Does your Art/System teach you to take the fight to the ground?

[Hudson69]

Hola all,
Was just wondering about the above mentioned. This is mainly because when I first became an LEO the philosphy was "pig-pile" but with manning getting thinner and my city growing ever larger, in the last couple of years, our defensive tactics has done a 180. Where before DT was just something you had to suffer through in the Academy there is now in-service that is mandatory and all DT instructors offer side training.

When I first came on we taught FBI Arrest Control (personal opinion is "lame") and that no matter how good you are/were it would somehow end up on the ground in a wrestling match. Now it is, especially with the popularity of MMA and the nearness of an Army Post (with the Combatives being taught to every soldier; good for them) we are teaching (I am lucky enough to be an instructor in FBI and our own proprietary system) both to stay on your feet, to regain your feet as soon as possible if you go to the ground and some escapes, locks and pain compliance techniques if the ground is the only option (our ground work is basic, heck, all of our techniques are fairly basic, so that they can be remembered and have been field tested to work ---- so far, so good).

Anyway, do you like to take a fight to the ground? Do you teach to take it to the ground in a real life "who is this person" and "I need to finish this" altercation?

Gracias

[MJS]

Hola all,
Was just wondering about the above mentioned. This is mainly because when I first became an LEO the philosphy was "pig-pile" but with manning getting thinner and my city growing ever larger, in the last couple of years, our defensive tactics has done a 180. Where before DT was just something you had to suffer through in the Academy there is now in-service that is mandatory and all DT instructors offer side training.

When I first came on we taught FBI Arrest Control (personal opinion is "lame") and that no matter how good you are/were it would somehow end up on the ground in a wrestling match. Now it is, especially with the popularity of MMA and the nearness of an Army Post (with the Combatives being taught to every soldier; good for them) we are teaching (I am lucky enough to be an instructor in FBI and our own proprietary system) both to stay on your feet, to regain your feet as soon as possible if you go to the ground and some escapes, locks and pain compliance techniques if the ground is the only option (our ground work is basic, heck, all of our techniques are fairly basic, so that they can be remembered and have been field tested to work ---- so far, so good).

Anyway, do you like to take a fight to the ground? Do you teach to take it to the ground in a real life "who is this person" and "I need to finish this" altercation?

Gracias

With the current popularity of MMA and the fact that many high schools and colleges offer wrestling programs, its very possible that the person we could be confronted with, will have some sort of grappling background. Of course, it doesn't even have to be a grappling art. Someone that plays/played football, may be inclined to just rush you. That being said, I feel thats it very important to have a solid understanding of the ground.

The arts that I focus on primarily, Kenpo and Arnis, both have techs. to take the person to the ground. These consist of sweeps and throws. Usually the follow ups dont really consist of us rolling with the person, but instead following up with strikes, kicks and various limb destructions.

Many of the head instructors in my Arnis group, have a BJJ background, and I dabble in it on my own as well, so should it go further, I feel fairly comfortable.

I think alot of the time, people hear grappling, and think it means rolling around, looking for submissions, etc., and while this is part of it, I feel that whats more important, is having enough of a basic understanding, to be able to escape, back to a standing position, should you find yourself on the ground.

Do I like to take it to the ground? I'd say it would depend on the situation. It wouldn't be my first pick, but if it did go there, fight dirty and get back up.

[Bill Mattocks]

Isshin-Ryu does not have a ground game, so clearly the answer to the question is 'no'. However, I recognize that having a ground game is important, and for that reason, I do plan to invest some time in judo training at some point in the near future, even though it is not my primary focus. I don't know enough to know if 'every fight ends up on the ground' or not, but I'd like to have more experience with ground-fighting, as well as with learning how to fall properly, how to grapple, how to use more of the locks, throws, and pins that traditional Okinawan karate just does not generally have.

[Blade96]

Shotokan is mostly stand up but it does teach you how to take someone to the ground (though good luck me trying to take one of my big BB's to the ground with me being only a small slim girl lol like that'll be happenin')

I tried to trip a sandan (not my friend another one) once, with the 'he punch i block with jodan juji uke and grab his arm move in and hit behind his knee with my foot method,' all i did was make him lose his balance a little.

[Bruno@MT]

No. The prime directive in my art (ninpo) is to escape and get out.

