How close do UFC fights come to real life self defence?

[sgtmac_46]

This is a misconception because organs don't have sensory receptors in them. You can touch organs and not 'feel' the touch but 'feel' the effect in areas around the touch. Sort of like when you get numbed up by the Dentist. You can't feel that portion of your face, but you still register the 'touch' because of the areas around it.

Eye gouges won't cause severe amounts of pain relative to some other attacks. It will cause lose of vision/visual aquity/depth perception and such as well as some serious psychological impact if the bad guy is not absolutely berzerked.

I'm not sure i'm following what you are trying to say. Getting an eye gouged out would definitlely result in being impeded in your fighting ability, other than that i'm not sure what it would feel like, not having been eye gouged. So i'm not sure what the 'misconception' is.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'd like to hear Loren Christensen or Karazenpo or John Bishop weigh in on this. Police officers with a lot of experience in dealing with street situations. I read in one of his books that Christensen said his fights NEVER went to the ground.

While i'm not Loren Christensen, i've been a police officer for nearly 10 years, and i've had well over a thousand arrests in my career. I've taken numerous suspects to the ground on purpose, and i've ended up on the ground (with my in a mount) on a couple accidentally because we tripped.

I've also known of several officers ending up accidentally on the ground with people. Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "went to the ground" means, as I handcuff most resisting suspects by forcing them to the ground.

I won't handcuff a resisting subject from a standing position, because it's easier to control and stablize them from the ground, preferably with them face down and me on their back.

The difference is one of the level of resistance. If a subject is passive resisting, or actively trying to escape, he'll go to the ground and you'll be in a position of relative control.

If an officer is being assaulted, however, he may end up on the ground not by his choice. Since most officers don't find themselves here very often, this is not a position they'll usually find themselves in. If they are in this position, though, it's because the suspect is trying to hurt or kill them, making ground combatives that much more necessary. This is the once in a great while fight for your life.

If a suspect is actively attacking an officer like this, it is to take their gun and kill them. The irony is that most people might think this kind of struggle occurs in a big city, with big city criminals. The fact is, this is a myth. Large cities usually have 30 or 40 officers responding as backup on a critical call.

Therefore, this type of struggle with a suspect isn't likely to happen with 12 other officers laying boots and mag lights to the suspects skull while he's attacking you.

This type of assault usually occurs on smaller and rural police departments and with highway patrols where back up is several minutes away and a single officer deals with one (or more) suspects. This kind of prolonged struggle isn't likely in a large city, but is much more likely with a single responding officer. This is the kind of struggle that results in the 20% figure of officers who are shot with their own firearm.

 

[Danjo]

While i'm not Loren Christensen, i've been a police officer for nearly 10 years, and i've had well over a thousand arrests in my career. I've taken numerous suspects to the ground on purpose, and i've ended up on the ground (with my in a mount) on a couple accidentally because we tripped.

I've also known of several officers ending up accidentally on the ground with people. Again, I suppose it depends on your definition of "went to the ground" means, as I handcuff most resisting suspects by forcing them to the ground.

I won't handcuff a resisting subject from a standing position, because it's easier to control and stablize them from the ground, preferably with them face down and me on their back.

The difference is one of the level of resistance. If a subject is passive resisting, or actively trying to escape, he'll go to the ground and you'll be in a position of relative control.

If an officer is being assaulted, however, he may end up on the ground not by his choice. Since most officers don't find themselves here very often, this is not a position they'll usually find themselves in. If they are in this position, though, it's because the suspect is trying to hurt or kill them, making ground combatives that much more necessary. This is the once in a great while fight for your life.

If a suspect is actively attacking an officer like this, it is to take their gun and kill them. The irony is that most people might think this kind of struggle occurs in a big city, with big city criminals. The fact is, this is a myth. Large cities usually have 30 or 40 officers responding as backup on a critical call.

