Post Zimmerman public perception of Ground & Pound

[lklawson]

No, Kirk. I'm just talking about what it would look like. If the idea of the thread is to discuss how this court case will impact the image of MMA and G&P, I think it will create an image of brutality in the lay person. Which one do you think would be perceived as more brutal? All things being equal, the image, particularly as a result of this trial, of a person mounted on another person will be perceived as more brutal.

Yes, I agree.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

Okay. So then the next question is, what if it wasn't mount, but was guard and the witnesses couldn't tell the difference? Isn't this a risk?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[oftheherd1]

Here's a question I have for you guys. If I hit you three times and knock you unconscious, do you think it would be viewed as more brutal from mount or from standing? Same situation. Same people and same end result: you bloody and asleep for a while. Picture on one hand a three strike combination. On the other hand, you're mounted and take three punches.

I think the answer about appearances being if two people and standing, neither appears to have as much advantage is if one is mounted on the other, makes most sense. But as some have mentioned, each confrontation will have its own unique set of circumstances that will play into the perception of most people.

If you're talking about the risk of serious head injury due to unguided falling from going unconscious while standing vs. going unconscious while on the ground, both without any further attacks, then yes, ground is obviously safer.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Perhaps most of the time, but not always. See below.

First I do believe that g&p is very much dangerous. Having someone pound your head in and bouncing it off the ground would scare the mess out of me.

Secondly I think people may think of training in ground fighting more to protect themselves or just get a gun.

Now my thought is this though. If you train at a mma school for a yr and after a year you can not protect yourself on the ground with at least a bridge, control the head, or even punch back will say to the rest of the world that unless you have years to train then might as well get a gun.

Being on the ground, if you head is above the ground level and moves back forcefully and strikes the ground as well has having been struck, you essentially have two traumas. Coup and counter-coup. But falling and hitting a rock or curb isn't likely going to improve you day either. I think their are too many variables to say for sure one is worse, but still agree that perception is likely to make most people think GNP is worse.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Being on the ground, if you head is above the ground level and moves back forcefully and strikes the ground as well has having been struck, you essentially have two traumas. Coup and counter-coup. But falling and hitting a rock or curb isn't likely going to improve you day either. I think their are too many variables to say for sure one is worse, but still agree that perception is likely to make most people think GNP is worse.

Tripping and hitting your head on a rock is just as bad but to have someone throw a rock and hit you in the head is also bad. But the perception of someone beating your head in you cant stop it, trumps the others for me.

 

[Kframe]

You can still punch from guard, its just not nearly as effective. IF I strike from the top position in guard situation its likely to be either hammer fists to the side of the head or some kind of elbow attack to the body or side of head if possible. I think that how it would appear to a jury, depends on who is on it. If some of them watch a lot of mma and knows the terminology and what they are seeing then they likely wont see guard as being more brutal, but if its a non mma watching person, they likely will think it is just as brutal as the normal mount..

 

[Steve]

You can still punch from guard, its just not nearly as effective. IF I strike from the top position in guard situation its likely to be either hammer fists to the side of the head or some kind of elbow attack to the body or side of head if possible. I think that how it would appear to a jury, depends on who is on it. If some of them watch a lot of mma and knows the terminology and what they are seeing then they likely wont see guard as being more brutal, but if its a non mma watching person, they likely will think it is just as brutal as the normal mount..

My point exactly! Even though we know that a person on the bottom in guard is not helpless, a lay person presumes he is "losing" that fight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Makalakumu]

My point exactly! Even though we know that a person on the bottom in guard is not helpless, a lay person presumes he is "losing" that fight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Being on top is a control position and this position isn't available while standing. I think this makes gnp different in terms force escalation. The person on the bottom is being confined and struck.

 

[Argus]

My initial perception is that G&P would be more dangerous. Unless you have training from that position, you're somewhat helpless, and at the complete mercy of the opponent.

Two things immediately come to mind. The first is that my head might be impacted by both the fist, and the pavement. My second, and even greater fear, is that this process will be repeated for as long as the attacker wants. At least if I am knocked to the ground while standing, and the opponent considers the fight "finished", I will not be repeatedly bludgeoned to death.

I'm also curious as to how likely it actually is that, when knocked out, your head will impact the ground from a considerable height. Does the body not tend to crumple more so than tipping over like a stiff board?

I have no experience with ground fighting, or knock-outs for that matter though. Are my perceptions accurate?

 

[Steve]

My initial perception is that G&P would be more dangerous. Unless you have training from that position, you're somewhat helpless, and at the complete mercy of the opponent.

Two things immediately come to mind. The first is that my head might be impacted by both the fist, and the pavement. My second, and even greater fear, is that this process will be repeated for as long as the attacker wants. At least if I am knocked to the ground while standing, and the opponent considers the fight "finished", I will not be repeatedly bludgeoned to death.

