Where did this "X% of fights go to the ground" thing come from? How is this a defense of ground fighting?

Question

Sure. I get it. Gravity. I mean, only in anime like Dragon Ball Z do 90% of fights go to the air. And I've never seen a knocked out opponent stay standing. So, obviously, eventually someone is going to end up on the ground. And while grappling may be one of the oldest forms of fighting, this does not mean that everyone wants to go to the ground, and certainly not to stay there.

So, first, where'd this come from? Is this something that originated with the BJJ crowd?

Second, why on earth is this a defense of ground fighting? If you're a fighter (not a competitor), you're fighting for your health and safety. Being on the ground prevents your own escape, narrows your focus from the potential of secondary threats, and binds you to the fight until either submission and detainment or a knockout.

[Note: I don't care if you agree with me or not, please make a logical argument if you respond. "BBJ F***IN' ROCKS! WOOO!" does not qualify as a logical argument. Either convince me I'm wrong or give me a sound point of view as to why I'm right.]

Answer 1

ive seen so many fight and if say about 20 percent end up on the ground. its a bs statistic

Answer 2

The idea that  ground fighting is vital to real combat has been around for AGES - that's why there are so many grappling arts.  Think of Judo, Jujitsu, Sambo, Hapkido, catch wrestling - all were around before the Gracie's made BJJ so popular world wide.  Martial arts that incorporate ground fighting have evolved, too - jujitsu was at one time a martial art that Samurai studied in case they were disarmed.  This was formally trained as early as the 1500s.  The idea that ground fighting was the most vital art did become popular in the US around the late 80's and 90's - Royce Gracie defeating much bigger opponents in the UFC by taking them out of their element and into his was a huge testament to the power of grappling.  The Gracie clan capitalized on this and looked for proof - 90% of fights going to the ground was a figure that BJJ proponents used to sell their product.  

As far as it being a defense of ground fighting I have been reading about it, and I agree with the Renzo Gracie philosophy that you DO need to have a working knowledge of ground fighting.  The reason is so that you are not completely helpless in a situation where you accidentally end up on the ground.  Look at boxing matches, Muay Thai, and Kickboxing - all striking competition, but very often these trained fighters slip or lose balance and end up on the ground.  Now translate that to a street situation - If you fall, stumble, or get taken down and your assailant follows you to the ground you need to know some grappling technique just to get back up to striking position again, or to escape the situation.  Nobody is stumble proof, especially in a non-controlled environment.  I don't say this as an endorsement of becoming a ground specialist, but just to say that developing a degree of comfort "out of your element" is a legitimate exercise, even in a self defense situation.  Trained properly the surrounding environment can be used to your advantage - using a wall to help you stand back up, sweeping an opponent into broken glass, etc.  And if you are uncomfortable on the ground you are less likely to notice the secondary threats you mention, much less be prepared to defend against them.  So I think it's legitimate to state that ground fighting is something a person would do well to study, at least for those purposes.

BJJ F'ING ROCKS - WOOOO!  Actually I prefer striking, but I have begun some training in grappling just for the purposes I mention.  I want to be able to readily stand back up where I'm more comfortable, and at least have some elementary submission defense as part of my tools.

Answer 3

Actually this figure was taken from a LAPD document- 1997 ASLET Use of force training seminar:

You can find pretty much the full thing here:

http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Lebl...

Don't worry about the 404 warning just type in   LAPD report

Here is an exert from the study:

6. The report concluded: “Nearly two thirds of the 1988 altercations (62%) ended with the officer and subject on the ground with the officer applying a joint lock and handcuffing the subject.” Given this, it is better put that the LAPD data says when officers physically fought with suspects (versus simply encountering minor resistance or non-compliance which required a minor use of force, but did not escalate into an altercation), 95% of the time those fights took one of five patterns, and 62% of those five types of altercations ended up with the officer and subject on the ground with the officer locking and handcuffing the suspect.

So in officer involved incidents, and keep in mind that these are people who are consistantly trying to use the minimal force possible, only 62% wound up on the ground.

The figures in this report were distorted by the Gracie's to premore their style, nothing more. I think it would be foolish to not learn how to get back up, or at least develope good take down defense, however I have asked at least two questions asking for proof of the stated figure, and not one person has been able to come up with an official trustworthy source.

However do not expect it to end anytime soon, as the people who quote this figure will never listen to reason, or even actual figures, much the same as all the Bruce Lee worshipers out there who think he is a god cannot be swayed, no matter how much of a good argument, with proof you make.

So try and correct it when you see it, but I have found trying to change somebodies mind is not easy at all. I asked one kid who studies Gracie Ju Jitsu to find me proof of this figure, and got a kind of insulting letter back, but he was never able to furnish proof, and it didn't seem to bother him that his instructor had told him that and yet there was no proof.

Think about it, most of the fights on you tube that go to the ground are between two unskilled people, rarely do you see good groundwork out of them. I admit you need to know it, but you also have to face reality.

