90% of all fights go to the ground..

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[statisticool]

Here's an interetsing article that I came across today

http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html

which addresses the possible orgin of that saying, and examines it to see if it is correct or not.

Justin

[jason jordan]

Hey that is very valuable info. Thanks for posting that.

[SeiserL]

Great reference. Thank you.

I would agree that getting a good ground game is important.

OTOH, in Detroit I was taught that to tie yourself up on the bar room floor with one person, left you open as an easy target for all his friends.

[maxwelljones]

Very interesting.

The first half is obvious. The second half is a bit scary.

[Chuck.Gordon]

90%? Nope. Most fights never get past the first punch.

Some 70+ or - % of police apprehensions DO tend to go to ground, however.

[Ecosamurai]

90%? Nope. Most fights never get past the first punch.

Some 70+ or - % of police apprehensions DO tend to go to ground, however.

I agree. Police restraint = fight? Not too sure about that. Also what does 'on the ground' mean? Surely if I pin someone from ikkyo that is 'on the ground'

Just the scientist in me coming out I suppose.... it's a good article though. Very interesting, thanks :)

Mike

[KIT]

90%? Nope. Most fights never get past the first punch.

Some 70+ or - % of police apprehensions DO tend to go to ground, however.

As for the former, yeah, I'm afraid they do....

As for the latter, yep, that's exactly what it says.

[Edward]

I've always been taught never to go to the ground in a street confrontation for obvious reasons. That's why aikido techniques always have both feet rooted to the ground unlike judo. Also you will have to think about the laundry bills, it's more economical to stay standing :D

[Timothy WK]

Though there is a clear implication of the likelihood of going to the ground in the second survey...

Respondents were asked whether an attacker had ever attempted to force them to the ground. More than half (52%) reported this had occurred. Of that number, 60% reported that their attackers had been successful in taking them down.

...the first study indicates that take-down attempts only constitute a minority of aggressive actions by suspects:

Four combative actions by suspects accounted for almost two thirds (65.8%) of these I.O.D. injuries; the officer was kicked 23.4 percent, punched 16 percent, thrown/tripped 15 percent, or was bitten 11.4 percent... The thrown/tripped statistic includes injuries sustained from wrestling on the ground.

I actually find it interesting that kicks were the greatest cause of injuries.

[MM]

As for the former, yeah, I'm afraid they do....

As for the latter, yep, that's exactly what it says.

For the former, do you have any evidence to support that? I've asked this question many times and no one can ever come up with any research, study, evidence, etc, except for personal opinion.

Now, that doesn't mean it isn't valid. It's just that if people are going to use these kind of statistics, then it would be nice for them to have some support for their opinions.

As noted, when many people say 90% of fights go to the ground, they always point back to the LEO study. And that study actually contradicts their position.

Thanks,
Mark

[George S. Ledyard]

90%? Nope. Most fights never get past the first punch.

Some 70+ or - % of police apprehensions DO tend to go to ground, however.

There is a certain kind of fight that doesn't get past the first punch... It's the predatory ambush. Peyton Quinn and Marc "Animal McYoung talk about this at length in their books on self defense.

But in many other contexts this isn't true. Many of the fights one encounters in a law enforcement context are not surprises. The officer(s) move towards an already existing threat and are ready. So they don't get surprised by that first sucker punch. Fights can last quite a long time and officers routinely get hurt.

Officers end up on the ground frequently because they are trying to execute take downs on a resistant subject. When the subject goes down so does the officer. Often this is intentional but other times it has to do with poor body mechanics on the part of the officer who over commits on the take down and loses his own balance when the subject does. Better training would reduce the percentage of encounters that go to the ground in LE involved situations.

[ChrisMoses]

I've always been taught never to go to the ground in a street confrontation for obvious reasons. That's why aikido techniques always have both feet rooted to the ground unlike judo. Also you will have to think about the laundry bills, it's more economical to stay standing :D

Reminds me of my first Aikido teacher. His response to how to deal with a grappler was, "Don't go to the ground! Easy!" Good luck with that strategy...:cool:

[Tim Mailloux]

His response to how to deal with a grappler was, "Don't go to the ground! Easy!" Good luck with that strategy...:cool:

Several years ago while at an aikido seminar I witnessed 2 younger (mid to late 30's) and very talanted / high ranking aikido teachers (one a 4th dan, the other a 5th dan)get into a fight during the seminar while training with one another. Aparently the two had a lot of "history" and hated one another.

