[Choi Kwang Do] Ground fighting facts??

Not intending this thread to debate the effectivness of learning grappling etc. I just have 2 questions that have been on my mind recently.

A lot of people who advocate grappling and groundwork use a "fact" that 80%-90% (or close to that) of street confrontations go to the ground.

First of all, where does that fact come from? Is it something thats actually been studied, and if so does anyone know the source?

Second, what do they mean by go to ground. Do they mean someone is knocked over while the attacker stays on top? Do they mean that both people end up on the ground grappling? One guy goes down, the other tries to mount and throw punches?

It seems to me that people take this as conventional wisdom, but ive never actually seen a study on it or published facts. Ive heard plenty of people say it as a fact but would like to see the evidence....

Not asking this as a Choi thing, so much as my recent experiences of seeing fights, and of the situations where ive had to fight too have ended up not on the ground, but with others seperating the 2 fighters. This seems to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom?

Would also be interested to hear everyone elses recent experiences of fights? Maybe not ones you have been in, but ones you have seen break out. Did they Go to the ground? If not what happened and if they did go to the ground how?

 

The 80-90 thing is crap, the actual stat was clarified here:

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

Which sumarised that in arrests the LAPD conducted, 62% of 95% went to the ground when violence was involved, so still more than half but not the 95% that gets touted so often.

This is interesting ebcause your question asks what you would classify as going to the ground, in the report the classification was:

Which is interesting becaue most people who fight off the ground would say that the fight goes to the ground as soon as just one guy hits the ground, trainning in Judo and BJJ certainly deals with you being on the ground and the other guy still standing over you and you standing over a fallen opponent.

If you take the BJJ and Judo view of it then you would be in your rights to say that this stat is then flawed and should be considered as higher because it doesn't take acount of those circumstances but still, 80-90% of fights on the ground l;ooks like an overinflated claim.

 

Thanks for that....

It doesnt answer the question about how many street fights go to ground though. Fighting a police man is different to being in a street fight in my opinion.

1. Your dealing with a trained professional. How many muggers/attackers most of us would encounter would have that sort of training for taking you down in a lock?

2. Its a police man. Would you really be fighting your best considering he has a baton and a gun? Oh an also likely a partner too with the same weapons? Maybe a bit of token resistence for your pride but those weapons and likely 2nd person make it a bit silly attacking them. And thats not including those lovely policemen who may be backed up by dog handlers.... Nothing like a snarling dog to get me crapping my pants and taking the fight out of me.

3. If the definition of going to ground is being taken down in a lock then i would say my experience of seeing fights like that is 0%. Not unless you count people playing around taking the mick with friends. Then it would be higher. But actual fights ive seen ending in a lock is 0.

4. The main thing that I got from that is that the figure comes from the police man (defender+trained person) taking the attacker down. Only had a quick glance at the facts, but I didnt see the proportion of police that were taken down by an attacker (possibly not trained in MA). If your taking the idea that taking someone down to the ground means trying to get them in a lock, is that not counter intuitive to a criminal. Surely he wants to evade capture and staying around so cant see the lock being applied for long.

Also if the criminal is a representative of usual attackers then how likely is it for them to try and take a victim down and use a lock on them???

 

Agreed, the circumstances are very different, this is really just thesource of the infomration.

Ahh, I think you misunderstand this bit, the meaning was that the fight went to the ground and the police officer ended the fight by applying a joint lock, it doesn't mean that the police officer used the joint lock to get the other guy to the ground.

I dunknow, you can say this but the other side of it is that if you don't escape the policeman then you could be looking at spending a large chunk of the rest of your life in jail, the report actually classifies the fightinto five major types, with token resistance being number three on the list by the way I read it:


1 Subject pulls away from an officer’s attempt to control the subject’s arm. “33.7% Officer grabbed the subject by the arm and the subject pulled his arm away; the most frequent second act was the officer applying a joint lock (32%) and the most frequent final subduing act was the officer taking the subject down to the ground (46%)”
2 Subject attempts to punch or kick the officer. “25.4% Subject ran at the officer and swung punches and kicks; the most frequent second act was the officer evading the subject and striking him with the baton (26%; a close second was taking the subject to the ground 22%) and the most frequent final subduing act was taking the subject to the ground (35%).”
3 Subject refuses to assume a searching position. “19.3% Subject refused to assume a searching position as verbally ordered by the officer; the most frequent second act was the officer applying a joint lock (35.5%) and the most frequent final subduing act was taking the subject to the ground (36.5%).”
4 Subject flees and officer pursues. “10.5% Subject ran from the officer, officer chased the subject; the most frequent second act was the officer taking the subject to the ground (40%) and the most frequent final subduing act was also taking the subject to the ground (39.5%).”
5 Subject takes a combative posture, but does not attempt to strike the officer. “6.8% Subject assumed a fighting, martial arts, or boxing stance but did not attack the officer; the most frequent second act was the officer striking the subject with the baton (38%) and this was also the most frequent final act (41%).”

