighting situation. The guy may have been ko'd upon contact with the ground here, we don't really know. This incident is just a frame of reference for discussion. A lot of time in ground fighting is devoted to defense from the ground with a standing opponent. Safely getting up is one such technique every martial artist should know. Not sure how sport based sparring has little value for you. If you train punching you'd surely benefit from boxing, if you kick than you'd benefit from Muay thai, and if you train takedowns you'd benefit from wrestling. These are all basic skills and the sports practitioners are the best at them. Im glad to hear you consider sport ma as valid as any other art, surprisingly there are a lot who don't give sport the credit it deserves. I agree you don't need a sport system to have non lethal techniques, but we often hear people down at sports because they have rules. Some guys think they'll just eye gouge and nut kick a grappler, you might not be one of those people but I'm sure you've seen those arguments. Sport is often just basic technique, you can easily modify it to do greater harm, many systems have it, sport just represents the pinnacle of specialized training and conditioning, give the competitors credit. Few could defend themselves against a world class BJJ champ or boxer, use all the deadly technique you want, a competitive athlete has a distinct advantage.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> don't get me wrong.  I like you.  i just wish you weren't so damned stubborn and obstinate.  It's worth it to get to the end, though, and usually we end up on the same side.


Hey go easy. Stubborn and obstinate are loveable English traits. They sure worked against the Nazis!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> Hey go easy. Stubborn and obstinate are loveable English traits. They sure worked against the Nazis!



Hey! Are you implying that stubborn and obstinate aren't American traits? Them's fighting words, pardner.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm determined NOT to take offense, but passive aggressive behavior is on my short list of buttons to push.  Couple of things.  1: Whether or not it's a martial arts issue, grappling was involved.  2:  Acknowledging that there was grappling involved doesn't make my position "all about the grappling."  That's just the part on which you chose to fixate.  And 3: Being rude is as much a cultural thing as language.  In my family, and in my community, your current behavior would be considered very rude.
> 
> I understood your post the first time you posted it.  You asserted that the article didn't give enough information to conclude that they were grappling.  It did, and I pointed out specifically where.  You were incorrect.  You then argued that grappling isn't a verb.  It is, and I shared the definition with you.  And then you argued I was using the term incorrectly.  I wasn't, and now you acknowledge that I am using the term correctly, albeit via Kman.
> 
> don't get me wrong.  I like you.  i just wish you weren't so damned stubborn and obstinate.  It's worth it to get to the end, though, and usually we end up on the same side.



Stubborn and obstinate are the same thing and I'm neither, the problem is that you read into what I write something that no one else does, and I mean no one else. You see, you have it wrong about what I agreed with K Man, I was agreeing that there was confusion, nothing more but you chose to think I meant something else that I agreed with you, I wasn't.

My career training kicks in when I see reports of criminal actions, as I said, I see things differently from a martial artist. I see a need for precision in describing in what happened, what exactly happened, merely saying they were grappling doesn't satisfy I'm afraid. the action decides what charges would be brought, grappling _implies_ a  two handed tussle, a grappling move by one implies just one person did it so my mind is thinking of charges, blame etc. It's the way my mind works, after forty odd years it's ingrained, it was that way before I started martial arts and it will be that way until I die.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> Safely getting up is one such technique every martial artist should know. Not sure how sport based sparring has little value for you. If you train punching you'd surely benefit from boxing, if you kick than you'd benefit from Muay thai, and if you train takedowns you'd benefit from wrestling. These are all basic skills and the sports practitioners are the best at them.
> 
> Few could defend themselves against a world class BJJ champ or boxer, use all the deadly technique you want, a competitive athlete has a distinct advantage.


Safely getting up is part of our training. Training powerful punching has little really to do with boxing. Boxers are just specialist users of that technique. I did some boxing many years ago and we certainly didn't have the specialist punching training we have in karate. As to Muay Thai kicking, great. It is part and parcel of Krav but we don't have to spar Muay Thai to use their techniques. Wrestling takedowns, like judo have very little place in our training. Aikido had only one throw that I would never use in real life, karate has none. In Krav, I have never seen a throw taught but as Krav is a dynamic system any technique is available to use in any situation. 

I would agree that few could defend themselves against a world class BJJ champ or Boxer but there is another factor here. I am totally unlikely to be fighting such a person but were that situation to occur I would be fighting for my life, something a sport fighter has never had to do. That levels the field. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Hey! Are you implying that stubborn and obstinate aren't American traits? Them's fighting words, pardner.