Things got really ugly and puches started flying. Really sloppy wild punches I might add. They were both swinging for the fences. A few seconds latter they were both on the ground doing what looked like really bad ground and pound MMA until they were pulled apart. Not at any point did either one of these guys do or even attempt anything that vaugly resembled aikido.... and the fight also ended up on the ground.

Just though I would share

[Kevin Leavitt]

Most people I think have several inate understanding regardless of their formal understanding of fighting or practice in a martial art.

1. Everyone pretty much knows how to use their legs and arms as weapons to use a knife, hit, or kick.

2. Everyone understands that it is good for you to be standing and the other guy to not be standing.

3. The guy that seizes the advantage or element of suprise is the one that can typically most successfully use his arms, legs, or weapon and remain standing.

4 The guy with the most buddies typically is the winner of a empty handed fight.

5. Size does matter...always!

6. Skill and experience help....if you get the chance to use them.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Oh yeah...and my favorite statistic. 100% of all ground fights end up on the ground.

As Clint Eastwood would say...."well, punk...do you feel lucky? Do ya?"

[KIT]

For the former, do you have any evidence to support that? I've asked this question many times and no one can ever come up with any research, study, evidence, etc, except for personal opinion.



Nah, just 10 years in law enforcement working street patrol and responding to hundreds of physical altercations.

I don't know of any statistics for it, just what I have seen in handling fights and assaults of all kinds and talking to people about what happened. I don't think there are any statistics for "most fights don't get past one punch," either.

Even many of the predatory "ambush" assaults that George notes do not end with one punch.

Certainly it happens. Plently of people get sucker punched and taken out. Some people stupidly or unknowingly brace a boxer and end up being shown how effective a street fighting art boxing actually is.... but I would very much quibble with the idea that "most" fights don't get past the first punch.

RE: The Ground in Self Defense (BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I wrote the linked EJMAS article.)

At the risk of repeating myself, ever heard of "No Plan Survives Contact with the Enemy?" Or more colloquially, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth?"

Well, everyone has a plan until they end up on the ground in a real fight.....Chris Moses is ahead of the curve on that one.

The very factors that most people cite when advising people to stay off the ground in a real fight are the things that end you up on the ground in the first place:

1. Mutliple attackers - if the attack is coordinated, you are facing the highest liklihood of all that you will be taken down. NO martial art prepares you for dealing effectively with committed multiple attackers, who in some cases have a pre-planned assault intended to put you down.

2. Bad terrain. Training on mats gives you a completely unrealistic sense of balance and footing in actual fighting. Its still useful, and far safer to train most of the time, but things change dramatically in a fight in everyday living environments: curbs, debris, excrement, vehicle fluids, planters, chairs, tables, that little lip where the sidewalk has been pushed up by roots, the slightly wet soles of your shoes, that divot in the grass that you just stepped in, etc. etc. etc.

3. Surprise. People, especially martial artists, are very generous with themselves when it comes to awareness skills and the ability to not be taken by surprise.

The dojo ain't real life. Most average, middle class people (to include martial artists) have little understanding of the dynamics of violence outside of news and entertainment media and the dojo (in fact the dojo is often counterproductive to real defensive skills without considerable re-wiring). They are either caught by surprise with a sucker shot, or are momentarily stunned that "this is actually happening" and lose valuable time and manuever opportunities in the face of an attack. That can and does translate to getting knocked down, or simply falling down.

Returning to the earlier comment: most fights don't end with one punch, but a great deal of them do end up with someone getting knocked to the ground and repeatedly booted in the head or ground and pounded.

4. Related to #3: Simply spazzing out:

Tim's example is common amongst martial artists with little or no resistive training or real fight experience - the cooperative or choreographed skillset they have worked so hard developing goes right out the window the minute real pressure and real contact, flavored with real emotion and real fear, take place.

People end up doing a bad facsimile of MMA because they have not trained for the actual dynamics and chaos of a fight in earnest.

