Black Belt magazine had an article on this not too long ago and it said that 70% of the time one person goes to the ground and 46% of the time both. I can't remember what month it was, but it was supposed to be a research based article. I think it had the same as the title as this thread.
Do most fights really go to the ground?
- Thread starter geezer
- Start date
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
I've yet to see any definitive research on the topic.
The only thing I've ever dug up is a report done by the L.A. police concerning how many apprehensions ended up going to the ground. And even then the percentage was somewhere in the 60-70% range.
A "fight" is much different than trying to "cuff" someone.
LE's have rules they must follow (or at least are supposed to follow) geared toward the safety and well-being of the person they're arresting. They also have to be concerned with possible law suits.
There are no rules in a fight or self-defense situation.
Common sense dictates that the last place you want to be in a self-defense scenario is tied up on the ground.
However, even if there were only a 1% chance that you would end up on the ground in a confrontation, I'd say that's reason enough to train to know what to do if you wind up in that situation.
I think the primary difference in training ground fighting between sport and reality enthusiasts is that from a sport aspect, your goal is to jocky for a superior position and work it into a possible submission. From a reality based life or death perspective, the idea is regain one's footing as quickly as possible (the ulitmate goal being self-preservation which in many cases means doing what is necessary to leave the situation {ike running away the first chance you get!} vs adding another tick to your win column.)
Anyway...forget the whole ground vs standing argument...bottom line is if you want to be well-rounded and prepared you should probably train all possible ranges...including the ground game.
The only thing I've ever dug up is a report done by the L.A. police concerning how many apprehensions ended up going to the ground. And even then the percentage was somewhere in the 60-70% range.
A "fight" is much different than trying to "cuff" someone.
LE's have rules they must follow (or at least are supposed to follow) geared toward the safety and well-being of the person they're arresting. They also have to be concerned with possible law suits.
There are no rules in a fight or self-defense situation.
Common sense dictates that the last place you want to be in a self-defense scenario is tied up on the ground.
However, even if there were only a 1% chance that you would end up on the ground in a confrontation, I'd say that's reason enough to train to know what to do if you wind up in that situation.
I think the primary difference in training ground fighting between sport and reality enthusiasts is that from a sport aspect, your goal is to jocky for a superior position and work it into a possible submission. From a reality based life or death perspective, the idea is regain one's footing as quickly as possible (the ulitmate goal being self-preservation which in many cases means doing what is necessary to leave the situation {ike running away the first chance you get!} vs adding another tick to your win column.)
Anyway...forget the whole ground vs standing argument...bottom line is if you want to be well-rounded and prepared you should probably train all possible ranges...including the ground game.
allenjp
Brown Belt
I always find it interesting that most responses to the "ground fight" question start out with what the person WANTS to do. "I don't want to be on the ground..." Well, DUH! Of course you don't want to be rollin' around in some dude's BO. In fact, I'd bet that most of you, given your druthers, don't want to be in a violent encounter in the first place.
The problem is when you CAN'T stay on your feet. In violent encounters, often things are very off balance, and a lot of thugs tend to bumrush you, grab onto a shirt while trying to hit you etc...and it's not easy to stay standing. In fact, just ask yourself this: how many times have you seen someone fall down just because they stepped a little wrong coming off of a step or even just trip over the smallest thing on the ground and end up on their big duff? We see that stuff on America's Funniest Videos all the time. It's a lot harder to stay on one's feet in a violent encounter than some people think. And if you're against someone bigger and heavier, and stronger than you, and you end up on the ground without knowing what to do, you will be hurt very badly, or yes, even possibly killed.
