JKD vs. MMA

[Gruenewald]

But Gruenewald, you made the point that there's much to discuss, and yet you've only replied to complaints that it's all been done before. Ignoring my attempt to actually discuss. So whaddya say to my earlier post?

Not trying to start static. But I'm trying to discuss, despite the fact that this has been covered before.

Stuart

Sorry, I was gone all day yesterday. Thanks for the good points everybody, however I'll respond to you specifically since you addressed me. =)

How different would you say MMA is from JKD's sparring platform? It's all well and good to say that JKD allows this and that. But in terms of what people can actually perform on one another in a reasonably polite society, I think the differences decrease considerably. What we could do to one another in theory is just that. Theory. And Lee wasn't a huge fan of unsubstantiated theory either.

I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to say here. It seems as though you're arguing that human morals limit our actions in a real fight, which takes a bit away from the "do whatever works" attitude of JKD, that it is a theoretical attitude that one may not actually follow through with in the heat of battle However you also point out that that theoretical ability to do anything is supported by Bruce, who "wasn't a huge fan of unsubstantiated theory". So... it seems like you're arguing both sides to me. Care to clear this up?

Dana White citing Bruce Lee has at least as much to do with White's efforts to bring MMA back from the brink of extinction as much as anything else.

While I disagree with the statement that MMA was on "the brink of extinction" (correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear as though MMA was just rolling into the public eye around 2004 when he said that, with the first season of "The Ultimate Fighter" reality show just about to hit the air early next year), you are most certainly correct about the thinly veiled intent of publicity behind his statement. My op was more or less asking for justification of that statement, however (do you believe he's right about Bruce Lee being the father of MMA?). The point has already been addressed by others, but yeah.

Historically, the MMA format is older than Lee by a handful of centuries. Fighters crosstrained in boxing and wrestling, competing for trophies, titles, and cash prizes, in front of an adoring throng. Pankration.

I understand what you mean by the "MMA format" (mixed styles), but in Pankration I believe I heard that it was more about proving that the athletes from each area was the best, which far less emphasis on which style is the best (they accepted every style as being equally effective), which is interesting when compared to the almost smug attitude of today's MMA fighters in trying to prove that their style is most effective (remembering that that was the actual purpose of UFC 1). Mind you I don't believe that that's as true today. It's interesting nonetheless to compare the intents of historic MMA and modern MMA.

Also I do believe I specified in my op that "Modern MMA" was influenced heavily by the concepts of JKD, specifically when it comes to taking what's effective from a variety of different styles and applying them. However you are all of course correct about Sambo and Vale Tudo etc., they were all certainly precursors to the sport we now call MMA.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Sorry, I was gone all day yesterday. Thanks for the good points everybody, however I'll respond to you specifically since you addressed me. =)

No worries. And don't think I was "calling you out." I just wanted to make sure that the discussion didn't get lost amidst the "vs" debate.

I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to say here.

You are, yeah. But that's not your fault. I didn't communicate it very clearly.

It seems as though you're arguing that human morals limit our actions in a real fight, which takes a bit away from the "do whatever works" attitude of JKD, that it is a theoretical attitude that one may not actually follow through with in the heat of battle However you also point out that that theoretical ability to do anything is supported by Bruce, who "wasn't a huge fan of unsubstantiated theory". So... it seems like you're arguing both sides to me. Care to clear this up?

My comment on polite society refers to the constraints of training. Not actual life-or-death struggle. Obviously, actual defense legitimates a lot of things that training doesn't.

One of the chief counterarguments to MMA is that the sport has constraints on it that self defense does not. You can't gouge eyes or kick someone in the cash-and-prizes (anymore). You can't bite him or punch him in the throat.

Now here's the question again: How many of those things can you actually do in training? You can find various ways to simulate those things in training. You can put on lab goggles and spar with eye jabs. You can put on a redman suit and have a guy kick you in the jumblies. You can mimic biting someone during grappling. But at the end of the day, you haven't actually done those things anymore than the MMA guy has. Not unless you've actually been in a serious scrap. And JKD doesn't have a monopoly on that.

All training is an abstraction. Our goal, then, is to use enough abstractions to triangulate reality, understanding that no training method is ever going to land squarely on reality. It's no smaller leap for a guy trained in biting and eye gouging to actually follow through and do those things than it is for a guy who's thoroughly trained in punching people full contact in the face to aim a couple of inches lower and hit the adam's apple.