[jks9199]

Isshin-Ryu does not have a ground game, so clearly the answer to the question is 'no'. However, I recognize that having a ground game is important, and for that reason, I do plan to invest some time in judo training at some point in the near future, even though it is not my primary focus. I don't know enough to know if 'every fight ends up on the ground' or not, but I'd like to have more experience with ground-fighting, as well as with learning how to fall properly, how to grapple, how to use more of the locks, throws, and pins that traditional Okinawan karate just does not generally have.
Ah -- but, Bill, Isshin-ryu DOES indeed have a ground game. It's just not a game of rolling around together. You'll probably start seeing that soon...

More generally, if I take you down, I've got a plan. I'm deliberately trying to limit your mobility and your options and maximize my control. Otherwise, if I'm down, I'm working on getting back up fast, because that's where I have the most options and am most comfortable.

[derobec]

Hi,

I think that it's good to train on the ground from a strength and general fitness level, wrestling sure 'puts in' more than it takes out of you. However, to be on the ground in a real-life situation is obviously less than ideal and should only be thought of as a temporary inconvenience to be corrected as soon as possible -that's my opinion.

As for taking an opponent to the ground by means of a restraining hold, as a civilian I've no interest whatsoever in 'restraining' an attacker. I mean, what am I going to do with him once restrained? Spend hours in the local Police Station giving statements at best, at worse being questioned about my role. Then, at the end of it all, the legal system will probably release him straight back onto the streets to pick up where he left off.

Kind Regards,
William

[seasoned]

Hi,
However, to be on the ground in a real-life situation is obviously less than ideal and should only be thought of as a temporary inconvenience to be corrected as soon as possible -that's my opinion.

As for taking an opponent to the ground by means of a restraining hold, as a civilian I've no interest whatsoever in 'restraining' an attacker. I mean, what am I going to do with him once restrained?
Kind Regards,
William
Very good points William.

[seasoned]

Anyway, do you like to take a fight to the ground? Do you teach to take it to the ground in a real life "who is this person" and "I need to finish this" altercation? Gracias
Never. Deliberately taking someone to the ground has NO self defense value.


More generally, if I take you down, I've got a plan. I'm deliberately trying to limit your mobility and your options and maximize my control. Otherwise, if I'm down, I'm working on getting back up fast, because that's where I have the most options and am most comfortable.
From an LEO perspective this is the first option. Take them down for control purposes, but don't join them unless it is by accident. A ground game is a completely different art in itself. It is good to have a plan as jks9199 states, but, in self defense the fists and feet, as in striking, come first whether standing or on the ground.

[Chris Parker]

No. The prime directive in my art (ninpo) is to escape and get out.

With my interpretation of the art, the answer is "sometimes". The primary goal and strategy of Ninpo is survival, and if that means escape, escape. If it means taking them out quickly, then that is what I do. One of the primary tactics used to survive an unknown encounter, though, is to take your opponent out of their area of speciality, so if I find myself up against someone who is clearly a highly skilled and competant boxer or kicker, and I can't make distance to get away, I may very well move in and take them to ground, as it is less likely that they will have experience there. But once in more of a position of control, escape is the key. So if I take someone down, it is rarely to submit on the ground. It is to quickly take control and finish (to allow an escape) as soon as possible.

[jks9199]

Hi,

I think that it's good to train on the ground from a strength and general fitness level, wrestling sure 'puts in' more than it takes out of you. However, to be on the ground in a real-life situation is obviously less than ideal and should only be thought of as a temporary inconvenience to be corrected as soon as possible -that's my opinion.

As for taking an opponent to the ground by means of a restraining hold, as a civilian I've no interest whatsoever in 'restraining' an attacker. I mean, what am I going to do with him once restrained? Spend hours in the local Police Station giving statements at best, at worse being questioned about my role. Then, at the end of it all, the legal system will probably release him straight back onto the streets to pick up where he left off.

Kind Regards,
William
Are you certain that every person whom you have to defend yourself from is also someone you don't care about hurting? There's a practical reason to be able to restrain someone; lots of people call them "drunk uncle" techniques. There the things you have so that you don't have to crack someone's ribs or break their nose if it's a drunk buddy or kids or someone else that you just don't really want to hurt -- but don't want to have hurt you, either.

[Langenschwert]

There is certainly an emphasis on getting the OTHER GUY to the ground in Kunst des Fechtens. Lots of takedowns from double legs to hip throws... pretty much all the stuff you see in classical jujutsu. Of course, when armed, we often use the weapon to assist in the takedown, and then hit him with it after the throw.