No, the definition is that the fight hits the ground for whatever reason (Throw, takedown, plain old clumsiness, getting knocked down but not ut by a punch) Then the police officer on the ground finishes the fight with a joint lock, the lock itself isn't being used to achieve the takedown.

In that case yes, the criminal will be struggling to stay on his feet and the copper will be trying to take him down and hold him, to me it's interesting because it shows how easy it is for a fight to end up on the ground.

I don't know, the likelihood of them grabbing a victim and taking them down seems pretty likely to me, particularly in more serious assaults, rapes and muggings because thats where the damnage gets done. I know it's anecdotal evidence but my gf does Judo because she was bullied a lot at school, the one time she was seriously injured was when she was pushed down and stamped on, to me the avergae brawl outside a pub doesn't necessarily result in that but when you talk about rapes, muggings and really serious assault, going down and getting pounded seems a lot more liekly.

 

of course most cop Vs bad guys end on the ground, the policeman's aim is to restrain (not harm) the baddie, so that he can be handcuffed

so if you concider that the cop baddie situation has a vested reason to end on the ground, and a street fight dosen't, i would sugest that on th3 str33t its lower then that.

on the other hand, if its a mugging or rape or somthing, i imagine the attacker would have the same restraint intension as the policeman, to allow them to do whatever there going to do.

if you take the defo of going to the ground (one or both persons being on the ground at some point) then i imagine that most fights (maybe even the 95% sugested) would be about accurate, since this would include you knocking the other guy over, or tripping over something even for a second), so once youve triped over and got up again that fight would have technicaly gone to the ground

its all swings and roundabouts, you can use statistics to prove anything remotely fesable. or if you make up statisitics you can prove anything.

 

All I reckon it means is that if your interested in self defence then it's important you know how to fight on the ground and standing up.

Of the fights that I see, most do involve grappling be it on the feet or on the ground, I'd say that knowing how to grapple standing and on the ground taken in combination is more important than knowing how to strike for self defence simply because I don't see many fights get decided by a punch, people swing, they miss, they smash into each other and end up clinching then the fight tends to drag on from there.

 

You also have to consider the nature of what the police are trying to achieve. The one aspect that they deal with that the general public doesn't is the risk of flight. In self-defense you hope the attacker runs away, when you are trying to get someone in custody you don't want to have to chase them.

The ground is an ally when you are looking to apprehend. Once I get them on the ground I just have to worry about getting control. If we are standing he has plenty of movement options and running is easy.

 

Interesting thread... and whilst it's not neccesarily CKD specific (although relates to it with CKD having no grappling/groundwork syllabus) it's good that it's raised within CKD.

Statistics staschmistics - here's reality on the Str33ts along with some d34dly techniques to use that will mean you'll never need groundwork anyway:

http://www.suttonckd.co.uk/on-the-streets.htm

Sorry - really can't help myself, but all the while he's publishing, I'll be using it . To be fair, here's the disclaimer - this is not representative of all CKD .

Anyway, back to the programme - I've heard that statistic plenty of times...no idea where it's from or if it's true. All I know is it's pretty easy to end up on the floor and you need to know what to do, whether it's just you or both parties - either to end the fight or get back up and get away.

Having done a simple drill in CKD class once (more for fitness than anything else) it's easy to see that without any basic knowledge, people find it harder than they think to get out from under a mounted opponent - pretty important as if they're raining in punches, that's a bad place to be unless you know what to do.

I think also, there are two seperate things here - grappling and groundwork. Both are vital as part of a rounded defence strategy and being comfortable with that range and understanding sensitivity, base, balance etc etc are great principles that can be applied to a wider context.