Therefore, this type of struggle with a suspect isn't likely to happen with 12 other officers laying boots and mag lights to the suspects skull while he's attacking you.

This type of assault usually occurs on smaller and rural police departments and with highway patrols where back up is several minutes away and a single officer deals with one (or more) suspects. This kind of prolonged struggle isn't likely in a large city, but is much more likely with a single responding officer. This is the kind of struggle that results in the 20% figure of officers who are shot with their own firearm.

Thanks for your insight here. This is the type of info I was wanting.

 

[loki09789]

All the LEOs I've talked to (online and off) said nearly all of their fights end on the ground, since thats where you usually cuff a suspect.

That is part of their job and 'going to the ground' is going to happen when you engage and stay there.

As a civilian, my job is to neutralize the threat and retreat when it is reasonable to do so. Fights going to the ground for civilians involved in self defense is an area to be versed in but I would say trying to take the fight there as a standard tactic is a big mistake - friends can sprout from anywhere and the uncertainty of what is on the ground (glass, curbs, gravel, ....) doesn't make it a place I want to go voluntarily as a first choice.

 

[loki09789]

I'm not sure i'm following what you are trying to say. Getting an eye gouged out would definitlely result in being impeded in your fighting ability, other than that i'm not sure what it would feel like, not having been eye gouged. So i'm not sure what the 'misconception' is.

Agreed, eye gouge will impede fight. The misconception is that a nose shot is going to be less effective.

What most people are talking about when it comes to eye pokes/gauge experience is the chemical reaction/irritation around the eye (inside the eyelid, socket, muscles that contract/control eye movement....) the actual organ of the eye will not register 'pain' just like your lungs, if touched won't register 'pain.' That is why people with internal injuries walk away and show symptoms later because the organ itself does not throb/ache like a broken finger or a cut arm.

Yes, eye gouges are painful, irritating and psychologically 'icky.' I don't dispute that.

 

[Loren W. Christensen]

This is always such a tough topic because everyone’s reality is different as to what real fighting is. That doesn’t make everyone wrong; it just might make everyone right. That said, I think blanket statements are always wrong (hmm, that’s a blanket statement).



“A real fight always goes to the ground.” “A real fight is never like a point karate sparring match.” “A guy will never attack with a knife that way.” And so on. These are all blanket statements, and therefore wrong. Absolutes – ‘always,’ ‘never’ – automatically make them wrong. Whenever I’ve said this in police academies there is always some guy who cracks, “A bullet in the head is an absolute.” To that I say, not so. I had a man in one incident and a woman in another who had both been shot five times in the head and both still fought the police. But I digress….



A guy who has been in a couple fights might have had both of them go to the ground, while another guy who has been in a couple fights defeated his attackers with a tournament-like backfist. That’s their reality. So when they both think that that is how real fights go, they’re right.



My reality is that most fights don’t go to the ground. I once did an informal survey of cops as to how many of their fights went to the ground, and they all said the same as I had found: maybe one out of 10. That was our reality. Maybe it’s the nature of the police fight, who knows.



I also noticed after 29 years of scrapping with bozos on the street as a cop that not one of the fights I was in or that I witnessed happened like a tournament fight. But again, that’s just my experience. A friend of mine, Wim Demeere, a Belgium kickboxing champ, has defeated several attackers with head-high, tournament-like roundhouse kicks. So there you go.



Perhaps instead of wondering which is best or which is more real, or who would win in a fight, Bruce Lee or Jet Li, a better expenditure of energy would be to train hard physically, study all that you can about the physiological and psychological effects of combat on the human body, and work to be the best that you can be.



Loren

wwwlwcbooks.com

 

[Karazenpo]

Hi to all, a friend on this forum asked me to check out this post and also asked what I thought and for my input. I appreciate that. Actually, imho, as my viewpoint goes, everyone here had something to offer that I can agree with, there are a few areas that I may vary slightly but all in all, very interesting perspectives.