Compared to Poms, we are all rank amateurs.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Stubborn and obstinate are the same thing and I'm neither, the problem is that you read into what I write something that no one else does, and I mean no one else. You see, you have it wrong about what I agreed with K Man, I was agreeing that there was confusion, nothing more but you chose to think I meant something else that I agreed with you, I wasn't.


So, when you say, "K man is correct by the way on what is being meant by grapple here," you mean "K-man is correct that there was confusion, nothing more?" Yeah. Without asking the larger group, I think two things are true. One, you are stubborn. And two, when you say, "K man is correct by the way on what is being meant by grapple here," I am not the only person who would interpret that to mean that you agree with K man's definition of the term "grapple." 





> My career training kicks in when I see reports of criminal actions, as I said, I see things differently from a martial artist. I see a need for precision in describing in what happened, what exactly happened, merely saying they were grappling doesn't satisfy I'm afraid. the action decides what charges would be brought, grappling _implies_ a two handed tussle, a grappling move by one implies just one person did it so my mind is thinking of charges, blame etc. It's the way my mind works, after forty odd years it's ingrained, it was that way before I started martial arts and it will be that way until I die.


I got all of this the first time you wrote it. This exchange between us isn't because I didn't understand or care to understand your posts. It's quite the opposite. You jumped to a conclusion and even now stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your mistake. You didn't understand or care to understand what I was really saying. 

1:  The article remains descriptive enough to conclude that grappling was involved based specifically on what was said. 
2:  Grappling is still not the sole purview of martial artists. 
3:  My position was not "all about the grappling" although it may seem so based upon this back and forth.
4:  And grappling remains both a noun AND a verb. Using the term as a verb is not a quaint American trait. I notice you use the term as a verb yourself when you're not thinking about it. 

And if you believe that the term "grappling" (a verb, mind you) implies a two handed tussle, I don't kow what to tell you. I've never heard anyone suggest that grappling must necessarily be a tussle involving two hands. I've also never heard of a one-person grapple.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Hey! Are you implying that stubborn and obstinate aren't American traits? Them's fighting words, pardner.


What??  I've NEVER been called stubborn...  :uhoh:


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2014)

Actually I would describe myself as bloody exasperated. We have had so many of these 'discussions', with you being offended, with you thinking I mean something, with you telling me I'm wrong else etc etc etc.
Yep exasperated certainly describes me. Bloody hell people might start thinking we are married.


----------



## Steve (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I would describe myself as bloody exasperated. We have had so many of these 'discussions', with you being offended, with you thinking I mean something, with you telling me I'm wrong else etc etc etc.
> Yep exasperated certainly describes me. Bloody hell people might start thinking we are married.



Haha.   Well you always come around to agreeing with me in the end.  Save us some trouble and start there and we are good.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> By the account in the newspaper he was very intoxicated so it's doubtful he could intelligently defend himself. Alcohol can make the best fighter in the world useless. Has anyone noticed that the article doesn't say exactly who put him on the floor? We are left to assume it's the guy who pushed but it doesn't say so.



Not necessarily. Based on the level of intoxication, and personal level of experience, even someone legally drunk can still perform trained movements if they're highly skilled. I would even argue that an intoxicated state makes one more resistant to hard blows and impacts because their body tends to be more relaxed and less tense.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Not necessarily. Based on the level of intoxication, and personal level of experience, even someone legally drunk can still perform trained movements if they're highly skilled. I would even argue that an intoxicated state makes one more resistant to hard blows and impacts because their body tends to be more relaxed and less tense.


Legally drunk here is over 0.05 . That is not what we are talking about. The guy killed was drunk and not trained. The guy who killed him had been drinking also and that may have impaired his reasoning. What you are arguing here is the exception rather than the rule. The reason we are having this discussion is because of the number of deaths we have had in Australia of people who have been drinking, by people who have been drinking. They call it "alcohol fuelled violence". Most of the deaths have been drunk people hitting their heads on hard surfaces, not stomping on heads. Thus one will be dealt with harshly, as an example, I suspect.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> Legally drunk here is over 0.05 . That is not what we are talking about. The guy killed was drunk and not trained. The guy who killed him had been drinking also and that may have impaired his reasoning. What you are arguing here is the exception rather than the rule. The reason we are having this discussion is because of the number of deaths we have had in Australia of people who have been drinking, by people who have been drinking. They call it "alcohol fuelled violence". Most of the deaths have been drunk people hitting their heads on hard surfaces, not stomping on heads. Thus one will be dealt with harshly, as an example, I suspect.



I thought we were having this discussion because you somehow wanted to tie this to "anti-grappling", when in fact, knowing some grappling may have saved this kid's life.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> knowing some grappling may have saved this kid's life.



