I'm going to start with the following quote:
"No secret techniques from the Orient, only hard work!" -Doug Rogers, 1964 Silver Medalist in Judo.
In my opinion, I think this is a rather foolish statement. If someone trained and competed in Judo, then what they learned was, in fact, techniques from the orient. Until the 20th century, most of these advanced fighting skills could have been considered "secret" as non-Asians were not aware of them. "Hard work" is an important factor, but what was he working so hard on all the years of his training? It was the oriental technique of Judo.
all the fights I witnessed....
This has proven to be the most pertinent part of many misconceptions about any subject - - including the Martial Art, street fighting, and what works or does not work. What
you have personally witnessed is a small slice of reality, and does not really complete the whole picture of
why what you saw worked!
they all began in the clinch and ended with a takedown....
In my experience (which is not limited by any means), the reason that a fight either begins with a clinch or involves clinching is as follows: 1. either both people want to clinch because that is what they are trained for, or 2. one person wants to clinch, but the other one does not, however the second person is not trained on how to avoid the clinch.
If we are talking about two random individuals (in an institution or otherwise) the quickest way to end a physical altercation is to strike the opponent fast enough, hard enough, and accurately enough to either knock them out, disable them, or discourage them from continuing. If one strike does not accomplish this, multiple strikes might be necessary.
The second quickest way (and not by a margin of much) is to effectively throw an attacker to the ground hard enough to knock them out, disable them, or discourage them from attacking. The third method is to apply a control, restraint, or submission hold which can knock them out (cut off air or blood supply), disable them (dislocating joints, breaking bones, or damaging muscles), or discouraging with pain so that they submit. The latter one takes a bit longer, and usually involves tying up of your own limbs to maintain control. This has disadvantages if there are multiple attackers.
Any close contact fighting runs the risk of being limited when dealing with multiple attackers (although it can be done), and has increased risk of being injured by a previously concealed weapon.
One thing that has been mentioned, which I will confirm, is that you really should lose this notion of "one art is better than another." Which weapon is better for killing: a sling shot, a bow and arrow, a hand-gun, a shotgun, or a riffle? Obviously, they can all do the job, and it depends on the situation, and how well trained the person using each "tool" is. Each weapon has its advantages and disadvantages, and some are better for long range, but they can all kill you.
In this case you describe to me, where most of the people involved in the fights appear to go only on natural instinct because of no formal training, then, absolutely--
This is 100% right on. You could witness ten thousand street-fights, and if every one of them used a clinch or went to the ground, that does not mean that this is the best choice for a trained Martial Artist. It just means that those people chose that route, perhaps because they lacked skills that would give them an alternate option. I would not say to a highly skilled punching/kicking Martial Artist that you should abandon those things and opt for ground-fighting because that is what most street-fighters do. The idea is that a Martial Artist should know what to do
IF the fight goes to the ground, but their skills should prevent that in most cases.
--apart from making/using weapons, humans' earliest form of fighting was to wrestle, before we even knew how to *fight*, we wrestled. Striking in a scienced manner came a bit later
I don't want to disagree with this statement, but I would like to add my personal perspective. I believe that early fighting included both crude, unskilled and unrefined striking as well as wrestling. I don't believe that every conflict among early man started with, or was exclusively limited to wrestling. I can picture a couple of cavemen fighting over a piece of meat around the campfire, and one hits the other with his fist. Flinging fists of fury might ensue with little or no grappling.
While we can surmise that any form of fighting was the "seed" of modern fighting or even the "Martial Art," I don't consider these early fighting methods to be the earliest form of Martial Art. For two people to tackle one another, and roll around on the ground squeezing, twisting, biting and gouging does not qualify as "technical skill." Personally, I think that in order for a grappling technique to qualify as a Martial Art technique, it has to rise above the crude movements of natural responses, and be technically superior to your opponent's strength.
To fight an opponent who beats you because he is bigger or stronger is just crude, natural fighting ability. To make a hold work on a stronger person because you have applied the correct leverage, and used your strongest muscles against their weakest muscles is "smart" technical fighting and that is what creates a Martial Art curriculum. To swing your fist and randomly hit an opponent, by chance, in the head which knocks him out is not Martial Art skill. To utilize scientific principles to thrust with acceleration, strike a specific vulnerable area with pin-point accuracy, and to reinforce and support your power with internal reactionary movements and proper stances is superior fighting skills associated with the Martial Art.
Any of the Modern Day Martial Art systems contain these to varying degrees. Original Martial Art was not limited to a personal preference over striking, throwing or holding, but used any technique created, borrowed, or stolen that worked in combat. Many of today's schools and instructors are the product of those who came before them, dissecting the art, ripping it apart, and applying only those things
they liked or worked for
them. This is fine for a personal strategy, but does little to preserve the integrity of the whole Martial Art, thereby limiting options for future generations. How can you teach what you have not perfected in training. Then students are forced to seek elsewhere, and try to "mix" their training to re-make the whole again. "Mixed Martial Art" (MMA) is a good concept, but I believe it is a misnomer, and it is nothing new. It is merely reassembling the parts that were once considered to be the whole body of Martial Art training.
Limit yourself, if you want, but it is unwise to limit an entire system, lest future students find themselves playing hopscotch from school to school, retrieving all the parts that have been thrown about. Those who are serious, dedicated instructors should know better.
This is my humble opinion
CM D.J. Eisenhart
I agree, that having a knowledge of takedowns/groundwork is important. Many places, such as what you described, such as a mental hospital, prison, etc., don't favor trading blows with the patients/inmates, so a controlling method would most likely be better. 