There is a ground game, but it's dependant on the situation. We have what's called "Unterhalten" (holding down) which is most often used to set up a ground and pound, often with come kind of crucifix variant. It can also be used to set up a quick break or neck crank. There's no angling for submissions... the assumption is that you have no time to do so... he has friends coming who probably have edged weapons on them. There is some work from half and full guard too, but it's rather peripheral.

When the combatants are armoured it very often comes down to ground fighting with daggers. The idea is to pin him and stick a rondel (a type of dagger) in his visor, the palms of his hands or the soles of his feet... anywhere the armour converage is lessened or has gaps, like down the cuffs of the gauntlets. It's also common to throw the guy on his face and set up a break.

Best regards,

-Mark

[derobec]

Are you certain that every person whom you have to defend yourself from is also someone you don't care about hurting? There's a practical reason to be able to restrain someone; lots of people call them "drunk uncle" techniques. There the things you have so that you don't have to crack someone's ribs or break their nose if it's a drunk buddy or kids or someone else that you just don't really want to hurt -- but don't want to have hurt you, either.

Hmm, On the face of it I'm pretty certain of my ability to differentiate between a 'drunk uncle' and a determined attacker.

But:

To be certain, even a close friend/family member would find I have an uncompromising attitude to being attacked. I'm a drinker myself but have never attacked anyone while drunk; also, I was brought up in an environment where beating wives and children was quite a common and unquestioned side effect of drinking. I find it difficult to draw a line here as I know how impervious to locks and restraints a drunkard can be.

My way may not be exceptable to many, but it's better than trying to prepare for 'half measure responses'.

Regards,
William

[StudentCarl]

Sending-YES; Taking NO.
In an SD situation I don't want to be on the ground on my own or with an opponent. If I'm hands-on, it means either unequal initiative or my MUC failed. If I can send an opponent to ground and not go myself, that's an opportunity for escape or to deal with other assailants.

TKD teaches me standup and take-downs, but I haven't learned any groundwork from TKD. I've taken from BJJ for that.

Carl

[Draven]

Hola all,Anyway, do you like to take a fight to the ground? Do you teach to take it to the ground in a real life "who is this person" and "I need to finish this" altercation?

Gracias

Like to go to the ground, no but several different MAs I've learned all involved me fighting on the ground at some point even down to Shotokan which has very "limited" ground fighting. I think groundfighting was important before the UFC & even more important so with yahoo and wonnabe trying to take the fight to the ground.

[Big Don]

We don't take the fight to the ground, but, we throw people on the ground and then kick,stomp and otherwise break them.

[jks9199]

Hmm, On the face of it I'm pretty certain of my ability to differentiate between a 'drunk uncle' and a determined attacker.

But:

To be certain, even a close friend/family member would find I have an uncompromising attitude to being attacked. I'm a drinker myself but have never attacked anyone while drunk; also, I was brought up in an environment where beating wives and children was quite a common and unquestioned side effect of drinking. I find it difficult to draw a line here as I know how impervious to locks and restraints a drunkard can be.

My way may not be exceptable to many, but it's better than trying to prepare for 'half measure responses'.

Regards,
William
The "drunk uncle" is an example, and a common name. It's not the limit of who you might use a measured response on. We've gone down this road several times of late (for example, What You Can/Can't Do. (http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85607)); the bottom line is that you have to be able to respond appropriately and in a measured fashion to an attack, not simply and mindlessly destroy anyone who dares attack you. Unless you have an interest in attending "Big Bubba Ray's Grey Bar Dancing School."

[derobec]

The "drunk uncle" is an example, and a common name. It's not the limit of who you might use a measured response on.
We've gone down this road several times of late (for example, What You Can/Can't Do. (http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85607)); the bottom line is that you have to be able to respond appropriately and in a measured fashion to an attack, not simply and mindlessly destroy anyone who dares attack you. Unless you have an interest in attending "Big Bubba Ray's Grey Bar Dancing School."

What is an appropriate response to someone that's trying to cave your head in? Irrespective of whether they're drunk/teenager/O.A.P/Confused... They are either a threat or not. If they're not a threat then the issue is redundant, if they are a threat then I'll trust in the old maxim of it being 'better to be judged by twelve than carried by six'.