As fas as the groundfighting implying mutual combat thing, I've heard a lot of people say that they won't fight unless they truly are attacked, or feel that their life is in danger. In principal I agree with this. But do you really think that it is ALWAYS practical, or even possible to avoid the average low life fight picker, who gets in your face shouting obscenities and threats? Do you think that guy is NEVER going to throw a blow at you because you haven't hit him first? And do you really think that his intent is ALWAYS to kill you? The truth is sometimes you just have to fight, or else you'll just be running whenever someone gets mildly upset at you. There are times when you have to stand your ground, and with that kind of fight, probably with an untrained attacker, odds are you may end up on the ground DESPITE your best efforts to the contrary.
I do agree that groundfighting is not the end all be all to self defense. Not even close. But if you ignore the possibilty of ground combat in ANY violent encounter you do so at your peril.
Just my .02. Ok, maybe that was .04...
The problem is when you CAN'T stay on your feet. In violent encounters, often things are very off balance, and a lot of thugs tend to bumrush you, grab onto a shirt while trying to hit you etc...and it's not easy to stay standing. In fact, just ask yourself this: how many times have you seen someone fall down just because they stepped a little wrong coming off of a step or even just trip over the smallest thing on the ground and end up on their big duff? We see that stuff on America's Funniest Videos all the time. It's a lot harder to stay on one's feet in a violent encounter than some people think. And if you're against someone bigger and heavier, and stronger than you, and you end up on the ground without knowing what to do, you will be hurt very badly, or yes, even possibly killed.
As fas as the groundfighting implying mutual combat thing, I've heard a lot of people say that they won't fight unless they truly are attacked, or feel that their life is in danger. In principal I agree with this. But do you really think that it is ALWAYS practical, or even possible to avoid the average low life fight picker, who gets in your face shouting obscenities and threats? Do you think that guy is NEVER going to throw a blow at you because you haven't hit him first? And do you really think that his intent is ALWAYS to kill you? The truth is sometimes you just have to fight, or else you'll just be running whenever someone gets mildly upset at you. There are times when you have to stand your ground, and with that kind of fight, probably with an untrained attacker, odds are you may end up on the ground DESPITE your best efforts to the contrary.
I do agree that groundfighting is not the end all be all to self defense. Not even close. But if you ignore the possibilty of ground combat in ANY violent encounter you do so at your peril.
Just my .02. Ok, maybe that was .04...
allenjp
Brown Belt
Oh and BTW...
I've also heard a lot of people knock the act of "going for a submission" in a real fight. A "submission" IS NOT a move, or technique. It is the act of one opponent asking for mercy because they realize that they are about to suffer very painful or debilitating damage or even death at the hands of the person they are fighting. In sport situations, of course the requested mercy is always granted, and the fighter lets go after the "tap out". In a real fight, if I can apply a choke or joint lock on the guy, who says I am going for a "submission"? I may be getting ready to knock him out. Only my method of doing it is with a choke instead of a punch. Or I may just not let go of that kimura lock, and if I don't, once I finish it I can let go and I GUARANTEE he ain't fighting me anymore.
And about ground fights taking a long time...that is usaully only if both fighters are equally matched on the ground. Either they both don't have a clue what they are doing, or the are both good. UFC style 15 minute ground fights don't usually happen that way in a real fight. A skilled ground fighter whose opponent is not as good as him can finish his opponent VERY quickly...
I've also heard a lot of people knock the act of "going for a submission" in a real fight. A "submission" IS NOT a move, or technique. It is the act of one opponent asking for mercy because they realize that they are about to suffer very painful or debilitating damage or even death at the hands of the person they are fighting. In sport situations, of course the requested mercy is always granted, and the fighter lets go after the "tap out". In a real fight, if I can apply a choke or joint lock on the guy, who says I am going for a "submission"? I may be getting ready to knock him out. Only my method of doing it is with a choke instead of a punch. Or I may just not let go of that kimura lock, and if I don't, once I finish it I can let go and I GUARANTEE he ain't fighting me anymore.
And about ground fights taking a long time...that is usaully only if both fighters are equally matched on the ground. Either they both don't have a clue what they are doing, or the are both good. UFC style 15 minute ground fights don't usually happen that way in a real fight. A skilled ground fighter whose opponent is not as good as him can finish his opponent VERY quickly...