No, you're not neccesarily gonna come up against a trained opponent, but if you are, in at least the basics, then you'll always have the upper hand, even if it's just you downed defending yourself from the inevitable "putting the boot in". (And on the police thing - man, people do struggle like hell - have you seen anything like "Street Wars" - those CCTV police programmes - sometimes looks ridiculous - 6 coppers trying to wrestle one drunk guy - perhaps they need more training )

Understanding grappling and resulting groundwork can pretty much neutralise all but the most gifted strikers - just take a look at Youtube and type in something like gracie challenge or BJJ Vs *....here's an example:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciYtazMQE4"]YouTube[/ame]

And i've personally experienced this back when I started BJJ - I wasn't cocky, but I thought "I'll be ok - I'm a big guy, got myself a black belt" then got owned every week by just about every white belt (now I just get owned by most blue belts - progress indeed! ). All the stuff I thought I knew counted for nothing. Don't get me wrong, strikes are good if you get to use them, but someone who knows even a little will soon shut those down. Best to be prepared for that.

It doesn't need to be complex either - just , say a few clinches, disrupting base, keeping yours, a couple of escapes, that's all it needs, but to imagine that you don't need it at all is asking for a hiding.

I've heard of examples of GMC dismissing arts like BJJ by demonstrating defending an armlock by biting the leg of the attacker...easy on a compliant assistant (who's probably not doing the armlock properly anyway), but trust me - against someone who can do it well, you won't have time, nor will it even occur to you as the searing pain in your arm takes over your thought processes and your teeth, far from moving together in a gnashing motion are likely to go the opposite way as you're screaming. That's just not right.

Then there's the whole "grappling/groundwork won't work on concrete". Again, just search you tube enough and you'll see that ain't true. And as Steve Morris (amazing MA guy - look him up, better still attend one of his sessions - you'll be amazed) says if you practice on concrete, yes, you'll screw yourself up, but if you're fighting, you only need one take down - by knowing what you're doing, along with a little help from mr adrenaline, you're very unlikely to get injured. The UFC etc has helped evolve MMA to what we see today...and no MMA game is complete without groundwork and grappling for a reason.

For these reasons, it would be naive of CKD to not even debate the topic. Even if they debated and said "we recognise the place for groundwork, but CKD will remain a stand-up striking method - if people wish to learn those other skills, then there are plenty of places to do that", that would be better than those saying "CKD doesn't need it because we will use knock out strikes to prevent the need to go to the ground". It's a simple matter of being realistic and clear.

Not sure if it was ever your purpose, but if this does open up a reasoned debate on this topic, even just amongst the CKDers on this forum, that's a good thing.

 

I'm worried about you Allister.... You seem to take an unhealthy interest in certain peoples articles. Your not stalking him by any chance are you

 

:topic: LOL . As a matter of fact, I've been hanging around parks with a hidden camera - one day I'm gonna jump out with a double spinning twisting kick and a loud ki-hap and KERRPOW! Then I'll start snapping and we'll have "on the deck...with alister" and he can show us all the correct technique to stop a nosebleed and tell us how choi has been specially created to prevent nasal haemorrage. He'll probably get that wrong too.

Truthfully? I now look forward to the latest article - I need something to lift my day at times. Shame to see some people in his latest one that should know better and who I thought would have run a mile....hey ho.

 

My thoughts on this are less derived from statistics and more on common sense. If a fight is not one-sided with it ending with a quick knock-down or KO, chances are it will go to a clinch. It is natural for someone losing a striking battle to grab and try to control the other person. Now if your clinch game is not well trained live, and you don't know how to stay stable, keep your balance, and continue striking effectively from that range, chances are you are going to eventually end up stumbling and falling to the ground. What happens there depends on who's got the better ground game, and if both of you are clueless, chances are the person who happens to fall on top is going to have the definitive advantage.

 

The simple thing for those CKDers that are not averse to a bit of contact and don't mind pushing themeselves a bit is to try it. Simple drill - one person (a)pad up - gloves etc - the other person (b) no gloves, maybe head protection if s/he wants. Mat out the area if you can.

(a)'s mission is to stop himself from being taken down - he may strike/kick with light to medium contact if the opportunity comes - just to let (b) know he's there.

(b)'s mission is to take (a) to the floor.

Drill lasts max 1 minute. If (a) stays up, win. If (b) takes (a) down, win (the mission ends there - no point grappling on the floor at this stage - that's a seperate mission).

This is kind of how Steve Morris trains his stuff - he breaks the aspects of a fight into its component parts - "missions" and trains each of these at full pace... Trading strikes, covers... clinch....Takedown...ground game and all teh variations within each of those stages.

It really works well, and I'll tell you what, with someone actively trying to "get" you, the adrenaline kicks in and the workout is intense. It doesn't have to be psychotic - it's controlled and each opponenet knows what is going to happen - to control it even further, you can even limit the striker to say, right round punch and left swing kick - that way (b) will know what he needs to defend - as each becomes more comfortable/competent, you can increase the techniques allowed up to and including NHB.