Its usually not because their "art" fails them, but how they train their art fails them - big difference.

They make big mistakes, they do goofy things, give up their center mentally and physically, and often lose the benefits their art should afford them: to include keeping off the ground.

Watch the early UFCs as man after man simply abandons years of training, to high dan rank, supposedly with muscles and nerves conditioned to perform the various skills they have honed: they toss it all out in favor of flailing strikes, poor and out of balance takedowns, and absolute panic when on the ground. Its not intentional, its a stress reaction to something totally outside of what they have prepared for - not "combat," not even "fighting," but a kind of physically safe and stylistic pantomime of it.

The early UFCs were not even real fights - they KNEW they weren't going to be stabbed or shot by the sudden appearance of a weapon, KNEW that multiple attackers wouldn't be involved, KNEW that a refereee was there and they wouldn't be permanently maimed or killed - yet their "combative" training simply vanished under real pressure.

So, all that just sets the stage...

Cops do go to the ground more than you'll see in civilian self defense situations - mainly for the reasons George cites.

In my experience in interviewing people after fights, assaults, and domestic violence;

in paying attention to the extensive and increasinly ubiquitous video of real fights and assaults - of average citizens being attacked, prisoners assaulting each other, and officers being assaulted by sucker punch or ambush under the same parameters that an "average citizen" would be - ( we should remember many cops are average citizens with just enough training to be dangerous to themselves. They get by with numbers and weapons, not skills);

I would say that at least a third to 50% of serious physical encounters end up at some point with at least one party on the ground or in some situation similar to groundfighting (on a bed, on a couch, getting knocked over onto furniture or other surrounding features, etc.).

The more people acting against you, the more likely it is. The less warning the victim had, the more likely it is. The more brutal the initial onslaught is, the more likely it is.

The fact that being on the ground is so much more dangerous than remaining standing in a real fight should go without saying. But its all the more reason that anyone truly serious about self defense should dedicate a significant portion of their training time to ground strategies, if mainly extricating oneself from bad spots and getting up. That means against skilled opponents - wrestlers, BJJ guys, Judoka - NOT some friends in the dojo who "roll around" every Saturday at open mat and think they understand groundwork.

Another good groundfighter quote:

"I am a shark. The ground is my ocean. And most people don't even know how to swim...."

[George S. Ledyard]

1. Multiple attackers - if the attack is coordinated, you are facing the highest likelihood of all that you will be taken down. NO martial art prepares you for dealing effectively with committed multiple attackers, who in some cases have a pre-planned assault intended to put you down.

I've trained in a couple of tactical ground defense systems but bar far the best training I've seen for defense against multiple attackers while on the ground is the Systema ground work. It's based on their fundamental principle of constant movement. It is the only system I have seen that would really help you much if you were on the ground in the middle of a group of folks trying to stomp you.

[G DiPierro]

Several years ago while at an aikido seminar I witnessed 2 younger (mid to late 30's) and very talanted / high ranking aikido teachers (one a 4th dan, the other a 5th dan)get into a fight during the seminar while training with one another. Aparently the two had a lot of "history" and hated one another.

Things got really ugly and puches started flying. Really sloppy wild punches I might add. They were both swinging for the fences. A few seconds latter they were both on the ground doing what looked like really bad ground and pound MMA until they were pulled apart. Not at any point did either one of these guys do or even attempt anything that vaugly resembled aikido.... and the fight also ended up on the ground.

I'd be curious to know what teacher or organization they were with (actually I could probably hazard a guess here). It's telling that two people can advance that far in aikido apparently without having learned anything from it about how to behave in a real physical conflict. That story is a perfect example of what's wrong with aikido today.

-G DiPierro

[KIT]

I've trained in a couple of tactical ground defense systems but bar far the best training I've seen for defense against multiple attackers while on the ground is the Systema ground work. It's based on their fundamental principle of constant movement. It is the only system I have seen that would really help you much if you were on the ground in the middle of a group of folks trying to stomp you.

While I don't want to derail the thread with THAT discussion, I'll just say that I don't share your opinion, George.

People can PM me questions or flames, I won't clutter up the board with the inevitable go nowhere debate with the folks that want to defend the faith.