I notice that you've not addressed the issue that it can be very difficult to apply a restraining hold on a person who has a temporarily increased pain fresh-hold through the use of alcohol/other drugs. trying to force such a restraint could even result in serious long term damage to the attacker's joints. Where do we stand then?

Also, you've still not told me what to do with the individual if I follow your advise and (manage to) tie him up on the floor.

I can see that we're going to have to differ on this one, but that's the beauty of life isn't it; we each have our own opinions.

Best Wishes,
William

[jks9199]

What is an appropriate response to someone that's trying to cave your head in? Irrespective of whether they're drunk/teenager/O.A.P/Confused... They are either a threat or not. If they're not a threat then the issue is redundant, if they are a threat then I'll trust in the old maxim of it being 'better to be judged by twelve than carried by six'.

I notice that you've not addressed the issue that it can be very difficult to apply a restraining hold on a person who has a temporarily increased pain fresh-hold through the use of alcohol/other drugs. trying to force such a restraint could even result in serious long term damage to the attacker's joints. Where do we stand then?

Also, you've still not told me what to do with the individual if I follow your advise and (manage to) tie him up on the floor.

I can see that we're going to have to differ on this one, but that's the beauty of life isn't it; we each have our own opinions.

Best Wishes,
William
I don't believe that you're following what I'm saying.

If your self defense training isn't including the ability to moderate your response to the situation, it's incomplete and poor preparation. For example, I know a man whose father has Alzheimer's; he has had to restrain his father for an extended period on more than one occasion -- including at least one incident where his father had a knife. Certainly he would have been legally (and perhaps morally; obviously, it's a rather thorny question!) using lethal force to subdue his father... but I rather doubt it's what most of us would advise him to do, if there was a way to avoid it!

Self defense really consists of dealing with the initial attack, doing something to effectively discourage or deter further attack, and then escaping. Defensive tactics for law enforcement include both proactive means to control someone as well as means to defend oneself and subdue an attacker for arrest. Military combatives generally drop the pretense of control, and seek to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible.

You asked what I would suggest a person do if they have someone restrained. There's no easy answer, because it may depend on the situation. My friend described above simply held and controlled his father until some level of rationality returned, while allowing the rest of the family to move to a position of safety. In other cases, you may hold someone for law enforcement (a bar bouncer, store or other security personnel for example), or simply wait for the person to calm down. Paint more of the picture, and I may be able to provide different ideas.

[derobec]

I don't believe that you're following what I'm saying.

If your self defense training isn't including the ability to moderate your response to the situation, it's incomplete and poor preparation. For example, I know a man whose father has Alzheimer's; he has had to restrain his father for an extended period on more than one occasion -- including at least one incident where his father had a knife. Certainly he would have been legally (and perhaps morally; obviously, it's a rather thorny question!) using lethal force to subdue his father... but I rather doubt it's what most of us would advise him to do, if there was a way to avoid it!

Self defense really consists of dealing with the initial attack, doing something to effectively discourage or deter further attack, and then escaping. Defensive tactics for law enforcement include both proactive means to control someone as well as means to defend oneself and subdue an attacker for arrest. Military combatives generally drop the pretense of control, and seek to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible.

You asked what I would suggest a person do if they have someone restrained. There's no easy answer, because it may depend on the situation. My friend described above simply held and controlled his father until some level of rationality returned, while allowing the rest of the family to move to a position of safety. In other cases, you may hold someone for law enforcement (a bar bouncer, store or other security personnel for example), or simply wait for the person to calm down. Paint more of the picture, and I may be able to provide different ideas.

Hi jks9199,

I think that it is you who are missing the point of my original post as well as my general approach. I have never said that I do not know how to restrain a person on the mat (whether compliant or not); my issue is with the efficacy of these techniques out there, in the real world.

When the attacker feels no need to comply with a restraint (yes, this does happen in real life because I've been there, as a younger less experienced man) you have a serious issue:

You apply a lock/other restraint, the attacker refuses to comply -where do you go then?

-this isn't the dojo, you don't have time to move through half a dozen techniques 'till such time as you find something that's going to work, because your attacker is still trying to bight your nose off/stomp hell out of your foot/butt you/ rip your genitalia/stick you with his knife -and if he's not doing that then chances are, his friends will be. If he has no friends then the passerby who hasn't seen the bigger picture may well wade in-

Do you abandon the restraint and hit him? Now that has got to open up some serious legal questions if someone witnesses that. 'officer, he had the guy in one of those judo locks, then all of a sudden stopped doing that and just hit him - he's crazy'.