It could happen, either way. I personally think that the end result is likely to be the same. In video footage of street fights, we almost always see a person get knocked out, lay prone on the ground unmoving and then get a couple soccer kicks to the head. Bottom line, getting knocked out is bad news.

I'm also curious as to how likely it actually is that, when knocked out, your head will impact the ground from a considerable height. Does the body not tend to crumple more so than tipping over like a stiff board?

Either could happen. There are plenty of knockouts in the UFC and sometimes they crumple to the gorund. Other times it's like in the cartoons, where they stiffen up and fall like a plank of wood.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Here's a question for my Martial Arts friends. What impact will the Zimmerman trial have on martial arts in general and MMA in particular? To be specific, one of the key elements of the Self Defense narrative was that Martin had achieved a Mount position and was striking Zimmerman repeatedly and that this was crucial in Zimmerman's asserted mind set that he was in fear for his life or Great Bodily Harm. Now, let's be clear here, I don't want to discuss the merits of whether or not Zimmerman or Martin committed any crime or if Zimmerman was guilty of anything. We're not discussing Zimmerman. I'm focusing on the impact that this specific element has had/will have on martial arts, MMA, and the general public's perception of them. Of note is that many of Zimmerman's advocates, particularly noted talk show host Sean Hannity, appear to have played up this particular element, referring to it repeatedly as, "Ground and Pound, MMA style, raining punches" and clearly implying this was an extremely dangerous situation for the bottom person; a clear threat of Serious Bodily Harm or worse.

What do you think? In YOUR estimation, how "dangerous" is a G&P (sans ref.) and how will the rhetoric about G&P from the Zimmerman trial now associated with G&P impact the general public perception of martial arts in general and MMA in specific?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I think it will have a greater impact on the gun debate.

As for MMA, the only 'negative' thing that I could possibly see is that this is a case well known to an untrained public where the only thing that came out about MMA was that an MMA-ist couldn't defend himself against an untrained kid and had to use his gun instead.

 

[GaryR]

G & P is very dangerous. Fist meets head, head meets concrete, it can be just like taking a big rock and smashing someone in the head with it over and over.

I think the case will be bad for the MMA image, but good for awareness in that sense. Every teenager who dreams of the Octagon learns the G&P, what they need to realize is that by doing so you are putting someone very reasonably in fear for their life. Life is not the Octagon with a ref / rules. By climbing on someone and repeatedly hitting them you are committing to taking the fight beyond what it would take to end it and get away.

 

[Makalakumu]

G & P is very dangerous. Fist meets head, head meets concrete, it can be just like taking a big rock and smashing someone in the head with it over and over.

I think the case will be bad for the MMA image, but good for awareness in that sense. Every teenager who dreams of the Octagon learns the G&P, what they need to realize is that by doing so you are putting someone very reasonably in fear for their life. Life is not the Octagon with a ref / rules. By climbing on someone and repeatedly hitting them you are committing to taking the fight beyond what it would take to end it and get away.

From a self defense perspective, I think this can make GnP very chancey. If someone attacks and both attackers go to the ground and you have enough skill to turn your attacker over, take his back, and end the fight, maybe it won't look so bad to witnesses and judges. However, if you down your attacker, mount him, and pound away, that's a totally different image.

 

[Kframe]

Ok I have read it a few times so I have to ask. Is Z a mma'ist?? I was aware that he worked out at a gym lifting weights and stuff, and during the trial the trainer said he did not feel Z could handle him self. I was not made aware of any martial training.

If he did, it is clear that he did not have much of it. As I said before escape from mount, with gnp is lesson number one were I train..

 

[Steve]

Ok I have read it a few times so I have to ask. Is Z a mma'ist?? I was aware that he worked out at a gym lifting weights and stuff, and during the trial the trainer said he did not feel Z could handle him self. I was not made aware of any martial training.

If he did, it is clear that he did not have much of it. As I said before escape from mount, with gnp is lesson number one were I train..

From what I read, he trained three times a week for at least six or so months. Personally, like you, I cannot fathom him not knowing the basic escape from mount, which is why I believe he shot Martin from guard. But, we will never know.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Tgace]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56269437-78/percent-injuries-utah-brain.html.csp

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56269437-78/percent-injuries-utah-brain.html.csp

Very interesting article, perhaps deserving of a thread all by itself. Could all head strikes be considered deadly force? What would happen if a person responded with deadly force because the attacker was targeting the head in the conflict, assuming that the defender had done his due diligence in avoiding and retreating according to the law?

 

[billc]

Having watched the trial, and news coverage after...I don't see it affecting mma at all. The focus is now on Stand Your Ground laws and little or no interest in the mma aspect of the event.

 

[Makalakumu]

Very interesting article, perhaps deserving of a thread all by itself. Could all head strikes be considered deadly force? What would happen if a person responded with deadly force because the attacker was targeting the head in the conflict, assuming that the defender had done his due diligence in avoiding and retreating according to the law?

Here is a new thread about head strikes in general.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...considered-deadly-force?p=1585549#post1585549