90% of fights go to the ground...

[jks9199]

An interesting read from Wim Demeere.

He addresses the misuse of an LAPD study of police use of force for the infamous idea that "90% of fights go to the ground", but he also makes a very good point that I don't recall having seen before.

Even if the numbers were accurate -- the idea that BJJ is the best for self defense is not an automatic corollary. Making that leap, even granting the first premise as true, is a little like saying that most cars have tires, therefore Goodyear (or any other brand) is the best tire.

And -- I think he makes another good point about "fights" in general. When I was a kid, we learned what a fight was from TV & movies, maybe some professional wrestling. It was mostly boxing, maybe some kicks thrown in. If you did clinch or move in close, it was a wrestling match. OK, lots of kid fights ended up with one kid sitting on the other kid's chest, punching him in the face until stopped. Bar fights, and the like were largely boxing matches. (Note -- I'm not discussing predatory, or asocial violence here. More the typical social dominance type stuff that Rory Miller has called Monkey Dances.)

Today? The kids are watching MMA. They're seeing a more integrated form of grappling, striking, and holds/locks. I'm not sure whether I'm seeing this at work yet or not; I typically manage not to fight fair, and stop resistance before they get that far.

Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[Blaze Dragon]

Well from a perspective of someone who is not a ground fighter or grappler and has had very little exposure to such. I first would argue that I don't see how 90% of the fights end up on the ground...sure I can see how it would happen alot but 90%? i question that. As far as BJJ being the best, I argue that on principle. Regardless of the art, I think the way it's taught and more importantly the way it's understood by the student is what makes a martial arts effective or in-effective. I also personally feel that a more well rounded style would do better in a street fight in general. Granted I don't get around getting in street fights everyday so I'm speaking in theories here. either way that's my 2 cents. Could BJJ be good? sure no question, best? I don't know, there are plenty of ground styles and I think people need to find what works best for them and then learn it from a competent teacher.

 

[Cyriacus]

Id argue that all fights can end up on the ground. Or, at least, all fights can end up with one person on the ground after theyre either thrown down or hit in the head one too many times, and the other guy can decide if he wants to kick him, or get on the ground with him.
Going to the ground is a very broad statement, and limiting it to grappling is selective thinking. If 90% is accurate, its because 90% of the time someone goes down. As in, both people dont get puffed out and end up stopping from sheer exhaustion before, you guessed it, someone falls down to the ground, and the fight is now 'on the ground'.

That being said, its easier to close in and get your arms around someone than it is to maintain striking range. In my experience, anyway.

 

[jks9199]

I seem to have started from a faulty assumption; that most people were familiar with the quote and the history behind it.

The quote about most fights going to the ground is something that got heavily circulated as BJJ was popping to the forefront and still comes up. Generally, they point to a research study which focused on LAPD use of force, which did indeed find that most of the events they examined went to the ground. You can read an excellent analysis of the study and the quote HERE. There are reasons why cops will take a resisting suspect to the ground. It denies the suspect mobility. It maximizes our control of the suspect, in general. It places the suspect in a position where they can be more easily handcuffed.

But, the Gracies, or others on their behalf and on the BJJ bandwagon, still love to run that line.

 

[seasoned]

Id argue that all fights can end up on the ground. Or, at least, all fights can end up with one person on the ground after theyre either thrown down or hit in the head one too many times, and the other guy can decide if he wants to kick him, or get on the ground with him.
Going to the ground is a very broad statement, and limiting it to grappling is selective thinking. If 90% is accurate, its because 90% of the time someone goes down. As in, both people dont get puffed out and end up stopping from sheer exhaustion before, you guessed it, someone falls down to the ground, and the fight is now 'on the ground'.

That being said, its easier to close in and get your arms around someone than it is to maintain striking range. In my experience, anyway.

I enjoy your posts, but would like to comment here. I do understand exactly what you are saying about "striking range" above, but, strikes can be done from all ranges.

 

[Cyriacus]

I enjoy your posts, but would like to comment here. I do understand exactly what you are saying about "striking range" above, but, strikes can be done from all ranges.

Ah - Right you are! I wont edit my post, ill just correct my statement, it was an oversight on my part.