[Aran Bright]

I've trained in a couple of tactical ground defense systems but bar far the best training I've seen for defense against multiple attackers while on the ground is the Systema ground work. It's based on their fundamental principle of constant movement. It is the only system I have seen that would really help you much if you were on the ground in the middle of a group of folks trying to stomp you.

Have to agree with you there George, never thought I'd have so much fun with three boofy blokes trying to stand on my head.

As an aside I asked a security guard friend of mine who used to do a lot of pub work. He made the point that he never wanted to hit the ground because of the reason that he was an easy target for any one. Different scenario than the study but his aim was restraint in the situation where numbers may be against him. Generally though the motivation to resist was generally easily subdued. He is about 110 kg (240 lb) so that helps.

[DonMagee]

I've trained in a couple of tactical ground defense systems but bar far the best training I've seen for defense against multiple attackers while on the ground is the Systema ground work. It's based on their fundamental principle of constant movement. It is the only system I have seen that would really help you much if you were on the ground in the middle of a group of folks trying to stomp you.

I've been a fan of using one person to shield me from his buddys by controling him from the backmount with his belly face up. Just hooks and a rear nakid choke, then he's mine to use as a shield until someone saves me.

[MM]

Nah, just 10 years in law enforcement working street patrol and responding to hundreds of physical altercations.



Thank you for that great post. Do you mind if I print that out and post it at the dojo? It's a very well reasoned opinion backed by experience and I found it to be one of the best I've read on the subject.

Thanks again,
Mark

[KIT]

Thank you for that great post. Do you mind if I print that out and post it at the dojo? It's a very well reasoned opinion backed by experience and I found it to be one of the best I've read on the subject.

Thanks again,
Mark

Not at all, I'm honored!

[KIT]

I've been a fan of using one person to shield me from his buddys by controling him from the backmount with his belly face up. Just hooks and a rear nakid choke, then he's mine to use as a shield until someone saves me.

I know an officer who has done exactly that, against multiple attackers, when wedged into a corner against a wall.

Though it presupposes more than a passing familiarity with position and control, I think.

[ChrisHein]

Tim,
I would gladly pay money for a video of that.

[Budd]

Another good groundfighter quote:

"I am a shark. The ground is my ocean. And most people don't even know how to swim...."

Great post, overall and I particularly like the above quote - was that Rigan Machado? I'm pretty sure on it being one of the Machados, but couldn't remember for sure which one . . .

I don't blame people that don't want to train groundfighting. It's a choice. I think it's something worthwhile, but that's just me. Some people just don't like groundfighting/grappling/wrestling. Personally, I don't like getting hit, but that's why I'll occaisionally work out with boxers/kickboxers (where, believe me, I do get hit *ouch*) -- I like to think it ultimately improves my chances of not getting hit.

[nikau]

Great post KIT. AND i agree whole heartedly with practically all of it.

I did security for years as well and while i always told my team NEVER to go to ground, more often than not it did. AND not because lack fo training, BUT because of the many factors you've mentioned.

ALSO i'd just like to agree with comments about the early UFC fights. I think people over estimate MAT situations and safe training simulation compared to Real Life encounters and the change in attitudes, fear, intent etc.

A lot of peopel forget their trianing when it comes to a RL situation compared to a mat. It is a lot harder to stay relaxed and use your well honed techniques when you realise your facing a 120kg rugby player who wants to take your head off and use it for a rugby ball.

well backed up comments. thanks for the post

[Peter Ralls]

Kit

Very good post and article. I have been in law enforcement for twenty four years, and my experience leads me to the same conclusions as you. I think one of the things that has been touched on this thread is that no matter what kind of martial arts you train in, the emotional impact of a violent confrontation is so strong, the person who has been in violent confrontations before and is psychologically used to violent confrontations, has a huge advantage over persons that have not had that experience. Though we know in law enforcement that the closer your training replicates a real life situation, the more likely you are to succeed, none the less, I know of no way to actually replicate the actual impact of a real life violent confrontation in any kind of safe training environment. But given that, in order to best prepare oneself for a violent confrontation, it's necessary to make training as realistic as possible, and that includes some kind of training for both attacker and defender on the ground, and attacker standing and defender on the ground. Kit, I want to thank you in particular for the article, which I made a bunch of copies of to give to my fellow DT instructors.