So my question was how different the MMA format is from JKD as it can actually be performed in training? Philosophically and theoretically, there are clear differences. But when it comes to operationalization, I think many of those differences fade a bit.

While I disagree with the statement that MMA was on "the brink of extinction" (correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear as though MMA was just rolling into the public eye around 2004 when he said that, with the first season of "The Ultimate Fighter" reality show just about to hit the air early next year)

Now consider that the UFC began a full decade prior to 2004. And that it had existed solely as a pay-per-view event. And had been banned in many states. And was under constant scrutiny (if not outright barrage) by politicians looking for an easy mark.

I may not care much for Dana White's personality. But the UFC (and therefore MMA in the States) was in real trouble before he took the helm. Otherwise, the original owners wouldn't have sold it to White and his partners in the first place.

you are most certainly correct about the thinly veiled intent of publicity behind his statement. My op was more or less asking for justification of that statement, however (do you believe he's right about Bruce Lee being the father of MMA?). The point has already been addressed by others, but yeah.

I don't believe Lee is the father of MMA, no. I believe he's a highly visible icon. And I agree that his views were very consistent with MMA. I expect he'd love the stuff if he were still around. But there were people before Lee who subscribed to this same basic framework. Throughout history, really. But Lee is a household name. My mum has heard of Bruce Lee. Jigoro Kano, not so much.

I understand what you mean by the "MMA format" (mixed styles), but in Pankration I believe I heard that it was more about proving that the athletes from each area was the best, which far less emphasis on which style is the best (they accepted every style as being equally effective), which is interesting when compared to the almost smug attitude of today's MMA fighters in trying to prove that their style is most effective (remembering that that was the actual purpose of UFC 1). Mind you I don't believe that that's as true today. It's interesting nonetheless to compare the intents of historic MMA and modern MMA.

You're saying "today's MMA fighters" but describing MMA in the mid 90s. I don't know precise dates, but it's been a very long time since style has been listed in a fighter's stats in the UFC. Because that information is now largely irrelevant. Experience and distillation has shown us that it's not really a question of styles. It's a question of mastering certain skill sets, using whatever training opportunities fit the bill. You need submissions experience. Whether you get it from BJJ, sambo, shooto, or whatever is less important than the degree to which you internalize its lessons.

Now, it's more about the individual fighters and their camps, making it pretty analogous to the original model.

Also I do believe I specified in my op that "Modern MMA" was influenced heavily by the concepts of JKD, specifically when it comes to taking what's effective from a variety of different styles and applying them. However you are all of course correct about Sambo and Vale Tudo etc., they were all certainly precursors to the sport we now call MMA.

Um... I'm not arguing that there's no influence. In fact, I'm arguing to minimize the differences between MMA and JKD by pointing out that JKD training offers fewer differences from MMA than does JKD theory and philosophy.

Anything else I've said about MMA was simply to clear up what I regard as misunderstandings about MMA. Not to establish a clear difference between it and JKD. I personally think that the fundamental approach of MMA and that of JKD should be very similar.


Stuart

 

[ap Oweyn]

I put more stock in people who have a solid grasp of basic principles and concepts of combat and some experience getting knocked about over abstract and possibly unrealistic training. Principles and concepts translate readily to new situations, stilted training doesn't. BTW Stuart, I got that from and old FMA instructor!

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me.

I think that this "take what's useful" philosophy has been prevalent in certain cultures for a good long while. If you look at GM Ciriacio Canete's training experience, for instance, you find boxing, Kodokan judo, aikido, competitive wrestling, karate, and jiujutsu, in addition to eskrima. (I use GM Cacoy because I interviewed him years ago and know his story better than I know most others' stories.)

I think there's good reason for the close association between FMA and JKD, above and beyond the obvious common denominators of Dan Inosanto and Richard Bustillo.


Stuart

 

[Xue Sheng]

May have been. But aren't we capable of reading the rest of his question and seeing that this is what he meant anyways, overlooking the "vs" and shaping the conversation ourselves by discussing the differences and similarities in a mature manner?

