Groundfighting

Well, as a small guy, I'll take every advantage I can get! I know I'm not as strong as most guys, nor am I as tall, nor am I as heavy. While those aren't hallmarks of a great fighter, I simply *must* be prepared for the fact that my opponent may decide to roll on the ground just because he's bigger than me and thinks that will overpower me. Groundfighting can at the very least teach you how to get up and not get your ass kicked while doing it.

 

To Timmy, on his latest question:

No, you wouldn't NEED it if other factors worked in your favor, such as aggression, luck, or size are in your favor. Let's face it, even in the sporting world there's really no such thing as a fair fight, because everyone brings a different set of variables to the table. I'd say if you're a huge, strong guy who's got a lot of fighting spirit then unless your opponent is simply a much better striker you don't need to sweat groundfighting too much. An opponent unskilled on the ground couldn't do much to hold you down. All that said, my attitude is to have some skill on the ground (or whatever range you prefer least) than none at all. It's one more variable to have on your side. And for smaller guys (like yours truly), being skilled on the ground makes up for a lack of size and strength. Smaller people definitely should have some training on the ground, if for nothing else than to get out from underneath big heavy people. Again, subs become secondary to escapes and reversals.

To elektro:

To start off with, if you'd like I can list some clear examples of gouging and groin shots being used in the early UFC's, as well as tales of biting. Elbows were certainly in effect, and still are. Specifically for the gouging, look up "John Hess", and for groin shots, "Keith Hackney" or "Joe Son". Sometimes, so-called foul tactics had a direct effect on the outcome of the match; other times not. Not trying to be argumentative here, just saying that you might have missed the matches where such things occured. Pure sport BJJ doesn't include foul tactics, but neither does pure sport boxing, and we've seen how thumbing, low blows, and headbutts naturally occure during the course of a match. I've gotten more beaten up grappling than in striking, taking thumbs to the eye, elbows that busted me open, had knees land on my head or my south-of-the-border tender parts, accidentally smashed a guy in the jaw with my head... foul tactics are easy add-ons at that range. A deep understanding and skill of grappling simply gives one more control, and opportunities for such tactics. The reason they aren't done is out of sportsmanship.

The concept of "landing manipulation" (I'll steal your term, don't know if anyone else has copyrighted it ) is certainly one that's of high priority for those who don't want to end up on the bottom. I've found, though, that mine has increased with the more grappling I do, including groundwrestling. I think that a big part of that is the sensitivity to how the other guy's moving, and where his balance is. In fact, I would say that the safest way to train this is to sort of wrestle from what we call "short offense", from the knees. Just have one guy apply forward pressure and the other guy try to get off his line of force. As you've said, it's not exactly easy, but some experience with it will give one a better chance than most of ending up on top. But again, IMO, the best way to train the sensitivity and timing needed for this is to wrestle from the ground, even if you don't consider yourself a groundfighter.

The "groundfighter vs multiples" has been done to death elsewhere, but again, most people on this thread seem to agree that the most useful part of being a grappler/groundfighter is how to get OFF the ground, or how to not panic once you're there. I'm sure you can see how this would apply to a situation where there's more than one opponent. In fact, the first thing we teach newbies in my MMA workout group is how to get off the ground, and they'll spend most of their first day just drilling bottom escapes. This is to ensure that A) they take something real-world applicable out of their first lesson B) they start off learning survival motions and having them ingrained into their muscle memory and C) they learn not to panic when someone is pinning them to the ground. To me, learning how to move, and therefor escape, on the ground is as important as learning basic footwork. Once one knows how to propperly move the body, then we can work on offense.

For Slindsay and CK:

The clinch is VERY important IMO, and often ignored. I can't imagine a worse feeling than someone grabbing your clothing and holding you out at arms length, right at their optimum punching range. Learning how to fight off something like that is real-world applicable, and that do a degree the skill found in groundfighting or standup can transfer over, but there's sort of a mixture of both. For instance, the footwork of standup can be applied (ie "never cross your feet"), while the body control affored while groundfighting also comes into play (ie: a go-behind from the clinch is very similar to a go-behind from the guard to get the back). I've tried to incorperate more clinch-fighting into my training, but I would certainly say it's an important and often ignored factor.

 

This is very true.

Contrary to some people's beliefs, groundfighting helps solve many of the "size" delimmas associated within combat. It's just an area that you NEED to be well verse in, even if it's not your specialty. Someone said before that when driving, we don't train to crash as we're taught to be better on the road. But that doesn't prevent us from having crumple zones and airbags within our vehicles. You just need to be prepared for things like this.