Peter Ralls

[KIT]

Thanks Peter, I appreciate that coming from someone of your experience.

The FBI's new study on Violent Encounters has some very interesting information related to those criminal types who are what they term "street combat veterans," and the advantage they have over officers and citizens with less experience or no experience with the psychological impact of serious violent encounters.

[Budd]

Kit, is there a link available to that study or does it need to be acquired via hardcopy? (or was it mentioned already and I just missed it)

Thanks!

[MM]

Kit, is there a link available to that study or does it need to be acquired via hardcopy? (or was it mentioned already and I just missed it)

Thanks!

Hi Budd,

From the FBI:

Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America's Law Enforcement Officers is available from the UCR Program Office, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or by calling 888-827-6427. Readers who wish to discuss the topic of officer safety but do not want to request copies of Violent Encounters should contact Mr. Charles E. Miller III, head of the Officer Safety Research and Training Program, at 304-625-2939.

Funny, because I'm right around the corner from this FBI complex.

However, I did find an online downloadable version at this site:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-480.html

Hope that helps,
Mark

[Budd]

Thanks, Mark, much appreciated!

[KIT]

Thanks, Mark, much appreciated!

BTW, lst I heard it is available to the general public. You can order their previous studies on LEOs feloniously slain via CD with the same phone call.

These cases are LE specific, but it takes little imagination to extract what is useful for non-LEOs. The "bad guys" in police encounters and criminal assaults are after all the same people.

Something that should also be cause for pause, and something I have long discussed on forums, is how a handgun, even .45, is a far cry from a "fight stopper" in many instances.

[Franco]

Something that should also be cause for pause, and something I have long discussed on forums, is how a handgun, even .45, is a far cry from a "fight stopper" in many instances.
Kit:

Could you elaborate a bit on that?

[Michael Varin]

There are numerous instances where people get shot multiple times, even in the face, and are not incapacitated. Bullets, especially from handguns, aren't magic rays of death. Even if someone is mortally wounded, they can still be dangerous. Having said that, it's still better to have a gun than not. And even more reason to learn to use it well.

[Edward]

Several years ago while at an aikido seminar I witnessed 2 younger (mid to late 30's) and very talanted / high ranking aikido teachers (one a 4th dan, the other a 5th dan)get into a fight during the seminar while training with one another. Aparently the two had a lot of "history" and hated one another.

Things got really ugly and puches started flying. Really sloppy wild punches I might add. They were both swinging for the fences. A few seconds latter they were both on the ground doing what looked like really bad ground and pound MMA until they were pulled apart. Not at any point did either one of these guys do or even attempt anything that vaugly resembled aikido.... and the fight also ended up on the ground.

Just though I would share

Somehow I am not surprised to read this. It's only natural. Aikido techniques are most effective when applied on an enraged opponent, at least in theory. Now if both opponents are enraged and want to hurt eachother, they couldn't possibly do any aikido, no matter the rank.

Also I remember from my Judo competition years that no matter how nice the techniques looked like during training, when doing randori or competition, it's a completely different story. 2 opponents doing the same art, who have been taught similar skills, who know eachother's weaknesses. This can only result in, well, a Judo match. 2 guys pushing and pulling and grappling, but rarely achieving any clean and decisive, esthetically appealing techniques.

[pugtm]

that article applied to police fights in which the basic premise is different and also the goal. with police, they need to restrain the person and arrest him so of course the floor is utilized. In a normal fight however you are trying to hurt your opponent or knock him out, if that is the case a whole new set of premises come about in which judo, jujutsu and aikido may not be as effective as say karate or kempo or some other martial arts that has nothing to do with grappling or throws.

[garry cantrell]

I'm not a Tomiki practitioner but I did visit Sensei Geis' Dojo in Houston a couple of times in 1980 or so. He didn't cite a statistic but said something along the same lines about most fights ending up on the ground. I got the feeling that there may have been some personal experience involved, but didn't ask. During the same discussion someone (don't remember who) noted that, often, whoever was on the losing end of a punching contest would get tired of being punched and take it to the ground. I don't know if that was from personal experience or statistical evidence, or just conjecture, but it seemed to make sense.