Or we could walk on egg shells, and lecture each other on how "vs" threads are naughty, further perpetuating the problem with a self-righteous tone... but I think that is even worse than the dreaded "vs" thread. TS asked for thoughts an opinions... anyone who loath "vs" threads can simply avoid it, or take an active role in shaping a positive conversation. I'm not with Tez on this one... members popping in long enough to shake ones finger at another doesn't help.

Back to the thread, I think this was a great point;

Of course we could discuss this, even though it has been done to death on MT. But I am old and jaded and have little faith in humanity so although the discussion so far is fine I am again 100%with tez in this post

Well thats not anyone whos on here now. I'll tell you why I hate the 'v' threads...because when they involve MMA they invariably turn into and despite what you think they could be, a let's bash MMA/TMA thread. You may consider yourself mature enough to resist this argument but I'll bet you it comes along soon enough.

1. someone is going to post MMA isn't any good for self defence

2. someone is going to post about the fanboys and yobs in MMA

3. someone is going to post up that there's rules in MMA and fighters are stuck with those rules and can't do it one the street.

4. someone is going to post up that Bruce Lee would have/havent done well in the UFC.

I hope the discussion goes well, it would be a refreshing change from what has gone on in the past but like I said I am old and jaded and doubt that it will go that way in the long run

Likely why he invoked the name "Bruce Lee" as the father of MMA, without naming the earlier "fathers and mothers" of MMA. (Wasn't Wing Chun started by a woman searching to take only what was most effective, specifically for smaller individuals?)

Well, here we are at the CMA claiming associations again that may or may not be true. Even Ip Chun questions this story these days.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I hope this first post in the JKD section was not too naive and ignorant, and look forward to returning more frequently as I progress in your art.

I thought it was really very good myself.

 

[Tez3]

It's been called semantics before but I'll say it again, over here in Europe, MMA is the stuff you do in the cage/ring etc. If you do more than one art it's cross training not MMA and styles are styles, JKD being a style. Now this may not correspond with what your experience is but here it makes life simple.
Geezer, we are a martial arts club which means we cover a lot of different things including training in MMA for fights and doing self defence. We have students from many different styles in the club including one from JKD, his style seems quite different from what we do, having CMA type stances, no grappling and quite different punching from our MT/boxing/karate type. We are based in an army barracks so our students are predominantly fit and strong, the self defence we do is focused more on control and restraint plus riot type control rather than attacks on a person, our students seem to manage that quite well all on their own lol!
The UFC is biggest in the States, it's never been as relevant to the rest of the world and MMA certainly wasn't dying anywhere other than the States if it was.

 

[ap Oweyn]

It's been called semantics before but I'll say it again, over here in Europe, MMA is the stuff you do in the cage/ring etc. If you do more than one art it's cross training not MMA and styles are styles, JKD being a style. Now this may not correspond with what your experience is but here it makes life simple.

That's actually how I prefer to view MMA as well. I don't like the really broad definition of MMA as being anything involving a mix of styles. It's too broad to be useful. And, while it may work literally, we all know that terms hold particular meanings, even if you can dissect it into individual components and then apply the meaning differently.

The sports guys got that phrase first. "Eclectic" and "hybrid" are still on the table.

The UFC is biggest in the States, it's never been as relevant to the rest of the world and MMA certainly wasn't dying anywhere other than the States if it was.

From Entrepreneur magazine's online edition:

"Even in 1993, the year Semaphore Entertainment Group (SEG) created the UFC, the first event broadcast on pay-per-view was a smash hit. While the events grew in popularity, SEG was marketing the sport as a human cockfight, which drew criticism and restrictions and drove the company to the brink of bankruptcy. That's when current UFC president Dana White and brothers and casino moguls Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta purchased the UFC in 2001 as Zuffa LLC.

Here, White talks about how they resurrected the UFC and are bringing the sport of MMA to prominence..."

(Full story: http://www.entrepreneur.com/ufc)

Now, I know there were other MMA venues, particularly in Japan and Brazil. And perhaps I should have said that the UFC was on the brink of extinction. But I think it's fair to say that the UFC represents a fairly large part of the MMA movement.


Stuart

 

[Tez3]

The human cockfighting comment always makes me laugh albeit with gritted teeth. When we watch athletics do we watch human greyhound racing when the sprints are on?