Out-fighting range is what i meant, and that its easy to close in on someone and grab them even if they blast punches toward your center. Theres always something you can attach your hands to, which can lead to clinching (i use that word very loosely, and include clinching in the sense of grabbing each others shoulders and trying to swing over at each others heads).

 

[Cirdan]

Monkey Dances tend to go to the ground, true. They always have. So what?

 

[Kframe]

In the scope of untrained or lightly trained people, i figured id add my 2 cents. You dont need to be a black belt in juJitsu to escape from the ground against these people. Just have a reputable Jujitsu(dosent matter if brasilian or japanese) teach you the basic positions, the transitions and guard pass's and maybe rep some basic submissions. Then with your instructors on your own training time just roll and practice those basic things. No need to earn another blackbelt or even past a white belt to be able to deal with untrained/lightly trained on the street.

Edit to add, Practice using your styles various stances and movements to see which ones can better aide you in resisting throw attempts. Now I doubt your going to see single leg and double leg takedowns on the street. As i have been tuaght them and practice them, doing them on any surface like concrete or asphalt will not only hurt you, but hurt the thrower as well. As in the thrower risks his knees for horrible and painfull damage. Now not all styles of the single and double leg require the thrower to drop to one knee, but the ones i practice do. For the ones that dont, its not far fetched to see someone bugger it up and drop to low, loose balance and beforced to deploy that knee to stabilize them selvs, there by risking there knees.

Lastly guys, were not going to be fighting hordes of UFC veterns. Most of these people are just tough, and have no real fighting ability. Just make sure in your daily practice you actually put time in to anti grappling. Put the time into having your partners throw you and you use what you have been tuaght to resist it. That is the most important thing you can do, just practice trying not to get thrown..

 

[Blaze Dragon]

Id argue that all fights can end up on the ground. Or, at least, all fights can end up with one person on the ground after theyre either thrown down or hit in the head one too many times, and the other guy can decide if he wants to kick him, or get on the ground with him.
Going to the ground is a very broad statement, and limiting it to grappling is selective thinking. If 90% is accurate, its because 90% of the time someone goes down. As in, both people dont get puffed out and end up stopping from sheer exhaustion before, you guessed it, someone falls down to the ground, and the fight is now 'on the ground'.

That being said, its easier to close in and get your arms around someone than it is to maintain striking range. In my experience, anyway.

never considered it from that angle... makes more sense why I hear that statement so much

 

[Blaze Dragon]

I seem to have started from a faulty assumption; that most people were familiar with the quote and the history behind it.

The quote about most fights going to the ground is something that got heavily circulated as BJJ was popping to the forefront and still comes up. Generally, they point to a research study which focused on LAPD use of force, which did indeed find that most of the events they examined went to the ground. You can read an excellent analysis of the study and the quote HERE. There are reasons why cops will take a resisting suspect to the ground. It denies the suspect mobility. It maximizes our control of the suspect, in general. It places the suspect in a position where they can be more easily handcuffed.

But, the Gracies, or others on their behalf and on the BJJ bandwagon, still love to run that line.

Yeah can't say I knew that, thank you for the information. I remember when the gracies where getting big and I still recall one fight where one of them grappled the guy but was on bottom so hung on and like held him like that for most of the match at one point he ended up doing these tiny heel kicks to the guys back...and I lost all interested in watching them fight after that. not that I was a huge fan to begin with, when it came to the gracies...but that killed any curiosity I had... either way I hear it alot and I hear alot of ground fightings saying they are they best because of there ground work. considering Cyriacus's post I guess I can see why people say that. but I dont' get in street brawls, and in self defense if I'm protecting myself or my wife against multiple attackers the last thing I personally would want to do is tie up on the ground with one guy while the rest do as they please. that and my preference for what i've heard referred to as "up fighting" leads me to have study very very very little ground work. enough for an untrained or novice, but anyone with real experience well... fights are unpredictable anyway so if it happens it happens.