[kironin]

Things got really ugly and puches started flying. Really sloppy wild punches I might add. They were both swinging for the fences. A few seconds latter they were both on the ground doing what looked like really bad ground and pound MMA until they were pulled apart. Not at any point did either one of these guys do or even attempt anything that vaugly resembled aikido.... and the fight also ended up on the ground.

Just though I would share

They threw aikido out the window the moment they got angry with each other. Their balance was gone the moment they became consumed by their hatred. If one had the maturity to have a single reflective moment I doubt it would have ended on the ground or been such a sorry spectacle.

If both had reflective moments and regained their one point you would have never known an incident occurred. As usual the exception stands out. Rank doesn't equate directly to maturity in any martial art.

Aikido is not about training two people to go toe to toe in a grudge match so the result is not surprising.

[kironin]

The fact that being on the ground is so much more dangerous than remaining standing in a real fight should go without saying. But its all the more reason that anyone truly serious about self defense should dedicate a significant portion of their training time to ground strategies, if mainly extricating oneself from bad spots and getting up. That means against skilled opponents - wrestlers, BJJ guys, Judoka - NOT some friends in the dojo who "roll around" every Saturday at open mat and think they understand groundwork.


I find it interesting that wrestlers, BJJ, Judoka are such a bad crowd as a group that one can expect to find them in high proportion in street fights.

I wonder in ten years on the beat how many trained wrestlers, BJJ, Judoka drunk, drugged out, in domestic violence, or up to just no good in gangs on the street ?

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

I'm not sure what Craig's point is here (the sentences are a bit garbled to my mind, sorry), but it should be self-evident that going to the ground with the best guys is good for training. It puts one in a different class compared to the guys one is going to face, at least. Of course, it does not prepare one for weapons and the usual dirty things people do in fights (i.e., so-called "unfair advantage"), but a solid basis is far better than assorted tricks -- after all, unless one plans to actually be a gangster, one is not generally going to have such weapons on one's person (on the other hand, if one lives in an area frequented by such people, it would be foolhardy to *not* carry something to even the odds weapon-wise, given that one is going to be disadvantageously attacked if at all).

[ChrisMoses]

I find it interesting that wrestlers, BJJ, Judoka are such a bad crowd as a group that one can expect to find them in high proportion in street fights.

I wonder in ten years on the beat how many trained wrestlers, BJJ, Judoka drunk, drugged out, in domestic violence, or up to just no good in gangs on the street ?

Was this an attempt at humor? What Kit was getting at is that you will only develop the kinds of skills that will work on the ground with people who are good on the ground. So if you want your martial arts to prepare you for many of the self defense situations that you are likely to face should it come to that, being at least comfortable with some newaza would go a long way towards becoming a well rounded martial artist. At least, that's how I take his comments, he's free to correct me if I'm missing something. I am terrible on the ground, I get tired extremely fast, I miss openings all the time and I never get my chokes in deep enough. But I've gotten a little better, and I can use my legs/feet a little better than a couple years ago. That said, when I play with my old aikido buddies, if I take them to the ground they are so disoriented that they have nothing for me. You don't do groundwork because you expect to be attacked by a ground fighter. You do it (at least if your intent is practical) because you want a HUGE advantage over whoever happens to fall down with you.

[kironin]

Not joking, though it may not be PC for this thread.

I have played with some judoka, done some ground bjj, did some wrestling in school, dabbled in Systema. I have my doubts that it prepares you for an actual self-defense situation any more than rolling around with some buddies in the dojo. One-on-one newaza is fine practice, but I am skeptical of the 90% hype. It smells of marketing more than research.

[DonMagee]

Not joking, though it may not be PC for this thread.

I have played with some judoka, done some ground bjj, did some wrestling in school, dabbled in Systema. I have my doubts that it prepares you for an actual self-defense situation any more than rolling around with some buddies in the dojo. One-on-one newaza is fine practice, but I am skeptical of the 90% hype. It smells of marketing more than research.

