Ground Fighting

[Transk53]

Is this Sci-Fi?

 

[Hanzou]

I do know what to do. Get back on my feet asap.

You seem to have pretty much ignored the fact that in the clip I posted the guy was up against multiple opponents and his skills, strategy (staying on his feet) and tactics enabled him to avoid being surrounded and deal with the threats one at a time very quickly and efficiently before any of his opponents could take him to the ground.

I acknowledged that in that situation, it was a good idea to stay on your feet and stay mobile.

However every situation isn't like that one.

 

[jezr74]

You basically need a weapon or a posse to take down a Bjj guy.

I'm a little confused, is this what this posts and the others is about to you?

 

[mook jong man]

is this sci-fi?

this is sparta !

 

[Steve]

I'm a little confused, is this what this posts and the others is about to you?

It's a bunch of guys essentially saying the same thing. The only difference is some think it's enough to hope for the best. "I'll just get on my feet ASAP!" Famous last words.

 

[donnaTKD]

i just get the feeling that he goes out looking for a scrap so he can try out the latest move he's been taught............

jmo

 

[Buka]

I don't have the multiple quote thing down, so forgive the long way..

Steve said "I think people are misunderstanding each other"

I think he's right.

Hanzou said "BTW, aren't all weapon disarms from grappling range? Which art do you think is better adept at doing something like that? An art that specializes in striking, or an art that specializes in controlling the limbs of the body?"

Having done a lot of both myself, it's the art that specializes in controlling limbs of the body.I'm not saying anyone else's style doesn't have these qualities, I'm just saying what I've found to work the best in these situations.

Steve "If being on the ground is suicide, wouldn't it be among the MOST IMPORTANT things for you to learn?"
While I don't like the term suicide as it applies to self defense on the ground because I really believe this way of thinking was started by us stand up guys, I really love it in the context of this sentence as tactical principle. To me, it's just doesn't make any sense to ignore this. Regardless of what art, style, tactical principles you embrace, how could one not want to have a better game on the floor, ground, top, bottom whatever? Because although I use the word "game" we all know it's anything but.

An analogy I like (concerning ground work in it's relationship to stand up) came from a student a long while ago. He had trained with us a couple years, then life got in the way and he was gone for a few years. When he came back, we had incorporated ground fighting into our art for a couple years. This ground fighting was taught to us and implemented through good Jiu-jitsu instructors. When that student came back and got into the swing of things for a few months I asked him how he liked the stuff that he hadn't seen before.

He said, "It's like I've been cooking Italian food for two years and somebody, just now, introduced me to garlic."

 

[Hanzou]

I'm a little confused, is this what this posts and the others is about to you?

More or less. As Steve said, the multiple opponent and weapon argument is an excuse and a sales tactic so that styles that don't utilize that range of combat can ease the fears of their students. What's nonsensical about that argument is that it your conceding that a person with ground skills will probably demolish you in a fight if you don't have a weapon or have friends with you. Wouldn't such a concession make you want to learn that style of fighting so that you won't get demolished?

I can really think of no other MA on the planet where its detractors make such wild claims in its favor. Yet, Bjj is that MA.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

I don't think anyone is saying you can't win a fight in a SD situation by taking it to the ground, but it's not the smartest percentage play when there are so many unknown factors.

Has anyone mentioned terrain yet btw? There could be broken glass on the ground, barbed wire, brass tacks, caltrops, dog faeces, urine, vomitus, nettles, thistles, poison ivy, fire ants etc etc All things I wouldn't want to be rolling around on!

Add to that the possibility of weapons and additional participants which can be introduced at any time and these are all good reasons in my opinion to stay on your feet.

You could quite easily end up losing from a winning position due to the later introduction of other people, as we've seen already.

You have better visibility from your feet, and are in a better position to leg it.

Oh and dogs too, I'd rather give it a kick from a standing position if it's trying to defend it's low-life owner who's attacked me.

You basically need a weapon or a posse to take down a Bjj guy.

Or be better at BJJ. Or be a better ground fighter in some other system. Or be bigger and stronger with some grappling skills. Or have the striking skills to incapacitate him before he takes you down.

Or slip him a mickey lol

But I don't necessarily have to take him down, I may only have to keep out of range until the cavalry arrive or hamper him long enough to make my escape.

I also don't think anyone has said that it's a bad idea to have some ground fighting skills, or some tactics/techniques for getting back up on your feet if you do find yourself on the ground. Just that it's not a good idea to have the aim of taking it there.

The above is based on the assumption that we're still discussing whether or not it's a good idea to take a fight to the ground in a real life self defence situation, and is in response to the whole thread rather than just the line quoted, but I'm no good at that fancy multi-quoting stuff!

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

More or less. As Steve said, the multiple opponent and weapon argument is an excuse and a sales tactic so that styles that don't utilize that range of combat can ease the fears of their students. What's nonsensical about that argument is that it your conceding that a person with ground skills will probably demolish you in a fight if you don't have a weapon or have friends with you. Wouldn't such a concession make you want to learn that style of fighting so that you won't get demolished?

I can really think of no other MA on the planet where its detractors make such wild claims in its favor. Yet, Bjj is that MA.

Again, your dismissing the multiple opponents scenario rather lightly imo.

Bad guys often tend to hunt in packs, and bullies love an audience - usually of their friends.

 

[Steve]

Buka, you're my new hero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jezr74]

More or less. As Steve said, the multiple opponent and weapon argument is an excuse and a sales tactic so that styles that don't utilize that range of combat can ease the fears of their students. What's nonsensical about that argument is that it your conceding that a person with ground skills will probably demolish you in a fight if you don't have a weapon or have friends with you. Wouldn't such a concession make you want to learn that style of fighting so that you won't get demolished?