 

[seasoned]

There are so many personal factors at play here, that it is very difficult to even think that a one size fits all approach is valid. Age, occupation, terrain, multiple attackers all play important roles here, pertaining to successful encounters in the street.
Since I am basically a stand up arts oriented practitioner, I may appear to be a bit bias in my comments, but that goes with the territory. My feelings are based on the teaching of the traditional arts, that focus on stance, keeping the spine straight, awareness of breath, proper movement, which all contribute to balance. It is balance that keeps us up, and balance that ground proponents want to take away from us.
If your main interest is in ground techniques, than ground is where you wish to end up, but, if you train to stay upright, then that is where you will strive to be as you maneuver.
Trained people will end up where they went to, while untrained people will either sucker punch their opponent or lose their balance because of their lack, of training.
Ending up on the ground is very subjective. IMHO

 

[seasoned]

Monkey Dances tend to go to the ground, true. They always have. So what?

But, you don't have to stay there.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The 90% quote was widely spread about by Rorion Gracie, who is a master of spin and self-promotion.

That said, lots of fights do go to the ground even if neither participant really means to go there. In cases where one of the fighters does want to take it to the ground, the percentage is even higher. Note that this isn't limited to wrestlers or jiujitsuka. My first exposure to ground fighting came years before I started in BJJ. One of my friends that I used to spar with had developed a fighting tactic of just grabbing opponents in a headlock, dragging them to the ground, and choking them out. Even though he wasn't a big guy, he got good enough at this one tactic that he was able to beat a lot of guys (both trained and untrained) with it.

As far as an art being the "best", there is not such thing. At most, you could say that a given art is the best for a given person in a given situation. I love BJJ and it's a great art for me. That's not the same as saying it's the best for everyone in every circumstance. I do recommend that any serious martial artist learn at least the basics of how to defend themselves on the ground, escape bad positions, and get back to their feet safely. BJJ is excellent for that purpose.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In the scope of untrained or lightly trained people, i figured id add my 2 cents. You dont need to be a black belt in juJitsu to escape from the ground against these people. Just have a reputable Jujitsu(dosent matter if brasilian or japanese) teach you the basic positions, the transitions and guard pass's and maybe rep some basic submissions. Then with your instructors on your own training time just roll and practice those basic things. No need to earn another blackbelt or even past a white belt to be able to deal with untrained/lightly trained on the street.

In general, this is reasonable. I should add that there are a certain small percentage of untrained/lightly trained people who can still be pretty dangerous on the ground. These folks have natural attributes (phenomenal strength, great balance and agility, good natural instincts) that make them effective enough that you would want much better than white belt skills to deal with them. Of course, you can also find these same sort of untrained people who are dangerous in the stand-up arena as well, so it's best to have solid skills in every range.

 

[lklawson]

WTF? I've been deconstructing this myth for over a decade now, starting in rec.martial-arts. I finally got tired and wrote an article on the subject and now everyone is coming out of the woodwork writing articles. I wonder where they got their original research from?

http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/90percentmyth/90percentmyth.html

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Kirk - your first two links appear to be broken.

 

[lklawson]

Kirk - your first two links appear to be broken.

The first is a link to a post I made in 2001. The second is a gent who posted details of Dossey's study from way back in 1996.

I've modified the links. Maybe they'll work now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The links are working now. Thanks.

 

[Dirty Dog]

This statistic, like most, is both true and utter nonsense at the same time.
In certain environments, such as the police study the Gracie family likes to quote (simply because it supports their predetermined answer) I can easily agree with the idea that 90% of conflicts will end up on the ground. When the police are attempting to subdue someone, or when we subdue someone in the ER, we virtually always take them down. Why?

Because we're not in a situation where we're allowed to kick them upside their head till one or the other of us decides to run away. In the cases studied, the fight is "over" when the person is restrained. And that means down and in cuffs.

In most other cases (like the thousands of 'bar fight' scenarios that occur every week) it amounts to a couple of smacks and someone decides they've had enough or they're split up by friends/bystanders/bouncers and things cool off.

 

[chinto]

i fyou were talking about fights including police officers, yes, as they want to take the suspect down and cuff him/her. If you are talking a street fight/ self defense situation, NO I do NOT buy that 90% go to the ground at all! DO i think that some one is going to end up on the ground, yes, perhaps even on the ground dead. but in a street situation the LAST place in the world you want to be is on the ground! they do not come in singles! and his buddies will kick your head, kidneys rigs and groin as hard as they can if you go down there!