It's not for everyone, but if you want to see what works and how it feels, this is probably more realistic than two people padded up and sparring stand up striking, prancing about throwing "jabs".

 

IMHO the exact percentage is beside the point...as long as the percentage of fights that go to the ground is above 0% and below 100% a person interested in SD or doing well in real fights needs grappling, groundfighting, clinching and striking.
It all then depends on how much training time you have and what you want to do with it.

 

Spot on. Love the signature too BTW.

 

Cool. Can't take credit for he sig though.
Of course that then leads into stuff like knives, sticks and guns and what percentage they play in real fights.
It can be so tricky working out where to put your training time.
Although good empty hand skills in stand-up, clinch and ground will transfer into weapon combat too.

 

But if one of the people is a good grappler and the other isnt, the good grappler will probably win every time, regardless of who is "a" and who is "b."

 

To start with yeah.
But then the striker will start to recognise grappling entries and formulate counters and the balance will shift.
So the grappler will get better top counter that.
And so on and so on.

 

Like PASmith said ^^^^

But also, if that were to happen, it just reinforces the need to have a good grappling game...better to realise that in a drill than in a bad situation

 

Mad ramblings about how it takes two...

basically it takes two to fight... just as it takes two to grapple... if in a fight one is better skilled, planning on killing the other, or getting desperate or tired then one is likely going to atleast try to take the fight to the ground... also if one of the parties involved was in a more posturing body attitude then his/her weight would be carried high making a take down or slip more likely which could lead to the fight going to the ground... ambushes don't always allow for time to sprawl or evade... near knockouts can take things to the ground... and then there is the ever prevalent "wanna-be" jiu jitsu UFC fighter who clinches and kind of falls down... and the football hero who tackles... and the shirt grab spinners who either strip each other or fall down ring around the rosie style... and many observed fights involve alcohol which screws with balance... where as for trained sober fighters... not if one doesn't want to... the same applies to the street... only there it sometimes becomes a chase...

steve

 

I know the truth...

This is a good thread, its been done before of course and much to CKDHQ's annoyance, just won't go away and why should it, I love CKD and find its kicks and strikes very effective, if applied the right way; I to have a solid ground game behind me, without it my confidence as a MA wouldn’t be what it is today.

The reason I’m posting is to let you all know that GMC is very accomplished in ground fighting himself and the reason its no longer part of CKD, is because the instructors at HQ were constantly getting injured, maybe from over enthusiasm or the "I'm a HERO" complex, for those who don't know what the last comment mean's, it's when someone has a lock or choke so TIGHT that it's impossible for you to escape, yet for some strange reason you believe you can, you're invincible, that is, right unto the moment your arms gets broken or you pass out; this is probably the biggest reason for most injuries in grappling.

No disrespect to GMC, but his English isn't the greatest and when it comes to teaching ground skills you REALLY need to explain techniques clearly and demonstrate so students can see what will happen, this is when your teacher will point out the dangers of what can happens if things go wrong and I think that the students he was teaching just didn't fully understand what they needed to do or where never taught the "tap out" system, that being the case, injuries would certainly pile-up.

Another reason for the swift exit of ground fighting in CKD, is the fact that it takes quite a while to grasp the basics 1-2yrs for your average grappler, with that being the case, some instructors may of found it frustrating at the lack of progress in their skills and naturally started complaining about the need for it, especially if they were the one constantly getting beat up or injured; let me tell you now, when you start learning ground fighting, everyone beats you up, but after a while you start giving it back, it's part of the learning curve, sometimes it feels like you are never going to learn a certain technique or submit someone, then one day it all clicks into place and you starting winning, that’s when you know you've arrived, then a whole new level of ground fighting kicks in and you are back to getting beat up again, but of course you learn, adapt and kick **** again until you reach your black belt, when the pain really starts.

So don't blame GMC for the lack of ground fighting in CKD, he wanted to introduce it; if only he started teaching us brits his ground wisdom before teaching it to our american cousins, then this thread probably wouldn't exist, of course GMC would never admit that ground fighting was useful now, but 10+ yrs ago when he conducted a 2-day workshop on ground fighting in the UK, he thought it was the NUTS!!

Remember CKD started life as a street self defence program, known as the "Art of infighting" because of the close quarter combinations delivered into your opponent, designed to mess them up sharpish, there was none of this "well being" back then. With the evolution of CKD, its shed its nasty side in favour of commercial/financial success, which is great but, I don't see why CKD can't offer up the bad boy side of the art as well, now only taught by a select few old school instructors, if they did, perhaps we would get so many CKD haters, but what do I know…