Answer 4

As far as your second point goes, it probably means that you need to be able to defend yourself on the ground, as chances are, especially if you're fighting someone bigger than you, you will be grappled and taken down. If it's a multiple person fight, yes, it's best to take the Krav Maga route and get to your feet as quickly as possible. To be fair though, snapping off an armbar and breaking someone's arm in seconds is a pretty effective way to take one opponent out of a fight. And it's not always possible to simply escape when someone's on top of you. What would you do it a wrestler took you down in a fight, out of curiosity?

Answer 5

Lmao @ take it to the air... I actually had somebody in my dojo say that once while sparring. needless to say he got his butt kicked (that cocky little sh$t)

First off, let me start by saying this is my opinion based on my own research. I am in no way stating this as fact in stone, though it will have factual backing.

Well, as I have been hearing that numerical statistic thrown around for a while (same as MMA being safe), I decided to do some research for actual statistics. All I got for this was hearsay, "this is how it is, and this is what will happen." The only fact that I came across, that is logical in any sense, is that each scenario is different and therefore completely circumstantial.

I also came across a video from the early 80's of Royce Gracie fighting in "no holds barred" matches to prove the worth of Brazilian style Jiu Jitsu. Where there were in fact still rules involved (so jaded... almost as pointless as trying to argue with bricks). In one of the videos I heard his brother say, 90% of fights go to the ground, and watch as my brother...

They're nice guys, from what I've seen and heard, (have a friend who used to train with them) so don't think I'm slamming them, but this number was just pulled out of thin air, possibly as an assumption based on their system of Jiu Jitsu which is primarily fought on the ground.

Because the other "Karate Masters" had such a tough time fighting against Royce his word was taken as fact, and not a single statistical spike of a rare great fighter, which is all that it is.

I also believe that this is compounded by grade school fights among children who fear getting struck in the face. (Which is what a grade school or any other fight for that matter is about) There are many more spots on the body that are far more dangerous to be struck than the head, and damaging the face is a show of humiliation, not true infliction of pain. That is simple psychology at work. If people wanted to truly hurt somebody they would attack the liver or spleen areas, blood gates, throat, eyeballs, fingers, etc. to cause very real damage, instead of publicly visible humiliation damage.

Next, I would have to say that the majority of today's society seems to have a difficult time differentiating from what is self defense and what is an agreed upon ego saving fight. This assumption is made by the amount of assanine questions being posted on this forum alone every single day. I've watched the news and seen the videos on the net of kids fighting and "gangstas" fighting, etc. Kinda funny though how only the kiddie fights really ever go to the ground. In the other videos when somebody goes to the ground, it's because they're injured, and usually the fight's over or the other fighter continues to kick and pummel the one on the ground.

I've been in probably two fights my entire life that went to the ground and I've been in many... many fights. Same thing with the fights I've seen. Rarely have I seen one go to the ground.

So that's my take on this assumption of the % issue.

As far as my take on ground fighting for self defense situations? I try to steer clear as much as possible. I have a "ground game" that is quite dangerous, and I feel it necessary to develope one as I must be prepared for whatever situation comes my way. I will agree that it's not practical to fight on the ground tieing up my limbs attacking one person, while remaining vulnerable to attack from another in a self defense situation. I do use, and have used grappling though in these types of situations; minimilastic, small joint manipulations, standing takedowns, and joint locks uprooting for bumping and throwing into the other attackers, which can buy precious time to run away.

EDIT- Wow Katana, so that's 55% of the total number of fights that go to the ground, not to mention that this is because LE is not allowed to srtike! That's roughly the number I thought it would be, but it sure is nice to have a clear statistical study defining the truth.

Do you think this will change any points of view? I highly doubt it, personally.

Answer 6

Katana's article, which he's shown before, has changed my mind. While I've personally only been on the ground for more than a couple of seconds in one fight, I've seen a fair share of fights that did eventually end up on the ground -- far less than 90 percent though... Still, I failed to think critically and challenge the statistic. My bad.

Anyways, I think that Tao J had an GREAT answer. He's completely right; ground fighting, in the vast majority of situations, is not the answer. However, it is nothing short of complete idiocy to completely disregard grappling training for self defense. Even if you only practice a little, you gotta know how to stop yourself from getting takedown down, and even more importantly, you've gotta know how to get back up.

As for Bujinkan dude, you answer is practically the anti-thesis to 'sensible.' Striking ability has nothing to do with takedown defense. Secondly, the whole "OMFG THE GROUND IS MAED OV HIV NEEDLZ BRKN GLASS N LAVA" is one of the dumbest arguements that I've ever heard. My only response to that is "lurk more, post less." (Same goes for your, Prince.)

As for BJJ being taught to women as rape self defense, that should DEFINITELY be a part of the course. Obviously the awareness training is most important, but physical techniques are important too. Eye gouges and groin strikes are great and all, but once you're on the ground -- pinned down by some 200 lbs guy -- good luck with that. "Dirty fighting" compliment techniques based on leverage and positioning, but can never EVER EVER replace them.

thumbs up to Keyring, Frank, Aaron, Katana, and Bunminju.