Again, respectfully these are only my opinions:

Nothing can really simulate a good rock'n sock'n all out reality fight, although, boxers, kickboxers, wrestlers and UFC type fighters are about as close as you're going to get while still keeping things civil. I believe these are referred to as the 'live arts'. What you use, is not in theory or suggested in the sense, okay, good point if it landed.........in these fights as we all know, the technique either does it's job or it doesn't. No gray area, no debate.

Next, the measure of a man/woman's toughness is not how much they can dish out but how much they can take. Anyone can deliver a beating, it's perservering that makes the victor. That's why I'll always believe in that old Hawaiian way of training that is talked about and for those old enough who can remmebr as it carried over into the 60's and 70's. Some schools still do it. How about John Hackleman 'The Pit Master' and his students of the Walter L.N. Godin lineage? Part of this toughness is also the physical conditoning, so although still not an actual no holds barred fights, the training and experience is about as close as you're going to come. I agree, though, there are still rules whereas there are no rules in reality fighting.

Now, about not going to the ground. Well, I understand the point of view but in reality we may have no choice. Icy parking lot, wet sidewalk, light snow, sandy street, the beach, crowded apartment or nightclub with furniture, simply tripping, maybe over a curb, dress shoes, especially women, one too many drinks if you indulge, I guess you could say a simple act of God, or let's put ego aside, your opponent was just that damn good and 'took you down'. As far as how many fights go to the ground, all I can say is you better be prepared because it happens. Like others here, I'm a veteran police offcier and I also worked in clubs and I guess you could say I was a bit of a scrapper growing up when I had to be. It happens and it happens more than you might believe. Now, if you throw a pre-emptive strike and overwelm your opponent with a good tactical blitz or knock him out with the first one or two shots, ya, I grant you, he'll be the one going to the ground but you may have to be reactionary and now that changes everything. Two many varibables, two many things can happen and you should feel just as comfortable on the ground as on your feet. Reason? hey, there's some good grapplers out there, not too mention just a good old 'tough as nails' football player and they are going to be very comfortable taking you there. I don't underestimate know one's ability and I am not arrogant to think I can't be taken down, so fine, if it happens, I want to feel comfortable there. I don't want to feel like I was taken out of my environment because then, you lose!

Another reason it may be you that decides to take it to the ground. Hold on before I get lambasted for this,lol. Let's say you happen to know your opponent and let's say from your knowledge of him he is superior to you with his hands, a knockout reputation but has no experience in grappling, why? because he's never on the ground, his rep is a successful KO punch. You on the other hand are very good but not a fair match with your hands, however, you are one helluva grappler and have been known to take them down and choke them out! Now, you take him out of his environment, you know, like a fish out of water!

In closing, I think a fair share of fights go to the ground but I don't think we should dwell on a percentage for it doesn't matter. If a minimal went down who's to say it can't happen to you. It's simply planning for what the military calls 'friction'. Back in the Carter administration we sent some special ops helicopters during the Iran hostage situation for a rescue mission. It was a disaster because we didn't plan for sand stroms over the desert and the engines on the choppers weren't protected properly and they went down with no survivors. Hey, sandstorms in that region didn't happen every day but the point is, they do happen and there was no precaution taken, hense, the 'friction' concept of your ideal plan and then you cover anything that can go wrong to screw it up. Thanks guys, just my perspective.

 

[Danjo]

Thanks for responding sgtmac_46, Loren and Prof. Joe Shuras. These are easily the most balanced views of this I have read yet. It's good to get away from the propaganda that's out there in order to sell someone on a particular style of MA, and hear from people that have had to use their MA experience in the real world.