I can really think of no other MA on the planet where its detractors make such wild claims in its favor. Yet, Bjj is that MA.

I definitely see the advantage playing to your strengths. Of course your opponent will have them too, so will either give you an advantage or disadvantage. I also think there is a difference between a ground fight, and a fight going to the ground.

If I'm trained to grapple, I'd likely keep it at the ground and continue the struggle of skill and strength. If I'm trained to recover from going to the ground, I'd get up. If I'm trained in how to get up against a person trained in taking the fight to the ground, I will get up in a more controlled manner, a lot slower albeit. Then it again comes down to skill of the combatants and strength, or ability to re-direct.

If you can pick your fighting ground and opponent, you have an advantage. If I was a JJ trained (or a MA with it's heritage) and I liked a ground fight, I'd be an outdoors type fighter, bit of space. If I'm a striker I'd pick an environment more suited to give it advantage.

This is the part of the distinction I see in Sports Vs. IRL fighting. When I spar with grapplers, I stay on the ground because I like to learn how they fight and get the experience. Or they are more skilled then I am and I have little choice, but depending on their skill and my advantages\disadvantages I'll change my tactics, I win some I lose some. I see it no different to getting owner in a striking fight, i can have multiple landed on me before I get my guard up, and other times I dominate.

I agree weapons and multiple opponents is a whole different ball game. I definitely don't think this is the only way to defeat a grappler. (If that's what you think is true and I don't want to take you out of context)

It's hard using YouTube to prove a point, since there is such an abundance of "wins" and "losses" to both ground and stand-up fighting.

 

[Hanzou]

Again, your dismissing the multiple opponents scenario rather lightly imo.

Bad guys often tend to hunt in packs, and bullies love an audience - usually of their friends.

I'm not dismissing it. I'm pointing out that no martial art really prepares you for multiple attackers or weapons. So to ding Bjj as being weak against multiple attackers or weapons is a bit silly. When you're unarmed and against more than one person, or against an armed person, you're at a disadvantage no matter what you know.

 

[jezr74]

I'm not dismissing it. I'm pointing out that no martial art really prepares you for multiple attackers or weapons. So to ding Bjj as being weak against multiple attackers or weapons is a bit silly. When you're unarmed and against more than one person, or against an armed person, you're at a disadvantage no matter what you know.

Ahh, yes I thought that's what you meant, but it read to me that the only way to defeat a BJJ practitioner was to use a weapon or multiple people.

 

[Hanzou]

The above is based on the assumption that we're still discussing whether or not it's a good idea to take a fight to the ground in a real life self defence situation, and is in response to the whole thread rather than just the line quoted, but I'm no good at that fancy multi-quoting stuff!

All of that is more based on the fact that street fighting sucks and should be avoided at all costs. Everything you mentioned above can just as easily happen to you if you're trying to stay on your feet, and get knocked down, sucker punched, tackled from behind, whatever.

Here's the point; Training to get back up as soon as possible isn't the same as training to fight on the ground. That stupid thug in the video didn't want to get taken to the ground, but he was taken there, and when he was, the fight went from a silly scrap to a very serious altercation. The guy could have died or suffered severe brain injury. People really need to learn how to fight from the ground completely, and that includes not only escapes, but also how to end the altercation if necessary. Frankly some of the "ground tactics" taught in a lot of martial arts is a bad joke, and clearly just implemented because Bjj forced them to implement it.

 

[Hanzou]

Ahh, yes I thought that's what you meant, but it read to me that the only way to defeat a BJJ practitioner was to use a weapon or multiple people.

No, that's the other side of the argument. Again, its a sales tactic. "Bjj teaches you how to just defeat one person. Our martial art will teach you how to defeat gangs of armed bandits!"

 

[drop bear]

All of that is more based on the fact that street fighting sucks and should be avoided at all costs. Everything you mentioned above can just as easily happen to you if you're trying to stay on your feet, and get knocked down, sucker punched, tackled from behind, whatever.

Here's the point; Training to get back up as soon as possible isn't the same as training to fight on the ground. That stupid thug in the video didn't want to get taken to the ground, but he was taken there, and when he was, the fight went from a silly scrap to a very serious altercation. The guy could have died or suffered severe brain injury. People really need to learn how to fight from the ground completely, and that includes not only escapes, but also how to end the altercation if necessary. Frankly some of the "ground tactics" taught in a lot of martial arts is a bad joke, and clearly just implemented because Bjj forced them to implement it.

Silly question but what if you are copping a beating stand up. Do you ground them or pressure on?

One of the best ways you counter a flurry is to double leg someone.

 

[Hanzou]

Silly question but what if you are copping a beating stand up. Do you ground them or pressure on?

One of the best ways you counter a flurry is to double leg someone.

Yeah, I used this video as a prime example for why people would go for a clinch and takedown:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3k1PfjUaq0s

Observe how long that brawl lasted, and the damage to the thug in that video versus the length of the brawl and the damage to the thug in the OP. Big difference.

 

[donnaTKD]

i would have said the same if you're taking a hammering then you do what you can to get away from it and if you ground them then it's a whole different ball game

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, I used this video as a prime example for why people would go for a clinch and takedown:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3k1PfjUaq0s

Observe how long that brawl lasted, and the damage to the thug in that video versus the length of the brawl and the damage to the thug in the OP. Big difference.

Yeah and not much risk of a bunch of ransoms jumping in