I think the UFC to Europeans at least, can't speak for the Japanese, is something we watch on the television after coming in late after a night on the pop, it's like the big American Football finals they put on our television in the early hours of the morning (its live), it's interesting but nothing like our our matches. We have a fair few promotions in this country which are doing well and that's where the focus is on for the majority of people. Brits in the UFC are supported in public ( well, we all want 'our' guys to win against 'their' guys) but aren't actually thought much of in private. We tend to lose interest in fighters once they've gone to America.

The labelling of MMA can be a marketing tool to get paying customers, that's something it has in common with JKD,'train like Bruce Lee' and of course kickboxing ie I'm hard!


The limited experience I've had of JKD is that while the concept might be the same as MMA....using anything thats works, the actual techniques are very much in the Chinese tradition rather than the Japanese/Thai/Korean.

 

[James Kovacich]

The relation of JKD and "anything that works" is a false and misleading prophecy. Whoever started it was wrong. Look to the best sources.
http://thejkdbrotherhood.com/page167/page167.html

The "concepts," plural, not "concept," are not MMA. A JKD fighter can train to do MMA but if he was serious, he'd be crazy to not train or atleast crosstrain in an MMA gym. An MMA'er can learn JKD but he does not already "know it" just because he's an MMAer.

JKD is both a style and philosophy but the concepts are nothing without the style and vice versa. Today both JKD and MMA are capitalizing on eachother with the "misleading" connection, but in reality they are more differant than alike.

I'd say look to the best sources for a better understanding of "what is and isn't" and forget what the general martial art public believes "because they read it". Draw an educated opinion from experience and leave the talk for "talkers."

My opinion from experience. :asian:

 

[Tez3]

The relation of JKD and "anything that works" is a false and misleading prophecy. Whoever started it was wrong. Look to the best sources.
http://thejkdbrotherhood.com/page167/page167.html

The "concepts," plural, not "concept," are not MMA. A JKD fighter can train to do MMA but if he was serious, he'd be crazy to not train or atleast crosstrain in an MMA gym. An MMA'er can learn JKD but he does not already "know it" just because he's an MMAer.

JKD is both a style and philosophy but the concepts are nothing without the style and vice versa. Today both JKD and MMA are capitalizing on eachother with the "misleading" connection, but in reality they are more differant than alike.

I'd say look to the best sources for a better understanding of "what is and isn't" and forget what the general martial art public believes "because they read it". Draw an educated opinion from experience and leave the talk for "talkers."

My opinion from experience. :asian:

Tbh I've never heard anyone here making a connection with JKD and MMA, I think, again, this is a publicity thing done by the UFC company. As far as I know and can see JKD is regarded here as a style of martial arts connected to or made famous by Bruce Lee. It's not been connected to MMA at all. We have one fighter in our club who has a JKD background but his instructor said if he wants to fight MMA he'd have to train with us first as he doesn't have the experience to teach him what he needs for the cage. He's a very good instuctor and does Defendo for the SD stuff not JKD. I don't know the ins and outs of that though just that he does.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back. – Bruce Lee

:asian:

 

[ElfTengu]

I think the danger is in looking at the nomenclature almost as brand names. JKD appears to be more selective in what its senior practitioners take from other arts and methods, in fact I would venture that not just 'anyone' can take something from elsewhere and still call their JKD 'JKD', because 'something' still has to define JKD as JKD and set it apart from other modern arts.

Also, whilst MMA overwhelming screams 'SPORT', it is not as simple as that. Looking at interviews with the UK and rest of worlds top martial arts teachers, there seem to be a lot of them who teach what they now call MMA, regardless of what the original background was, but that they tailor the material and training methodolgy depending upon what the student wants from their training, and will adapt to the professional cage fighter, law enforcement professional, military personnel, and those simply looking for 'high percentage' (of success in application) self defence methods.

It is also true that not only are individuals seeking out this kind of approach, but also, probably because of the high public exposure of cage fighting, so are professional bodies. And because more and more young men will be seeking to emulate their UFC heroes late on a Friday night whilst full of beer, cocaine and bravado, it isn't such a bad idea for the police and those of us who venture out as civilians, to know how to deal with double leg takedowns and being ground and pounded, (to use their parlance).