I base my approach on personal experiences and those of people close to me:
-back of skull cracked with a length of wood when I was 20.
-four steel plates screwed into my jaw as the result of a gang of teenagers (wearing heavy rings) laying into me when all I was doing was walking home from work.
-my brother, stabbed seven times in the back by a gang.
-my fifteen year old nephew beaten and stomped on by a gang of eighteen.
-various other minor (but potentially far more serious) skirmishes over the years.

I know that there can be room for 'moderation' but I try to prepare for the worse case scenario -this isn't paranoia, it's common sense, I see no point in taking steps to prepare for anything less.

Sadly, I have exactly the same problem as you with regards to "paint(ing) more of a picture". You see, I can't paint any picture; it's the attacker(s) that carry the paint brushes and canvas. All I can do is to try and live my life happily, without unnecessarily hurting other people, but believe me, when someone tries to kill me I will not be a compliant victim, neither will I try to restrain someone until help arrives because I know that that may be longer than I have.

Presumably that's why law enforcers are issued with cuffs etc -because it's VERY hard to single handedly control a non-compliant prisoner by hand.

I stand by my belief that being on the ground in a fight situation is less than ideal, something best avoided.

Best Wishes,
William

[Cryozombie]

With my interpretation of the art, the answer is "sometimes". The primary goal and strategy of Ninpo is survival, and if that means escape, escape. If it means taking them out quickly, then that is what I do. One of the primary tactics used to survive an unknown encounter, though, is to take your opponent out of their area of speciality, so if I find myself up against someone who is clearly a highly skilled and competant boxer or kicker, and I can't make distance to get away, I may very well move in and take them to ground, as it is less likely that they will have experience there. But once in more of a position of control, escape is the key. So if I take someone down, it is rarely to submit on the ground. It is to quickly take control and finish (to allow an escape) as soon as possible.

I would agree... but add the addition of at our dojo we train assuming he always has friends... so we make going to the ground a bit of a last resort, IF IT IS OUR CHOICE. And then when it is neccessary or happens, the goal is to get up and out, like Chris said, as soon as possible. We try to avoid going down there for pain compliance, restraint or submission, those can take too long and leave you vulnerable to a second guy.

[Daniel Sullivan]

Hola all,
Was just wondering about the above mentioned. This is mainly because when I first became an LEO the philosphy was "pig-pile" but with manning getting thinner and my city growing ever larger, in the last couple of years, our defensive tactics has done a 180. Where before DT was just something you had to suffer through in the Academy there is now in-service that is mandatory and all DT instructors offer side training.

When I first came on we taught FBI Arrest Control (personal opinion is "lame") and that no matter how good you are/were it would somehow end up on the ground in a wrestling match. Now it is, especially with the popularity of MMA and the nearness of an Army Post (with the Combatives being taught to every soldier; good for them) we are teaching (I am lucky enough to be an instructor in FBI and our own proprietary system) both to stay on your feet, to regain your feet as soon as possible if you go to the ground and some escapes, locks and pain compliance techniques if the ground is the only option (our ground work is basic, heck, all of our techniques are fairly basic, so that they can be remembered and have been field tested to work ---- so far, so good).

Anyway, do you like to take a fight to the ground? Do you teach to take it to the ground in a real life "who is this person" and "I need to finish this" altercation?

Gracias
We are not taught in hapkido to take the fight to the ground as a general rule, though we are taught sweeps, throws and takedowns to put the attacker on the ground.

We are taught a couple of submission moves that involve going to the ground as part of the course. These are taught specifically because some of the students have asked to learn them and GM Kim knows them.

Otherwise, most of our "groundwork" involves trying to keep from being taken to the ground and getting off of the ground quickly should you end up there.

Daniel

[Balrog]

Speaking as a Taekwondo instructor and former police officer....

The last thing I would want to do as a cop is get to rolling with a bad guy. I would try to minimize that as much as possible and if I did taken to the ground, I'm gonna hurt the guy bad so that I can regain control.

I've been there and done that. Had one guy that was a high-school wrestler back in his day and he took my partner down and tried to get his gun. I went after him with a baton and hurt him bad before I could get him off my partner. My partner was hurt worse by the fact that he landed on a piece of broken glass that cut his back up badly.