A friend of mine his son was killed when his son was on the ground and people kicked on his son's head. There were too much blood in his son's skull even the ER doctor gave up.  He told me that if he would let his son to train with me, his son may still be alive today. 

IMO, how to protect your head from kicking and punching both in stand up game and in ground game is extremely important. It's life and death situation and should be treated seriously.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I thought we were having this discussion because you somehow wanted to tie this to "anti-grappling", when in fact, knowing some grappling may have saved this kid's life.


This has nothing to do with anti-grappling. There is nothing to suggest that any of them had any sort of MA training and even if the poor guy that died did know some grappling, being drunk would negate a lot of his ability.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> This has nothing to do with anti-grappling.



Weren't you originally going to put this in the anti-grappling thread?



> There is nothing to suggest that any of them had any sort of MA training...



Not the point.



> and even if the poor guy that died did know some grappling, being drunk would negate a lot of his ability.



That depends on the level of ability, and the level of intoxication.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> This has nothing to do with anti-grappling. There is nothing to suggest that any of them had any sort of MA training and even if the poor guy that died did know some grappling, being drunk would negate a lot of his ability.


Hard to say how much his inebriation would have affected him (a lot, a little?) though we know that he bumped into the perpetrator, so it's reasonable to assume that he may have been noticeably impaired.

Given that both men were drinking, possibly drunk, this definitely sounds like there was a lack of good judgment. And judgment is one of the first things affected by alcohol.

But I'd guarantee that regardless of how much he had to drink, his head impacting the pavement negated whatever grappling ability the alcohol hadn't.


----------



## K-man (Oct 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Weren't you originally going to put this in the anti-grappling thread?


I didn't.


Hanzou said:


> Not the point.


What is the point?


Hanzou said:


> That depends on the level of ability, and the level of intoxication.


Let's assume 'falling over' drunk.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> Let's assume 'falling over' drunk.



When I was very young, I saw a Judo guy used "shoulder throw" to throw a drunk opponent over his head. That drunk person on the ground said, "If I'm not drunk, there is no way that I'll let you to throw me like this."


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Because through the whole discussion, we don't have enough wrestlers, Judoka, Aikido guys, ... in those discussion. It's quite amazing that after 30 pages of "anti-grappling", nobody has ever mentioned about how to anti "hip throw" (the mother of all throws) yet.
> 
> To me, the grappling starts from the first grab too.
> 
> ...



Drop your weight. Don't give space in the hips.

The issue with anti hip throws is the timing.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I fully agree with everything your saying. I do disagree with the conclusion that because he wasn't really fighting at that point that the altercation (fight) didn't go to the ground.
> 
> As the victim was already inebriated, and probably either unconscious or stunned from landing on his head, any skills he might have had were moot at that point.
> 
> So while I would maintain that the fight went to the ground, most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of having the skills to fight on the ground are inapplicable to this scenario.



Except a component of ground fighting should be falling and rolling. So you are in a position to defend. The whole well rounded argument.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2014)

Anyway. I think there are a rang of skills that can be employed to maybe prevent this kind of thing happening. And these skills should be employed as a set of skills supporting each other rather than independent of each other.

So you would start with basic route planning. You don't go where you are likely to get in trouble. In St kilda not such a big issue apparently in places like Rio more of one.

You plan not to get stranded. So you are not drinking too much. Walking around on your own meeting people in back car parks.

You lean not to pick fights and avoid fights.

You learn to fight.

You learn to fight from your back.

And somewhere in that sequence some skills like use of force and first aid and stuff.


----------



## Brian King (Oct 21, 2014)

Regarding stomps to the head or body- 
If a person is in a legal lethal force situation then the actual technique used is a minor point in my opinion. Knowing when lethal force is necessary and 'authorized' should be a required point in training and one that is emphasized many times. 

Regarding training the stomp- 
We do cover it as it is a favorite tactic in some neighborhoods. We cover how to safely do it and more importantly how to defend from it. To learn how to defend a specific kind of attack - facing that attack requires that the training partner know how to throw the attack and not be afraid to do so.

An example, one training partner with their back on the floor and legs up against the wall (which if you slowly let the legs rotate down to the floor is a great stretch) butt tight against both the floor and the wall, the other training partner(s) starting slowly come in from a two or three step distance from actual kicking/stomping distance- and slowly stomp towards the 'downed' training partner once in range. The person on the floor is actually looking and reacting upside down and the proprioception work is rather confusing at first. The attack can come from right, left, or center.