You could (and I believe I did) argue that the FMA aspects highlight most of the differences between what is [generally] defined as JKD or MMA, but then we have the Dog Bros, who mix it all up and confuse matters even further. It occurs to me that JKD practioners have a venue with Dog Bros, which may mean that they really need not hold back on much of their material and still test it in a live, fairly dangerous but rarely seriously injurious, manner. And it is not necessarily a young man's game either, looking at some of the participants, including the Bros themselves, and this is another important factor in the 'Vs' argument. Sports martial arts are almost entirely the domain of young strong fit able bodies males, whereas martial arts for self preservation are often sought and practiced by those who do not fall into this category but don't want to curl up and hope for the best if they are assaulted on the street.

Not going down the old argument route of MMA sports not allowing eye gouging etc, because an MMAist is more than capable of throwing the rulebook out when need be, and many will not be dissuaded by a poke in the eye in any case, but it is the nastiness of real martial methods for use in life threatening situations, that even up the odds and make the difference between sport and combat arts, even though there are people who would do well in either camp. Real martial arts is about doing whatever is necessary and escalating the level of violence to negate the threat, and staying ahead of the game by learning to deal with whatever is currently 'popular' in a simple effective manner. Most of the time, looking at some of these MMA guys, my method will involve apologising profusely, offering to buy them a drink, and then disappearing as quickly as possible, probably without buying that drink.

 

[Tez3]

As has always happened there are people who are wannabes, and its them not the MMA people themselves who are more liable to cause problems with fighting on 'on the street'. It's not a new thing, I remember the kickboxing phase, where everyone was a kickboxer, I remember too the kungfu phase. It's these wannabes who will be drunk, drugged etc and wanting to emulate their UFC 'heroes' not the MMA fighters themselves. To label all of us MMAers as potential thugs is harsh. The chances of these people who look to do takedowns etc in a street situation being actually in training is very low, they see it on the television and think they can do it. No one takes people to the floor in a serious fight outside training or competition.

 

[Gruenewald]

The chances of these people who look to do takedowns etc in a street situation being actually in training is very low, they see it on the television and think they can do it. No one takes people to the floor in a serious fight outside training or competition.

Are you insinuating that all takedowns are useless in a "street" scenario?

 

[ElfTengu]

We have something in England (and five other nations) called a Rugby Tackle, it is similar to something you might see in American Football but without the padding or helmets, although the players are of comparable size and strength to their US counterparts (although far uglier, but that's due to not wearing a helmet!)

The Rugby Tackle is very common in street altercations, often delivered from the side or rear, as in the game in which it is employed, and which is very difficult to defend against, and is arguably as effective as any martial arts takedown.

Worth thinking about perhaps.

 

[MASponge1]

Hello Everyone,

Bruce Lee is considered the Father of MMA because he advocated a number things that would later make up his JKD. Some of these things were borrowed by MMA practitioners.

Bruce advocated - Fighting in all ranges.
Many systems years ago were specialists in 1 or 2 ranges. Some Styles were great at long range with kicks, Some were good at the punching or mid range, some at close range and others excelled at ground work. Some were good at punching and kicking, some at punching and close range and some at close range or grappling range.
MMA has looked to kicking arts like Muy Thai for long range techniques, boxing for punching range, originally Wing Chun for the trapping or close range (but this has largely been dropped) and BJJ for the grappling range. No on prior to Bruce was doing this far as I know. Then again maybe someone was already head of the game but didn't have Bruce's notoriety.

Bruce advocated - Making trainings alive and emphasized sparring so that practitioners would learn to apply their techniques in a more realistic fashion against a non cooperative opponent. In this way you can try your art under pressure, learn and work on distance & timing, etc.

Bruce advocated - absorbing what is useful and discarding what is useless. This however is largely misunderstood. Many think this mean take any technique and combine it how you like and if you like it and if you can make it work for you then great. This however will not make what you do JKD. It might make it MMA but not JKD. First how do you determine what to absorb and what to discard? That's the missing key. Yes Bruce researched many styles but he didn't take just anything. He researched many arts and ran them through a filter, to remove what was useless. That filter is 4 main principles of JKD which are Simple Direct Economical & Non Telegraphic. If you what you abosrb from other systems does not follow these 4 principle as a guide it is not JKD.

 

[Tez3]

Are you insinuating that all takedowns are useless in a "street" scenario?