[Drac]

Hola all,
Was just wondering about the above mentioned. This is mainly because when I first became an LEO the philosphy was "pig-pile" but with manning getting thinner and my city growing ever larger, in the last couple of years, our defensive tactics has done a 180. Where before DT was just something you had to suffer through in the Academy there is now in-service that is mandatory and all DT instructors offer side training.

And many agencies still dont do enough if any in house DT training..The department I use to work for would rather sit us in a class for 8 hrs of boring lecture that put us on the mats, but I am way off topic..



Anyway, do you like to take a fight to the ground? Do you teach to take it to the ground in a real life "who is this person" and "I need to finish this" altercation?

Gracias

I never went to the ground..Who wants to roll around on broken glass and God knows what else..I have attended a Ground Survival program which gave me enough skills should I have ever wound up on there..

[derobec]

Otherwise, most of our "groundwork" involves trying to keep from being taken to the ground and getting off of the ground quickly should you end up there.

Don't get me wrong, I love groundwork -as a conditioner/strength builder/just for the shere enjoyment, but when we're talking about real fighting/survival Daniel's statement is just about as sensible as it gets.

All the Best,
William

[Daniel Sullivan]

One observation is that there is a difference between training for effective fighting on the ground in the event that you end up there and taking the fight to the ground.

Balrog said on another thread that SD is mostly common sense and that awareness and control of the environment will help you to avoid 99.9% of the dangerous scenarios that are possible, and that we train for that .1 percent of the time when common sense, awareness, and control of one's environment are not enough.

Of that 1%, being on the ground in a real fight may represent about a quarter percent, which means that without training for defense on the ground, you are much more likely to be screwed if you ever wind up there.

So in short, don't take the fight to the ground, but have some effective tools in the event that you wind up there.

My numbers are generalizations, not meant as hard data.

Daniel

[5rings]

My art is primarily close quarter defense C.Q.D. used for executive protection and other services. We do have some basic ground technique but they are mostly for restraints because of liability issues (excessive force) we base all fundamental self defense upon stats gathered from the U.S. Department of Justice, that deal with how many violent crimes have been executed in one particular area, how many were unarmed verses how many were armed (knife, gun, or other instrument of use). These allow us to constantly adjust our practice towards the most appropriate defense available for any given area. We try not to take for granted any information gathered that can be of use as such.

"Always try to think outside the Traditional Box"

[derobec]

So in short, don't take the fight to the ground, but have some effective tools in the event that you wind up there.

That's pretty much how I see things. We can't expect to always avoid being taken down so we'd best have some pressure tested idea as to how to conduct ourselves on the ground. Lets just not aide our adversary by putting ourselves there.

It might be interesting to get the perspective of one of the silat ground specialists, doubt that I'll be converted, but it would be nice to know how they see things.

Regards to All,
William

[Shifu Steve]

That's pretty much how I see things. We can't expect to always avoid being taken down so we'd best have some pressure tested idea as to how to conduct ourselves on the ground

I generally agree with the idea here. Training for groundfighting is worthwhile but I think in many cases you don't need to really stretch for effective techniques (such as learn some BJJ). If your comfort zone is on your feet and you have some effective close quarter techniques you like there, those typically can be applied on the ground anyhow, you just need to train them there to recognize their utility.

[repz]

Only time I had a serious expsoure to ground fighting was when I formally took BJJ. Though I had some training when I did san shou (hung ga school).

I love grappling for its strategy and tactics in rolling (its a lot of fun, and a very smart game), and I do believe (and I quote someone from another site) there is a time and place for everything, and if those circumstances do fall that grappling can be applied safetly, then I believe it would be an easy encounter. I would go even further and say I would feel a bit more safer if I were an experienced grappler grappling an everyday moron, then being an experienced strike fighting a moron, since I assume more people know how to strike, or box, then roll out of a mount, or apply a kimura lock. Again, this depends on the circumstance, enviornment, etc.

But, in most situations, in my experience, ground fighting is a no no. I have seen in the streets how their 'friends" wait until they guy either turns his back to them, or they go on the ground, to step in and pummel the guy. And to be 100 percent honest, if I see a cousin or close friend losing the upperhand in a fight, I would get involved, I wouldnt care that we outnumber you, I dont have any honor in the street, I wont go home and reflect how much of a fool I was to not let the fight be a "fair one", I want my 'friend' in this case, to be safe as opposed to watching him get his arm broken. And the last few dumb situations I have seen, I would never trust the people around me, nor want to be engaged in a position where i cant escape (I would want to run before LEO got there).