Groundfighting can make you a more efficient striker or a better grappler. But either way, you'll become a much better fighter overall due familiarity within the field.

 

Excellent post, man.

 

Thank ya, sir!

 

I was talking about the "rules" - I see where you're coming from though. And what was the outcome of these matches? If the foul move swung the match in the perpetrator's favour, then I this is exactly what I was trying to say - deadly and foul moves are the ones that'll probably win it. If you were fighting UFC this would be against the rules, no? Regardless of whether they actually DO it or not. It's a different story whether the fighters actually cheat or not, I could take a knife into my Karate class and stab my opponent, ut then it ceases to be Karate. By the same token, someone cheats in BBJ or UFC it ceases to be BBJ or UFC, and just becomes pure self defence.
Last time I watched UFC they did actually state that eye gouging and groin strikes were illegal (regarless of whether the rules are followed or not). To make them legal would just be plain stupid IMHO.
However, I get the impression by a couple of comments on here that eye gougin/groin strikes have becom legal and acceptable in UFC - is this correct or incorrect? If it is correct then I think it souldn't be allowed, but I stand corrected.

Excellent point. And it can be practised even between partners casually, doesn't have to be part of the "syllabus" for any class - any style can practise this. We were practising body shifting against a rugby tackle the other day as a matter of fact - our instructor is concerned about teaching working street techniques, even though it's not a brutal or full contact class. It's very difficult to get the timing right, but when you do the opponent is all over the place almost being flung to the floor by the defender. A very satisfying feeling and a technique which is "workable" IMHO.

An excellent point. And perhaps landing has something to do with this as well?


For Slindsay and CK:

Having observed a few street fights, yeah people do always try and grab you. For the head butt, or for the "holding with one arm and punching with the other" chestnut.

Muay Thai is surely good training for the stand up clinch work. We are taught to use a lot of elbows if you can get any leverage at all in a clinch. Another thing I've found works well is shifting body weight backwards/backwards and diagonally suddenly tends to put 'em off balance as they are usually pushing fowards. Also again, judo seems good training for the "jostling for position" bit of stand up grabbing.....
There are a thousnd and one methods, and I'm sure we all know the ones that work for us. I prefer strikes and to try and pull the other person around a bit, as I am tall and gangly. If I was short, I'd use different methods.

The other question I'd be asking myself is - "How did I end up in a fight with a skilled ground fighter"? - if you catch my drift. Most of them although hard as nails seem like honourable men, like most martial artists, including I hope all of us. I would hold out hope that these guys although they enjoy fighting don't go looking for it.
My guess is that the guy you end up fighting will be semi skilled/unskilled in groundfighting, which may well be utilized against him with some common sense. A bit like the guy who reckons he's handy because he posesses a crunching haymaker, that being his one and only technique, not realising that there are a million and one counters to a haymaker.

Any sorry waffling a bit now, but interesting subject Timmy boy - I for one am trying to learn new things by reading this thread.

BTW I will also vouch for the fact that rockers in the UK are one of the nicest breeds you could hope to encounter. They receive a lot of flak from trendies who don't understnad them, and who also look equally as unusual. I remember being called "Metal Mickey" at college by a guy in a pink golf shirt, and a sweep hairstyle with highlights and a gold hoop earing in each ear (it was the eighies). Aaaah the irony.

 

In the early UFC's, biting, gouging, and fish-hooking (inserting the fingers into the lips) were illegal, but not grounds for a DQ. Instead, they were fined.

Earliest story of biting I know if is UFC 1, where winner Royce Gracie accused runner-up Gerard Gordeau of biting him when they were on the ground. Royce still choked him out.

According to the book "No Holds Barred: Evolution" by Clyde Gentry, Gordeau attempted to eye-gouge another grappler, a wrestler I believe from Japan, and still lost, though it was noted the grappler never did NHB again.

John Hess eye-gouged Andy Anderson during their UFC 5 match, and ended up winning by TKO (strikes). It should be noted that Hess is 6'7" and about 300lbs, while Anderson was 5'6" and about 240. I think Hess could have won without eye gouging. There was no significant grappling from either man, and Anderson was listed, I believe, as a TKD expert. Just saying that I don't see this as a great example of foul tactics vs. grappling.