Oh do read my words.
I said the people who will try takedowns on the street as a first line thing won't be people who train martial arts as they know that they don't want to go to the ground if they can help it. As Elftengu correctly says a lot of the 'takedowns' here will be the rugger tackle. Takedowns aren't useless if you mean do they work, of course they do but they aren't what you want if you can avoid it. Rolling around on the floor leaves you open to being kicked in the head by 'spectators' etc, as well as rolling around in blood, snot, stale booze, dog mess, broken glass, etc etc. If you can, you want to be standing up, if you can put someone on the floor without going down yourself which being small hardly ever happens for me then take them down but otherwise stay up or preferably get the hell out.

Please don't use the word insinunating to me as I always say what I mean, often to others discomfort but I don't insinuate anything.


MAsponge, you may consider Bruce Lee the father of MMA but we don't, not putting him down but there was MMA/Vale Tudo long before he was born and the idea of mixing martial arts to be effective didn't come with him either. MMA has many karateka as well as TKD in it for the kicking and punching in it not just MT, it also has Judo, Juijitsu and wrestling as well as BJJ. There has been much down before Bruce to put 'aliveness' into martial arts, he was good but not the first.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We have something in England (and five other nations) called a Rugby Tackle, it is similar to something you might see in American Football but without the padding or helmets, although the players are of comparable size and strength to their US counterparts (although far uglier, but that's due to not wearing a helmet!)

The Rugby Tackle is very common in street altercations, often delivered from the side or rear, as in the game in which it is employed, and which is very difficult to defend against, and is arguably as effective as any martial arts takedown.

Worth thinking about perhaps.

Having grown up in a lower middle class rural area dominated by highschool American football, and having been the unfortunate participant in a few brawls as a youth, and a more fortunate observer of far more, I can assure you that method of fighting is pretty much the same here, and I can vouch for it's effectiveness...........broadside and drive in to the ground, then pound accordingly.

 

[Tez3]

Having grown up in a lower middle class rural area dominated by highschool American football, and having been the unfortunate participant in a few brawls as a youth, and a more fortunate observer of far more, I can assure you that method of fighting is pretty much the same here, and I can vouch for it's effectiveness...........broadside and drive in to the ground, then pound accordingly.

Yeah, great fun

Mind, what I can't stand dealing with is drunken women! I'd rather deal with a drunk guy anytime. They don't alternatively try to hit you then cry all over you then try to rake you with their nails nor do men scream at you in that drunk high pitched voice. And somehow men swearing at you while still offensive is never as bad as a woman using the 'c' word etc.

Anyway, I still maintain that on the ground ain't where you want to be if you can help it. Trouble is fights are never 'ideal' lol so you have to deal with whatever comes up. Here MMa helps as you have so many techniques your opponent can use, ground, floor locks etc that it does keep you using your mind, I've heard MMA being described as physical chess, thinking under pressure, got to be good.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yeah, great fun

Mind, what I can't stand dealing with is drunken women! I'd rather deal with a drunk guy anytime. They don't alternatively try to hit you then cry all over you then try to rake you with their nails nor do men scream at you in that drunk high pitched voice. And somehow men swearing at you while still offensive is never as bad as a woman using the 'c' word etc.

Anyway, I still maintain that on the ground ain't where you want to be if you can help it. Trouble is fights are never 'ideal' lol so you have to deal with whatever comes up. Here MMa helps as you have so many techniques your opponent can use, ground, floor locks etc that it does keep you using your mind, I've heard MMA being described as physical chess, thinking under pressure, got to be good.

I will say that quite often you want to avoid the ground if you can.

I do find that taking suspects to the ground to restrain and control them is quite effective, when I decide to initiate the takedown.....but one does want to have the presence of backup, especially if there are other subjects standing around, because you're very vulnerable to interested third parties while on the ground, obviously.

The pluses to being on the ground in that context is that most folks, even those who follow combat sports, are really clueless on the ground, and fairly easily controlled. Even the MMA guys I know who actually compete I can fairly easily control on the ground, as most of them have limited ground skills picked up after about 6 months of very basic BJJ.

It's just not an area most folks are competent in, even those who are familiar with the fact that there are ground techniques. Knowing those techniques exist, and even what some of them are, are not match for knowing how to distribute your weight and leverage on the ground, and you only get that by grappling experience.

But your point is still valid, that it should be avoided, generally, due to the vulnerability to third parties and environmental concerns.