But as a whole, leaving out grappling, you leave out a range and I feel become less of a complete fighter, since street fighting is always "guesswork" (unless you are a thug or cop that doesnt mind losing his job), its best to patch up as many factors and situations as possible by eliminating as much guessing as possible (which means becoming more complete and aware of different ranges, which eliminates and surprises or unfamiliarity to the unknown, and so on).

[Shifu Steve]

But as a whole, leaving out grappling, you leave out a range and I feel become less of a complete fighter, since street fighting is always "guesswork" (unless you are a thug or cop that doesn’t mind losing his job), its best to patch up as many factors and situations as possible by eliminating as much guessing as possible (which means becoming more complete and aware of different ranges, which eliminates and surprises or unfamiliarity to the unknown, and so on).

I think that whether you're training for sport, self defense, or for the art itself, the point made above is one that should be kept in mind. I remember a post about a month ago by a TKD BB that wanted to train in a grappling art because he said he didn't have any grappling skills. I think that may have been short sighted because you don't necessarily need to concentrate in grappling to have a plan for being on the ground.

An earlier post in this thread attested to that and basically summed it up as having a plan to deal with the situation (i.e. being taken to the ground) and a transition back to your strength and comfort zone. For SD purposes I agree wholeheartedly. However, to address the original question behind the post, I think no matter what you study you can always find answers (some styles more so than others) for every range of combat. This process not only deepens your appreciation for your chosen art, but as repz said it makes you a more complete fighter.

Having no exposure to TKD I don't really know where those answers are. I suspect TKD relies heavily on stand up (I don't think that's a stretch) and long to medium range combat. However, I think that to write it off completely as a style that has no answers for being taken to the ground may be premature. Just because a given style doesn't focus on something doesn't mean that answers cannot be found deep within ones training. However I fully admit that I could be wrong specifically about TKD because I know next to nothing about it besides the emphasis on kicks. I only use it as an example because it appears to be on the far side of the spectrum between the ground and stand up.

[MJS]

Having no exposure to TKD I don't really know where those answers are. I suspect TKD relies heavily on stand up (I don't think that's a stretch) and long to medium range combat. However, I think that to write it off completely as a style that has no answers for being taken to the ground may be premature. Just because a given style doesn't focus on something doesn't mean that answers cannot be found deep within ones training. However I fully admit that I could be wrong specifically about TKD because I know next to nothing about it besides the emphasis on kicks. I only use it as an example because it appears to be on the far side of the spectrum between the ground and stand up.

Funny you should say that, because I used to, and still do, say that about Kenpo, the art I train in. My thoughts are that the ground game isn't there, others say that it is, and that its MY Kenpo that is lacking. And that may very well be, however, and I hate to sound like I'm singling someone out, but I can point to a Kenpo clip, put out by a high ranking Kenpoist, in which he is showing an escape from the mount. Personally, I dont think that if the person that was mounting, was actually doing it correctly, the defense that was shown, wouldn't work.

My theory is this: every art pretty much has answers to pretty much every attack. Kenpo has club, gun, knife, punches, grabs, takedown/tackle attempts, etc. But, IMHO, if you want to expand on that, and really be sure that you could defend against a grappling attack, look at a grappling art. I like to work with grapplers, so I can test my stuff. Will the bad guy who tries to mug me, be a pro MMA fighter? Probably not, but I dont want to assume he's a no skilled slouch either. :)

So, if I can make those grappling defenses work as well as having a plan a, b, and c, I'm that much better. Same with the weapons. After training in Arnis, I view the stick and especially the blade in a whole new light.

Are grappling moves 'hidden' in Kenpo, TKD or any other art? I'm sure they are. For me though, I'd rather have a more solid defense, whileat the same time, looking to find those answers.