What goes on in the UFC and every other MMA promotion is a sport, tactics are played out so the fight may go to the ground or not. The two fighters know the strengths and weaknesses of each and plan accordingly. their aim is to win the fight not destroy each other. How often can you say that about a fight outside the ring/cage! I do wish people would stop comparing MMA with how you would fight someone attacking you!
that's not to say MMAers can't fight outside, they can but they won't fight the same way.
Here's a stupid pub fight filmed by a bystander.
http://www.fight-factory.co.uk/2008/11/05/lowestoft/
that's not to say MMAers can't fight outside, they can but they won't fight the same way.
Here's a stupid pub fight filmed by a bystander.
http://www.fight-factory.co.uk/2008/11/05/lowestoft/
RE: submission locks.
A lot of submission locks that work great in the ring, with a single opponent, leave you very vulnerable if you have several opponents because your efforts and limbs are tied up with the guy you're trying to hold. Now, take that same lock and break the limb or choke the guy out completely, and it's a bit of a different situation... But you still have the initial period of vulnerability.
A lot of submission locks that work great in the ring, with a single opponent, leave you very vulnerable if you have several opponents because your efforts and limbs are tied up with the guy you're trying to hold. Now, take that same lock and break the limb or choke the guy out completely, and it's a bit of a different situation... But you still have the initial period of vulnerability.
My personal opinion on this has always been that mileage varies. Different situations will occur in different environments, so to have one "usually" catch all rule is BS. The MMA'ers can have the unfortunate habit of not seemingly seeing past their own rules of engagement.
allenjp
Brown Belt
I understand what you are saying. But think about it: when I am in a tourney or in the ring, I apply the lock slowly, with slowly increasing pressure until I get the tap. But if instead I grab and rip as quick and violently as possible, that guy is now out of commission and I can focus on the next guy. And remember that not all "submissions" have to be performed on the ground, some can be done standing just fine. Sometimes locks and chokes can put someone out of commission a lot faster than punches can. I'm not saying it's the best way, just one way. Anytime you are fighting multiple opponents, the goal is not to be on the ground, the goal is to run! You are already at a huge disadvantage.
Last edited:
allenjp
Brown Belt
Uh, yep, that was stupid.
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 85
Strange. Of all the fights I had in high school, and even the resistance of the purse snatcher in the Virgin Islands, never once did it 'go to the ground'.
Do some go to the ground? Oh yea. But I really doubt 'most' go except for whomever gets decked. After all, I do want my opponent to go to the ground... and not get up!
Deaf
Do some go to the ground? Oh yea. But I really doubt 'most' go except for whomever gets decked. After all, I do want my opponent to go to the ground... and not get up!
Deaf
Really? and how many MMAers have you seen fight outside the cage/ring? I can assure you that while as with TMAers there are some who are blinkered by their style the majority are not.
Why do debates like this always have to have an MMA bashing thing in them?
Last edited by a moderator:
In the outdoors, I wonder about an awkward fall on concrete or asphalt. Landing hard on your head, shoulder, hip, or knees could seriously injure. There may be a curb, broken glass, or a fire hydrant to contend with. There may be a knife, club, or multiple attackers. Even indoors there can be objects in the room that could be very bad to fall on. It may be extremely difficult to avoid falling in every circumstance, but it sounds like something you'd want to try very hard to avoid.
On the other end of the spectrum, I find it interesting that so many people assume that there is such a high probability that it will go there. I never knew there were so many mind readers in the world. LOL!
Of course, the reality of it, is that we don't know what will happen.True, however, I think the difference lies between things that are unavoidable vs just wanting to go there. Look at Royce for example. How often did he stand and fight vs. clinching and pulling the person down? So, yes, it is possible to end up there, but the goal IMHO should be to not stay there.