 

[Karazenpo]

Like I said, I'd like to hear from any police officers out there that would care to respond to this. I do think that there is a difference between taking a suspect to the ground and handcuffing him there etc. and having the fight go to the ground. In the first situation, the officer is in control of the suspect, in the latter, the one in control is yet to be determined and the fight will be decided on the ground. When most people talk about a fight going to the ground, I believe that they are talking about the latter scenario where clear control or dominance had not been determined. After all, by the broader definition one could say that most of Mike Tyson's early fights "went to the ground" because that's where the opponents ended up. But the handcuffing and knockouts is not what I'm talking about. I'd like to find out what percent of fights end up on the ground when the outcome is undetermined.

Dan, yes, a cop will intentionally take a resisting suspect to the ground or over, let's say the trunk/hood of a car or even forced up against wall/building for cuffing. However, there are passive resistors and active resistors. A passive resisitor doesn't try to assault you but uses resistive tension to keep you from cuffing them. A good shot with a knee to the peronial nerve has a high probability of working on the most 'wired' resistors (I never commit to say anything works 100 per cent of the time but this has never let me down). Nothing is a given so a passive resistor can turn into an active one and now you're in a fight. Some are immediately active resistors and you'll probably figure that out ahead of time by simply reading their body language or you'll know it for sure the minute you move in to take custody of them.

Now, if I am alone, which happens quite often as we rarely ride double or walk a beat double, including your average bar detail, then my mindset is merely to overwelm and defeat the attacker. At that point, you do what you have to do, you don't think about handcuffing the guy, your only drive is to survive the encounter, after that, ya, there is a good possibility he will be on the ground (providing you win,lol) and you will be cuffing him. My point is a guy that dangerous and that tough will have to be on the ground and incapacitated to some degree for one person to handcuff him successfully anyway. For those not in law enforcement or have never seen someone actively resisting being cuffed, it can be one of the hardest things to do be it a male or female. So a suspect doesn't even have to be big, he/she could be wired on something or an E.D.P. (emotionally disturberd person).

When I was teaching at the police academy, I would give a talk about how handcuffs are temporary restraining devices. I would pass around a picture of a pair of cuffs of 'twisted' metal and 'vice-grip' type marks and tell the class it appears this suspect got away from police and found a friend with a pair of vice grips to remove the handcuffs. I wait until everyone views the picture and agrees. The I pass it around for a second time and tell them those so-called vice grip marks were from the teeth of an E.D.P who the cops could only get the cuffs on from the front and then he bit them off! (photo was a copy courtesy of Charles Remsberg and Dennis Anderson of the Calibre Press Officer Survival seminars). You should see the looks on some the officers' faces, including streetwise veterans. This is what I try to get across to my students of what they're facing out there in reality. I had put that picture on the frame of the doorway so that it could be seen after leaving my dojo as a 'reminder' to my students. Loren made a great point when he said he never saw a real fight look like a tournament.

Again, most of what I've seen that went to the ground was unintentional, just tripping over things, even your own or the suspect's feet, slipping off a curbing, sand and and ice, stuff like that. Once in a while, some start the fight by tackling their opponent and taking him down or pouncing on him with a chokehold (that works a great percentage of the time), some go to the ground and keep it on others maintain their balance in a deep low stance. Some suspects will drop low while standing in front of you and go for a double leg takedown, a quick 'wrestler's sprawl' into a frontal headlock will neutralize that one. Of cource, sometimes just a well placed punch, strike or kick will take him to the ground, too, lol. What's Shotokan call that? "One punch, one kill". Respectfully, Prof. Joe

 

[MJS]

First off, I'd like to thank the LEOs here...Mr. Christensen, Sgtmac, and Prof. Joe, for their valuable insight that they have provided here!! :asian: :asian: :asian:

After reading through the past few posts, its apparent that yes, there are very different goals between the UFC and the LEO. 2 different 'arenas' 2 different goals.

Thanks again guys!!!

Mike

 

[samuelpont]

From my experience fights in real life do tend to end up on the ground but usually with one pounding the other one. You don`t normally end up rolling around on each other but with one person establishing dominance fairly quickly. Its o.k to go to the ground with someone if your sure they have no friends nearby and you don`t attempt anything that leaves you at risk from being bitten etc.The best thing if your fighting one opponent is to ground them and try establish mount position and pound away this way the fight can be over very quickly, so yes certain types of ufc fighting are very handy in self defence.
The normal man indeed won`t (hopefully!) behave and fight like a mixed martial artist and so is even easier to take to the ground.