[scottie]

With this being my 21st year in stand up Isshinryu and American Karate, having been in Law Enforcement 9 years, and having wrestled for or coached high school style wrestling for a little over 10 years; it really never made since why our police academy taught MMA type D Ts. I mean out of the almost 100 hours that D Ts were taught in our academy class. Seventy of them were all ground focused and or ground focused gun retention (which I do understand). It just never made since to me to take someone to the ground if he may or may not have a lot of friends around.
It was not until I went to a BJJ for LE and the first thing they asked us was, how many of you wrestled for at least 3 years in High School? All but 8 out of 46 people raised there hand. Then he asked what about MMA and 3 out of the 8 raised there hands. He then explained that was the purpose of his class to make us teach us the very basics of the ground game. He said the static at that time 2002 was 8 out of ten people that we arrest on the street, at least have 2-3 years of ground game. In karate would make MOST at least a new brown belt.
Now in nine years of Law Enforcement I have never been taken to the ground (not that people have not tried, and most defiantly not that I am so good that no one has been able too). However, I have taken many people to the ground to handcuff them most of which were not on purpose. Some have had good ground game and some have just laid there. But I thank God everyday for my ground time and training.
I am also a traditional Isshinryu guy. So I want to learn it in its purest form. I have seen some people teach ground fighting tech….s form the kata, but that always seemed to stretch it to me, maybe I am just not at guru status yet.
A lot of the people in the Harold Long lineage of Isshinryu Karate have added J Jit.. to the art. Two guys have even started their own style of J Jit.. based off of Isshinryu stand up. One of which that started the Isshinryu Cross Training Alliance and they are doing great things mind you
. As much as I can’t believe that I am saying this I don’t know that it is a bad thing if your purpose is to learn reality based fighting. Just don’t teach Ground fighting with MMA rules because then it becomes not reality based all over again.

Think I May even apply for the ICA!

[MJS]

With this being my 21st year in stand up Isshinryu and American Karate, having been in Law Enforcement 9 years, and having wrestled for or coached high school style wrestling for a little over 10 years; it really never made since why our police academy taught MMA type D Ts. I mean out of the almost 100 hours that D Ts were taught in our academy class. Seventy of them were all ground focused and or ground focused gun retention (which I do understand). It just never made since to me to take someone to the ground if he may or may not have a lot of friends around.
It was not until I went to a BJJ for LE and the first thing they asked us was, how many of you wrestled for at least 3 years in High School? All but 8 out of 46 people raised there hand. Then he asked what about MMA and 3 out of the 8 raised there hands. He then explained that was the purpose of his class to make us teach us the very basics of the ground game. He said the static at that time 2002 was 8 out of ten people that we arrest on the street, at least have 2-3 years of ground game. In karate would make MOST at least a new brown belt.
Now in nine years of Law Enforcement I have never been taken to the ground (not that people have not tried, and most defiantly not that I am so good that no one has been able too). However, I have taken many people to the ground to handcuff them most of which were not on purpose. Some have had good ground game and some have just laid there. But I thank God everyday for my ground time and training.
I am also a traditional Isshinryu guy. So I want to learn it in its purest form. I have seen some people teach ground fighting tech….s form the kata, but that always seemed to stretch it to me, maybe I am just not at guru status yet.
A lot of the people in the Harold Long lineage of Isshinryu Karate have added J Jit.. to the art. Two guys have even started their own style of J Jit.. based off of Isshinryu stand up. One of which that started the Isshinryu Cross Training Alliance and they are doing great things mind you
. As much as I can’t believe that I am saying this I don’t know that it is a bad thing if your purpose is to learn reality based fighting. Just don’t teach Ground fighting with MMA rules because then it becomes not reality based all over again.

Think I May even apply for the ICA!

Nice post! IMO, I think alot of the time, when people hear "grappling" or "MMA" they automatically think UFC, long, drawn out matches. If we look back to an old UFC match, with Maurice Smith and Mark Coleman, we saw the classic standup fighter, Mo, against the classic grappler, Mark. We also saw Mo frustrate the hell out of Mark. Mo trained some basic grappling with Frank Shamrock, and survived the ground attack by Mark and prevented all submission attempts by him as well. Then the fight was brought back to standing, where Mo KO'd Mark with a kick.

My point of this is...I dont think that someone should have to abandon their art to take up BJJ, but learn the basics. Drill the living **** out of those basics, over and over and over. Who cares about learning 30 variations to the mount escape or 30 different guard passes. Again, learn the basics, drill, drill and drill again, and chances are, unless you're fighting the evil twin of Royce or Rickson Gracie, chances are, against the average punk, it should be a walk in the park.

Of course, for LEOs, I'd also suggest what you mentioned, that being weapon retention on the ground.