Enjoying the exchange (not really arguing, I hope).
Don’t get me wrong, I would hope to one day be like O’Sensei, and never need to use ground techniques because I can deal with my opponents at the moment of contact, or before (through peaceful negotiations
I am currently trying to get some statistics together, since you are pushing the “likely” scenario thing. I do agree with this, as I am sure Michael does, but we just have different ideas as to what we think is more likely. I have seen people clinch in one on one street fights, but stay standing. I have only experienced haymakers in my two encounters. Hence I am trying to get some stats on assaults and robberies, specifically about the number of attackers.
I can tell you for sure that as a female in Australia you are more likely to be assaulted between the age of 15 to 24 (~42%), buy a family member (~42%) (or someone she knows in general ~81%), in a home (~58%). I can only assume that this would be a one on one situation. For a male in Australia you are more likely to be assaulted between the age of 15 to 24 (~40%), buy a stranger (~51%), not in a home (~70%). I can make no assumption based on the information. Hence I have asked the Australian Institute of Criminology for more information.
As a researcher I have a natural tendency to research
Hello Graham, no it do not think it is arguing. I think that what exchanging point of view is all about.
I know it is very difficult to have proper data (I had data on knife crime in the UK and Scotland during the sword ban/putting “samaurai sword” to the dangerous weapons act proposal) and that what is true in Perth is not necessarily true in Windsor (Uk), non the less I think it is interesting to have those data.
That being said I think, one can make an educated guess as too how wise it is to go to the ground (or in how much trouble you are if you happened to be taken there)
For example Gun is something to take in consideration in some part of London, but has no real relevance in Windsor (where Bess and Phil the Greek have an adobe and where there more troops/police than there are inhabitants).
Those are the question I would ask
Is there is a lot a gun or weapons involved in crime
Is there a fair amount of occurrence when improvised weapon have been used
Is there any strongly bonded group of people band (i.e. hard core “foot supporters”, gangs etc) that you are likely to meet outside of your choosing? Member of the armed forces could be taken in account in that category, not really for the act of gratuitous violence which are not very likely (under our climate at least) but for the strong bound of a squad.
If the answer is resounding yes to one of those, It is very possible/not unlikely that a weapon will be present and /or that and other attackers will intervene after the fight has started and where a verbal/psychological fence is not likely to work.
Basically they take away all the safety we can have when fighting on the ground hence priority is to not get there and when there to get up as quick as possible, knowing that it may already be too late.
That being said, as Michael pointed out, it is a trade off. If someone put you to the ground; you are likely to get it, even if that particular situation ground fighting would have been safe. So our do not take me down at all cost game need to be strong (hence the importance of striking, movements and training against take down).
Like all trade of, it may or may not be beneficial to everyone every where. Personally I think it is harder to make the “not going to the ground at all cost” strategy work. So doing it because it takes care of the worst case scenario is counter productive in cases where that worse case scenario is not very likely to happen.
Ps sorry for armed forces personnel to be associated with hooligans and gangs but it is quite clear that touching one member of the squad , even if he behaved like a twat and deserved a slap (which is not a public matter but an internal squad affair), will bring retribution and immediate help from the remainder of the squad.