That said if your fighting more than one person the ground is the last place you want to be and learning to stand up quickly after being knocked over is crucial unless you fancy a size 11 in the head. Ufc style fightin can also help with this as through the training you are repeatedly grounded, knocked, kicked down and if you want to work at your quick standing technique you are at liberty to do so in a much more real environment than most martial arts classes

 

[James Kovacich]

In closing, I think a fair share of fights go to the ground but I don't think we should dwell on a percentage for it doesn't matter. If a minimal went down who's to say it can't happen to you.

That sums it up right there and part of the reason I stress a complete understanding in all ranges. I also tell my students that if they are going into a fight, they are going to get hit. Pretty simple. If you're looking for a knock out or a certain technique. It's not going to happen. We need to be ready to fight the fight before us.

And when we gain control and take them out of their element, then we punish them. :uhyeah:

 

[Kane]

Now that I think about more, UFC does not come at all that close to street fights. In the street, everything is legal. If I find a baseballbat lying on the floor I can easily bash the head open of Tito Ortiz or Ken Shamrock. I know this sounds kind of overconfident, but I have the feeling I can beat any UFC fighter in a street fight:wink1:. I know if I get a weapon I would own most people, unless it is some fencing or kendo world champion. Because in a street fight weapons are all around, so because of my fencing experiance, I'm sure I would own anyone in a fight on the street, even a UFC fighter.

Not only that but bites and throat strikes are legal, because there are no rules. If I was to bite the attacker or kick his windpipe........goodbye.

 

[RMACKD]

What would stop the UFC fighter from grabbing a weapon and attacking you? Especially since many UFC fighters have more street experience than most martial artist have and a lot more than a lot of the so called reality self defense experts out there. Ken Shamrock ran away from home when he about twelve years old and was arrested for fighting several times. Bas Rutten has knocked out as many people outside the ring as he has inside the ring. kimo was a former gang banger. Both Brazil and Russia have some violent areas and many fighters come from them. Not to mention considering how much some of these fighters can bench. I bet Mark Kerr can swing a mean table. But if you are against a UFC fighter in a streetfight I do not think you would have an oppurtunity to bite their throat.

 

[Kane]

What would stop the UFC fighter from grabbing a weapon and attacking you? Especially since many UFC fighters have more street experience than most martial artist have and a lot more than a lot of the so called reality self defense experts out there. Ken Shamrock ran away from home when he about twelve years old and was arrested for fighting several times. Bas Rutten has knocked out as many people outside the ring as he has inside the ring. kimo was a former gang banger. Both Brazil and Russia have some violent areas and many fighters come from them. Not to mention considering how much some of these fighters can bench. I bet Mark Kerr can swing a mean table. But if you are against a UFC fighter in a streetfight I do not think you would have an oppurtunity to bite their throat.

Because I have an experiance in fencing, meaning I know how to use a weapon. I've done fencing for a long while now, so I can apply the moves I learn in fencing to a tire-iron or some crow bar lying around. Basicly any type of object I can use to my advantage with fencing skills. I doubt any UFC fighters have any weapons training, especially fencing.

Plus I am a pretty tough SOB without weapons too. I am a 4-time All American in freestyle wrestling and greco wrestling. I have also done ju jitsu for so long I don't even remembered when I started. I am also pretty strong guy. I think even without weapons I would give them a run for their money, but maybe they will win in the end due to more experiance but in a weapons battle I will own.