Good points. As I said above, it may happen, but the goal should be to get back to your feet, as soon as possible.
Agreed. I for one, think that having some ground skill is key.
Toss in as much as you'd like. Your opinion is always welcome.
Perhaps I'm missing something, and forgive me if I am, but it seems to me that they are all one in the same. Anything you do, regardless of whether or not its on the ground or standing, could be classified as a technique.
Now, just like with a standing lock flow series, people often say that they'd never use all of those locks in the series, and yes, they're right. Its designed to teach a flow, and give options. So, I don't look for locks, but if an arm is there, I may be able to pull off lock 6 from that series, because that is what presented itself to me.
My thought is...sure, if that arm, leg, ankle or neck presents itself, fine, take advantage of it, but I certainly wouldn't sepcifically stay there waiting and hoping for it. My main goal should be getting back to my feet.
I'm sure this is true, however, to intentionally take the person there...well, I think you know my thoughts on that.
Of course, under the optimum conditions, anything is possible. I wouldn't expect someone to take me down in a crowded bar, anymore than I'd expect someone to do a jump spinning back kick. In the end....I love BJJ. I enjoy rolling, I enjoy the kick butt cardio it gives you. I think that its very important to know the ground game, even if its the basics. I just feel that if there are other means to finish something, why put yourself in a potentially worse position than if you were standing?
Not sure if you saw the full show, but I'm sure if you went to youtube, you could pull up some episodes of Fight Quest. 2 episodes come to mind, the Krav Maga and Kajukenbo. In both, we saw two MMA fighters, Jimmy and Doug, go to the ground. Both commented that its their instinct to take the person down, yet, when we saw Jimmy try this while sparring a guy in the Kajukenbo episode, he took an elbow to the back as he attempted a double leg, and Doug was getting overwhelmed in the Krav Maga show.
I have nothing against MMA, Jim or Doug. I enjoyed watching them train in those shows, and IMHO, they showed a fantastic attitude.
I don't think it's MMA bashing Tez, I think it's not understanding that different MMA fighters have different strengths and not every MMA fighters first instinct is go go to the ground.
People fight the way they train, so if a fighter trains to take his opponent down because he's strong on the ground, that's what he'll do in a self defense situation.
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,058
Just to point out, now you have escalated an assault and battery (misdemeanor) to a felony. In most states if you choke someone out or start the choke it is considered deadly force. If you break the limb you are also committing a high end felony (states vary as to what it is called, in Michigan it would probably be an aggravated/felonious assault or even assault with intent to do great bodily harm).
To claim self-defense you have to make an attempt to get away from the situation. Just some thoughts to consider.
BrandonLucas
3rd Black Belt
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 902
- Reaction score
- 41
Just wanted to throw in my $.02...
Now, it should be noted that I've never been in a "real" fight before (knock on wood!!), but I've seen a few.
The fights that I've seen, even with experience fighters, trained and untrained, don't look like they do in practice. The adrenaline starts pumping and the fists start flying. All of the fights that I've witnessed either had both fighters who were untrained or there was only 1 trained fighter. In either case, from just watching the fight, you wouldn't be able to tell who was trained or not.
A few of the fights did end up on the ground with both individuals rolling and jockying for position and the upper hand. Those were fights in highschool, though, and were not, technically, in a "real" situation. What I mean is that the typical circle was formed around the 2 guys fighting and nobody was jumping in to help one or the other...not until somebody decided to break it up. So that gave both guys time to roll...by the way, it was a terrible fight, and it was obvious that neither individual had any kind of training.
I know it's already been said in previous posts, but I think it's worth saying a few times over: cross training in both striking and grappling arts is the best way to go. You truly never know how a fight is going to go.
It doesn't matter if you plan to stay on your feet the whole fight...the truth of the matter is that the other guy could trip as he's rushing you, grab your shirt and pull you off balance....any number of scenerio's could play out that result in you being on the ground. I think everyone should at least know how to defend from the ground against an opponent standing and/or on the ground. This should be in addition to striking abilities.