Seems obvious to me, you need to train with skilled people to develop skills. I'd submit that based on your logic, there is no need to train martial arts, all you need is a buddy and you can just fight. Seriously though, training with unskilled people is going to develop your skills the slowest. Train with highly skilled people and your skills are going to develop quickly. If I want to be good at striking, I don't ask my judo instructor, I find a boxer, MT, etc guy to teach me how to strike. If I want to be good at throws I don't ask a cheerleader, I find a judoka or wrestler. If I want to control someone as quickly as possible on the ground so I can stand up safely and escape, I'll ask a wrestler, judoka, bjjer. Why? Because that is what they train to do. They know all the tricks your buddys won't know because they have done nothing but this for years.

[Ron Tisdale]

ah, can *I* have the cheerleader then??? :D :blush:

B,
R

[dbotari]

ah, can *I* have the cheerleader then??? :D :blush:

B,
R

Save the cheerleader, save the world! Go Hiro!

Sorry I just had to add the Hero reference.

[Budd]

Why, are you on the list?

*it's a compulsion, what can I say*

I train ninjutsu with people in my backyard using Pilates balls, I should be all set, right?

[KIT]

Not joking, though it may not be PC for this thread.

I have played with some judoka, done some ground bjj, did some wrestling in school, dabbled in Systema. I have my doubts that it prepares you for an actual self-defense situation any more than rolling around with some buddies in the dojo. One-on-one newaza is fine practice, but I am skeptical of the 90% hype. It smells of marketing more than research.

Did you actually read the article?? On this and another board it was posted at I am getting the distinct impression that people are simply commenting on the statement, not having read the article, or skimmed it a few paragraphs and assumed they "got it."

Chris nicely recapped the rather obvious point I was making regarding training.

[KIT]

Seems obvious to me, you need to train with skilled people to develop skills. I'd submit that based on your logic, there is no need to train martial arts, all you need is a buddy and you can just fight. Seriously though, training with unskilled people is going to develop your skills the slowest. Train with highly skilled people and your skills are going to develop quickly. If I want to be good at striking, I don't ask my judo instructor, I find a boxer, MT, etc guy to teach me how to strike. If I want to be good at throws I don't ask a cheerleader, I find a judoka or wrestler. If I want to control someone as quickly as possible on the ground so I can stand up safely and escape, I'll ask a wrestler, judoka, bjjer. Why? Because that is what they train to do. They know all the tricks your buddys won't know because they have done nothing but this for years.

I dunno what yer talking about - my buddies and I get together all the time and practice wrist locks, tossing each other around on the mat. Its the same thing as doing aikido!!!!

[DonMagee]

I dunno what yer talking about - my buddies and I get together all the time and practice wrist locks, tossing each other around on the mat. Its the same thing as doing aikido!!!!

I'm calling my aikido instructor tomarrow and telling him I'm never coming back. I'll learn all I need about aikido from fighting with my cats.:D

[ChrisMoses]

I'll learn all I need about aikido from fighting with my cats.:D

Crap, first it was toddlers and now cats, I can't keep up...:crazy:

[Budd]

So, train to fight with kittens . . . that way you'll get the best of both worlds!

[mriehle]

I'm calling my aikido instructor tomarrow and telling him I'm never coming back. I'll learn all I need about aikido from fighting with my cats.:D

I realize you meant to be facetious, but...

...I used to have a house full of kittens. This was some years ago when I also had a house full of (irresponsible) roommates.

It's surprising what you can learn from "sparring" with kittens.


They are very fast. You don't accomplish anything by waiting until they leap and then trying to move faster than they do. They're faster, get used to it.
Hunting instincts can be easily triggered. Get them into true hunting mode and you *will* get bitten...hard. Better to move in ways that don't inspire aggression. And blaming them is pointless, they're just being cats.
Teeth and claws are sharp. Playing with kittens means you *will* be scratched and bitten. Maybe not seriously (see above about hunting instincts), but it will happen. Play accordingly.


It helps that they don't really mind losing. It's all part of the game. They seem to regard a loss as an opportunity to refine their skills. They'll get you next time. :D

Of course there isn't much in the way of physical skill learned here, but it's interesting how the exercise of trying to get inside a kitten's head provides perspective on getting inside another human being's head.