Answer 7

A lot of good points made.The idea that a black eye or cut lip is a badge of humiliation is something that has become common in the last 20 years or so .Ducking and running at someone became the way to do it which of course led to grappling being viewed as the best way.

The bouncers view point of such brawlers"typical street fighter leads with his face'

In my youth a black eye or split lip was a badge of courage a neccesary requirement in the trip from juvenile to adult and anybody who hadn't sported a few in his teen years was considered a bit of a wuss.The only fights we saw go to the ground were 2 guys who tripped over each others feet in a clinch or some big bully jumping on some smaller kid.

Here is a quote from a MARINE D.I. "We teach wrestling and ground fighting to develope stamina and the will to fight no matter what but any marine on a battlefield who ends up grappling in the dirt with his enemy has failed in his goal that being to swiftly kill his enemy "

While I agree with the stamina part I feel like the marine d.i. grappling actually prolongs a fight rather than ends it quickly.

MMA is somewhat different as it seeks opportunitys to strike which the grappler lets go by or doesn't recognize to begin with.

KATANA mentions the PD findings on fights ending on the ground and I actually thought the % points would be higher when you look at the arrest and restraint guide lines LEO's  have to abide by.

Many of the officers I have trained complain that if they were allowed to use strikes they would rarely have to wrestle on the ground .Some departments have the view that if a situation is life threatening you still dont strike you shoot him /mace him/taser him or club him .

Every "new" fad has it's hype element from BRUCE LEE hype to NINJA hype to BJJ hype .People make money by advertising their art as the  "the most effective most dynamic unbeatable or attach words to it like military style of training".

One idiot stated that after taking BJJ training with the GRACIES they wouldn't be afraid to stroll thru HARLEM with 100 dollar bills sticking out of every pocket.I got news for them the brothers in HARLEM will soon be teaching them a few tricks the GRACIES never considered.

Answer 8

I agree with you, sir. It's pretty sad that most schools are teaching BJJ for Women's Self Defense and Army members to. It's a good art, don't get me wrong, but it has more flaws than the average art would, why would you want to go to the ground when a group is trying to mug you or even if you're in war!? that's just carelessness, the ground is the last place you should be in during a fight, why?

Uneven surfaces, unlike training on a mat.

Sharp objects

The guy might strike you to death

The guy might have some friends with him to stomp on you

The guy might have a weapon with you while on the ground, it's your lucky night!

It's good for cage fighting, no doubt, but if you start saying it's the best form of self defense, you're just giving martial arts society more problems.

Answer 9

I'm not sure about the veracity of the "highest percentage", but most of those fights have to be untrained fighters who can't fight well either way on the ground or standing up and one of them loses their balance and the fight is on the ground. If someone is trained to fight standing up then they will have good balance and they can keep the fight standing against someone who isn't trained either way. The same goes for a grappler. If a stand up fighter fought a ground fighter then it all boils down to the fighter. If the stand up guy is better then he will keep it standing, if the ground guy is better then he will take it to the ground. BJJ is very effective... on the ground. BBJ has become more and more of a sport than a street applicable martial art. Stand up fighting and ground fighting are both equally necessary to know. You just have to know when to use them. When fighting multiple opponents while the floor is covered with needles soaked in HIV+ blood it might not be very smart to take the fight to the ground. When fighting a grandmaster of Muay Thai, Tae Kwon Do, and Kenpo it might not be very smart to keep the fight standing. You just have to know what to use and when to use it.

In other words, you're right.

Answer 10

lol. i would give a sound point of view but you nailed it. DBZ lmao

Answer 11

The highest percentage number is used by grappling schools, in order to market their style.

The actual number is much lower than what they say.

Answer 12

well, BJJ is not really that old when you compare it to traditional jiu jitsu which was used in war.  Traditional jiu jitsu used some of the same grappling techniques, but with the mindset that you should avoid going to the ground but if you end up there, don't stay.  Most of the "submission" moves are derived from "finishing" moves in traditional jiu jitsu.  Just look up the history, and you can see that BJJ was made more for sport or defending against a single threat.  However, it is no good if you are grappling a guy and his brother hits you with a ball bat.

Answer 13

Hi there

There really is two parts to this question. The first one is what Frank said in that its been a marketing ploy by styles that mainly grapple. Secondly it's a big keyword used by the point and click jutsu gang that spend all their time watching silly clips on youtube or various tv shows that are not worth mentioning.

They are just school boys in other words!

Speedo's R us! ;-)

Yes in real life you may find yourself at some point scrambling to get back on your feet as fast as you can but trying to put a submission hold on someone outside will most likely get you stabbed! There is always going to be the possibility that you will be taken down if you don't take care of business before or if you are rushed by someone who has much more meat on them. But as for it being the gods honest truth it's not. The average man will only grapple once he's run out of options or because his balance has been compromised. If the pro fighter decides to do it outside where anything can happen and probably will then it just seems like a very silly thing to do?

Bum fight clips on youtube dont count for anything. The camera's rolling so ego takes hold. Ask yourself this how many bar fights have you seen that go to the ground? And the ones that do look at what happens to the poor guy?

Afterall the gloves are off are they not?

Best wishes

idai