The bottom line is, what is it going to hurt to cross train? I know there are a lot of TMAists as well as MMAists out there that fight back and forth about which is better and blah blah blah. In my opinion, both striking and grappling should be required elements for anyone who chooses to train in a martial art of any description. Weapon training should be included as well...pratical weapon training, at the very least.
Again, that's just my thoughts on the matter.
Now, it should be noted that I've never been in a "real" fight before (knock on wood!!), but I've seen a few.
The fights that I've seen, even with experience fighters, trained and untrained, don't look like they do in practice. The adrenaline starts pumping and the fists start flying. All of the fights that I've witnessed either had both fighters who were untrained or there was only 1 trained fighter. In either case, from just watching the fight, you wouldn't be able to tell who was trained or not.
A few of the fights did end up on the ground with both individuals rolling and jockying for position and the upper hand. Those were fights in highschool, though, and were not, technically, in a "real" situation. What I mean is that the typical circle was formed around the 2 guys fighting and nobody was jumping in to help one or the other...not until somebody decided to break it up. So that gave both guys time to roll...by the way, it was a terrible fight, and it was obvious that neither individual had any kind of training.
I know it's already been said in previous posts, but I think it's worth saying a few times over: cross training in both striking and grappling arts is the best way to go. You truly never know how a fight is going to go.
It doesn't matter if you plan to stay on your feet the whole fight...the truth of the matter is that the other guy could trip as he's rushing you, grab your shirt and pull you off balance....any number of scenerio's could play out that result in you being on the ground. I think everyone should at least know how to defend from the ground against an opponent standing and/or on the ground. This should be in addition to striking abilities.
The bottom line is, what is it going to hurt to cross train? I know there are a lot of TMAists as well as MMAists out there that fight back and forth about which is better and blah blah blah. In my opinion, both striking and grappling should be required elements for anyone who chooses to train in a martial art of any description. Weapon training should be included as well...pratical weapon training, at the very least.
Again, that's just my thoughts on the matter.
You're right, I think people make a lot of assumptions about MMA, that fights always go to ground, that the point of the fight is to go to ground, that fighters only train takedowns and groundwork.
People who train MMA learn very quickly to change tactics while fighting and that taking someone down or going to the ground is not always the best idea. Sometimes if your opponent is more skilled than you on the floor you will stay standing.
The trick though that every MMA fighter learns though is to train all skills needed. One of their best skills is adaptability and being able literally to think on their feet to be able to change the style of fighting to suit the occasion as it were! People also assume that MMA fighters are stuck in the 'rules' mode and think they will automatically, if attacked, only do what they are allowed to in a competition, this is no more true than of any MA who trains.
When you train SD you can't destroy all your training partners so that's what you can do outside if attacked, you have to pull your punches. If you are what you train does that then mean you pull your punches when attacked?
I've said many times that MMA is physical chess, you have to be able to think while fighting, while under huge pressure, being hit, kicked etc and that is more likely to enable you to out of trouble than a thousand different techniques perfectly practised in a school/club.
I agree; I didn't read Zeeberex's post as bashing MMA, but simply commenting on what he's seen in the MMA fighters talking about self defense.
I think the reality is that a street fight just has too many dynamics to draw a simple rule and say "most go/don't go to the ground." A very common tactic is some variant of grab & pound, whether that's a head lock and uppercuts, knocking 'em down and kicking 'em in the ribs & head, holding a shirt or arm while punching, or whatever.
A realistic approach to preparing for a real fight requires learning how to deal with 3 situations: both fighters on their feet; one fighter up, one down; and both down. The exact way you deal with each situation depends on your training and your choice of style and tactics. Me? If I'm down, my actions are generally oriented around getting back to my feet as fast as I can. Someone else may validly wait for their attacker to close in, and then bring them down...