In point of fact, I've found that my Aikido skills are almost always useful with animals. Even my bird. Birds are predisposed to think everything wants to eat them. Convincing the bird you're not going to eat him is important to not getting bitten by a beak that can crush nuts.

[statisticool]

Bumping this, just to keep aware that the often quoted "statistic" that 95% of all fights go to the ground (or some variant) is based on a misunderstanding of what the report says.

[DonMagee]

Do you hear it often or something? I've haven't heard anyone actually use that argument in a long long time.

[Michael Varin]

I've haven't heard anyone actually use that argument in a long long time.

Probably because the effectiveness of BJJ in the UFC is wearing off. MMA guys are getting good. Many of them can effectively stop most takedowns, and their boxing skills are better as well.

[DonMagee]

Probably because the effectiveness of BJJ in the UFC is wearing off. MMA guys are getting good. Many of them can effectively stop most takedowns, and their boxing skills are better as well.

I would say it is balancing out. The bjj guys are learning that they need to actually learn takedowns. (In fact my instructor has been learning judo and forcing us to work takedowns every class now). The strikers have learned they need to learn how to deal with takedowns and how to stand back up when they do get taken down.

It comes down to this. A striker can not ignore the ground. A grappler can not ignore a good striker who did not ignore the ground.

[Budd]

I was just at a BJJ seminar with Royler Gracie (a very cool, gracious, amazingly skilled guy who has a lot of passion for what he does and seems to greatly enjoy sharing it with people) on Friday night and it was very interesting to me that we didn't do anything that could be considered groundwork until nearly halfway through the seminar.

The first half emphasized (among other things) controlling/manipulating the distance while on your feet, how to close with someone while protecting yourself from strikes and landing your own strike first.

Something else he emphasized at the beginning of the seminar was that this workshop was not a tournament that we were there to "win", we were all there to help each other learn. I also noticed that people seemed to take this to heart and that those I worked with were interested in helping me "get" what we were doing, as opposed to some aikido seminars I've been to where too many folks seem more interested in either 1) teaching me their version/interpretation of what we're doing, which may or may not have anything to do with what the instructor has shown. 2) Trying to show me that they can stop what I'm trying to do -- I usually just switch to another technique, not interested in that game since I think it has about as much to do with "honest combatives" as does modern karate point sparring ("tag", you're it).

Royler was very clear about what he was teaching (at one point made the comment that he's not offering magic, just stuff to add to our game that will help if we continue to train hard in the basics) and had no qualms about jumping in, demoing and talking through with everyone to make sure they were getting it. It think it's a testament to how this art is being transmitted that it's caught on in popularity so much, is an integral part of the broader sport of MMA and continues to be trained by elite instructors that get hands on time with their students.

Oh and BJJ's dominance in MMA lasted the way it did because the Gracie family has always trained to make their stuff work against strikers, other grapplers, etc. Look at the old UFC "bio" tapes and you see Royce doing bag drills and training to control the distance against strikers. It's pretty apparent in the sport today that you need to have something of the hybrid approach and that no one system has all the answers.

As for how this works for someone training in martial arts today, as most reasonable people keep saying - it depends on what your goals are. As long as there's honesty with what the training is meant to achieve and you enjoy what you're doing -- where's the beef?

[MM]

Nice post, Budd.

Thanks!

[statisticool]

Look at the old UFC "bio" tapes and you see Royce doing bag drills and training to control the distance against strikers.


Sure worked with Hughes.

[Budd]

Thanks, Mark. I personally recommend anybody that wants to get an idea of BJJ as an art that addresses more than just "groundfighting" to seek out a seminar by Royler.

I'll say it again, a very gracious guy with no BS. Very refreshing given some of the sometimes "cultish" mentality and behavior that can sometimes be exhibited by martial arts instructors and their students.

[Budd]

Sure worked with Hughes.

Not sure what you're saying here, beyond making a glib "look at me" type of statement.

Are you saying that because Royce lost to Matt Hughes, that his training is invalidated? Many, many very tough guys have been beaten by Matt Hughes.

Matt Hughes has beaten and was beaten by BJ Penn (an MMA competitor whose primary art is BJJ).

I don't know or know of anyone (or any art, for that matter) that's invincible in or out of the ring. If you do, I'd love to hear about him (or her).