 

[Danjo]

I doubt any UFC fighters have any weapons training,

Iwouldn't bet the farm on that

 

[MJS]

A few things to keep in mind here. First, just because someone trains, that does not turn that person into a Superman! There is always someone bigger, badder and better out there. Its one thing to be confident in your skills, but being over confident can be a mistake. As for being good with weapons. Again, when it comes to a weapon, it is going to depend on the situation. We need to keep in mind the use of force levels here as well. Also, just because we may have a weapon, again, we should not get too confident. I've been training in Arnis for 7yrs now. However, I certainly don't run around saying that I'm the best because again, there is always someone better.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

Now that I think about more, UFC does not come at all that close to street fights. In the street, everything is legal. If I find a baseballbat lying on the floor I can easily bash the head open of Tito Ortiz or Ken Shamrock. I know this sounds kind of overconfident, but I have the feeling I can beat any UFC fighter in a street fight:wink1:. I know if I get a weapon I would own most people, unless it is some fencing or kendo world champion. Because in a street fight weapons are all around, so because of my fencing experiance, I'm sure I would own anyone in a fight on the street, even a UFC fighter.

Not only that but bites and throat strikes are legal, because there are no rules. If I was to bite the attacker or kick his windpipe........goodbye.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Besides, biting is overrated. I've been bitten in a fight, and I didn't even feel it. I also wouldn't be so sure about easily bashing Tito or Ken's head open. A punch is a punch, on the street or in the ring, a kick is a kick, a choke is a choke. You want to throw a bat in? That's fine too. UFC/NHB fighting is close enough to a street fight to determine what works empty hand.

Of course, if you're training for the street you want to add weapons skills. But that doesn't say that the UFC isn't realistic. I've seen a number of street fights, and most folks can't fight. Fighting in the UFC is tougher than any street fight i've been in, so if anything the UFC is tougher than the street. You don't think some of these guys have been in a few street fights involving weapons?

Dan Severn was saying that Tank Abbott's claim to fame was that his rap sheet was longer than all the other competitors in the UFC put together. Severn said that he asked John McCarthy, who's an LAPD officer, about it and Big John said that it was true. Tank Abbott has a long history of assaults and drunken disorderly charges, among others, and he's banned from 90% of the bars in Huntington Beach for fighting. You don't think someone has ever pulled out a baseball bat or a tire tool on Tank? Not that I like the guy, but i'm sure he's not hard to find in Huntington Beach (Just find one of the few bars he isn't banned from). If you want to test out your theory that you can beat up any UFC fighter in a street fight, i'm sure David "Tank" Abbott would oblige you, with or without a bat. I think it would be a mistake to assume that just because he often get's his butt beat in the Octagon, that he's a punk on the street. I think you might just be a little too over confident on this one.

 

[sgtmac_46]

<Disclaimer> The preceeding post was meant strictly for satirical purposes and was in no way meant to encourage an assault on David "Tank" Abbott, any other member of the UFC, or anyone for that matter. Assault is a crime, and assault with a deadly weapon is a felony in virtually all jurisdictions. <Disclaimer>

 

[shane23ss]

Like I said, I'd like to hear from any police officers out there that would care to respond to this. I do think that there is a difference between taking a suspect to the ground and handcuffing him there etc. and having the fight go to the ground. In the first situation, the officer is in control of the suspect, in the latter, the one in control is yet to be determined and the fight will be decided on the ground. When most people talk about a fight going to the ground, I believe that they are talking about the latter scenario where clear control or dominance had not been determined. After all, by the broader definition one could say that most of Mike Tyson's early fights "went to the ground" because that's where the opponents ended up. But the handcuffing and knockouts is not what I'm talking about. I'd like to find out what percent of fights end up on the ground when the outcome is undetermined.

I have been a police officer for some time myself. As far as the fights/struggles going to the ground. Most police officers will tell you they try to do that as soon as the struggle starts. As for me, I can't recall a single time a fight/struggle has gone to the ground without me doing it on purpose. Most officers try to do this quickly to get the situation under control. But to answer your question point blank Danjo, I have never ended up on the ground without doing it on purpose.