The training partner on the ground is getting used to seeing an attack forming and an attack line from a very unusual position. They are training their body not to freeze when confronted or encountering an unusual position or circumstance. And they are learning to deal with stomps which are very common. Seeing a size whatever coming at your head when you are in a vulnerable position is an exercise in breathing and dealing with fear. 

The training partner doing the kicking is working on multiple levels as well. They are learning range to an unusual target. They are learning to deal with fear from and crashing/falling into walls and floors - if the defense is good (especially as the drill speeds up) They are working on fear of contact (both giving and receiving) They are learning how to work in tighter than usual spaces. They are learning how to walk on 'uneven' surfaces. 

It is interesting exploration in my opinion but not for everyone.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Except a component of ground fighting should be falling and rolling. So you are in a position to defend. The whole well rounded argument.



Two drunk untrained people. Honestly, most of the arguments presented in this thread regarding grappling do not apply, regardless of whether you perceive the fight as going to the ground or a presence of grappling.

The missing component isn't some training element, but the element of good sense. Don't go to stupid places with stupid people to do stupid things. Being in a state of intoxication affects one's judgment and behavior. Ever go to a concert and watch a band that's drunk and high amidst an audience that's drunk and high? Ever notice how the band all think they're playing the best they've ever played and the audience thinks their great?  Even though the band sounds terrible?

It's the same dynamic that causes an intoxicated person to think that they're okay to drive. Or that their behavior is level headed and logical when it's actually belligerent and antagonistic. And when they encounter pushback, they don't understand why, and then get even more belligerent and antagonistic.

Then there's motor skills and more importantly, reaction time; they're impaired. Which affects the timing and likely the execution of rolling and falling techniques.

Everyone is focused on grappling/anti-grappling, was there grappling, or you should train grappling to be well rounded. Honestly, this entire discussion is pointless; it centers around two untrained drunks, and the major point of discussion should be the all of the missed mental components of self defense, because that is really what brought this event into play. The training elements don't even come into play in this scenario.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 21, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So you would start with basic route planning. You don't go where you are likely to get in trouble. In St kilda not such a big issue apparently in places like Rio more of one.
> 
> You plan not to get stranded. So you are not drinking too much. Walking around on your own meeting people in back car parks.
> 
> You lean not to pick fights and avoid fights.


These three items will keep you out of more trouble than all of the fight training in the world. These are essentials.

I was asked by women at work what self defense advice I could give to women. I told them the following:


Don't go jogging in Rock Creek Park alone.
Don't go jogging at night, particularly alone.
Don't walk around with you face buried in your phone or be on the phone when you walk or drive.
Stay away from social settings that involve alcohol and people you don't know.
Don't attend said social settings alone.
Don't wear your purse around your neck.
Park in well lit areas.
Walk confidently like you own the place.
Be aware of your surroundings.
Wear comfortable shoes that you can walk/run in.
Lock your doors
Don't advertise where you're going on social media.
Find out if the county or police department offer a women's self defense class.

That was the most I could reasonably cram into the relatively brief conversation and expect them to retain. The amazing response I got was, "Wow. I hadn't even thought of any of that."

What they were expecting was cheap shot moves, like heel to the foot or knee to the groin.


----------



## Steve (Oct 21, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Hard to say how much his inebriation would have affected him (a lot, a little?) though we know that he bumped into the perpetrator, so it's reasonable to assume that he may have been noticeably impaired.
> 
> Given that both men were drinking, possibly drunk, this definitely sounds like there was a lack of good judgment. And judgment is one of the first things affected by alcohol.
> 
> But I'd guarantee that regardless of how much he had to drink,* his head impacting the pavement negated whatever grappling ability *the alcohol hadn't.


I mostly agree.  however, the highlighted part speaks to some of the confusion earlier.  Grappling ability could have prevented his head from impacting the pavement in the first place.  Grappling includes the grips, the throw, the defense against the throw and anything that happens on the ground.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 21, 2014)

Steve said:


> I mostly agree.  however, the highlighted part speaks to some of the confusion earlier.  Grappling ability could have prevented his head from impacting the pavement in the first place.  Grappling includes the grips, the throw, the defense against the throw and anything that happens on the ground.


I agree; but I do not see this as a grappling issue in the least. See my further responses to Drop Bear.


----------



## tkdwarrior (Dec 31, 2014)

Reading the original post, it is indeed a bad case of alcohol and testosterone. A stomp kick is a legitimate martial arts technique. But to do it over and over again?

If you can't handle yout liquor don't drink. 

If you have neutralized an attack get away asap.

Better yet do not put yourself in a position you may not like.


----------