The match between Joe Son and Keith Hackney was a bit of a joke. Joe Son, the inventor of his own style (yeah, OK) showboated during the opening of the match after undoubtedly wearing himself down by trying to carry a wooden cross to the ring. He was a spectacle, not an MAist, in my estimation. Hackney was a skilled and game Kempo stylist. The fight went to the ground, where Son trapped Hackney's head under his arm. Hackney hit the choice target of the groin, multiple times. Then he sort of claw-choked Son with his free hand and Son tapped. I'm sure the groin shots affected Son, but I also don't think the outcome of the match was ever in doubt. They didn't apparently lead directly to victory, but again we had a brawler, not a grappler, trying to grapple.

I think groin shots also came into play in UFC 1 between two standup guys (Frazier and Rosier), when I think Frazier used them against Rosier. Frazier ended up gassing out (Gentry's book says he had an asthma attack) and Rosier stomped him, literally, into defeat. I also believe Ken Shamrock took some shots to the groin in his winning effort against Felix Mitchell in UFC 3. And much more recently, Matt Hughes took a solid kick to the groin in, I believe, his first fight with Frank Trigg back in '03, and still managed to win without any recovery time.

In short, I look at groin shots as simply being another good place to hit, like the jaw or solar plexus, but again without any guarentee of victory. This is based on these examples and my own experience; I can't count the times I've taken an unprotected knee to the soft bits (accidentally) from the clinch. At any rate, the groin doesn't present itself much as a target during a grappling situation

Other fouls: they didn't seem to work for Gordeau, and in Hess's case was probably overkill. We experiment with gouging in my workout group (gently!) but solid grappling skills such as possitioning and hand control seem to negate a lot of it. Good against a chump, not so great against someone who knows what their doing.

Again, as you alluded to, probably not going to get into a brawl with someone who has training. However, if you train to beat the best (figuratively) then guys with no clue with be that much easier, no?

I'll admit a prejudice to the ground game, and I train it more than someone interested solely in self-defense. My answers may admitedly be biased towards learning more advanced ground skills.

I don't know about an art ceasing to be whatever it is just by thinking outside the box, as ultimately a self-defense art is (or should be) primarily concerned with self-preservation, regardless of what techniques are included in the syllibus!

Just a minor point, and forgive me if I seem anal-retentive on this, but your use of the term UFC seems to indicate that it's a style. UFC is an event. It'd be like saying if someone cheats at soccer (excuse me, football) that it ceases to be FIFA or something.

 

The reason why some techniques are banned is that they can't be controlled and they can cause permanent damage IF they land. This is not the same thing as being more effective. Submission techniques as used in MMA are designed for breaking limbs (locks) or making people unconscious or worse (chokes), but because you can tap out of them in training or sport fighting you can practice them safely against a fully resisting opponent, so that when it comes to the crunch you will actually be able to use them. Techniques like eye gouges can't be trained realistically in this way and are therefore nowhere near reliable enough to provide a realistic counter to a grappler. Plus a grappler, with his superior positional skills, will be far better at applying an eye gouge than someone who doesn't know how to fight on the ground.

However, as I said at the beginning of this thread, my question here is not about rules but about how likely it is that you will be attacked by someone with good groundfighting skills. In the UK, we don't have high-school wrestling, so the only people who will try to take the fight to the ground are people who train groundfighting in their spare time. And how often do you get attacked by someone like that? For me at least, a fear of getting attacked by some Royce Gracie clone is not a driving force to learn groundfighting.

That said, I'm going to reiterate that I do agree that groundfighting is an important skillset to have. You could end up on the ground for any number of reasons even if you're not attacked by a groundfighter; you could trip/slip on something, get thrown, throw him and get pulled down, or just get bowled over by force. And if you acknowledge that there's a fair chance that the fight will end up on the ground, you might as well prepare to deal with that.

Also, the fact that most people won't know groundfighting means that, by learning to fight on the ground, I will gain a massive advantage in self defence. Fights that I couldn't possibly win by standing up and trading blows become winnable on the ground, where strength and instinct matter less.

I guess the reason I posed the questions in this thread are that I was reminded of Hedgehogey's old posts, if anyone remembers him. By his logic, anyone who wasn't a pro MMA fighter was completely and utterly incapable of defending themselves even though most attackers will have no training at all. True, they could have experience of a lot of streetfights, but then, why assume that I don't? Surely it's better to have SOME martial arts training (provided it's not too unrealistic) than to have nothing at all.

 

Yeah that's what I was clumsily trying to say in part of my post before, but I think you've put it a little clearer.
Another question - Do UFC (ahem - sorry, referring to the competition NOT the style) fighters (of any style) wear groin guards in the fight? Would all of this still apply if they weren't?

In answer Timmy I think in the UK it is far more unlikely to be attacked by a groundfighter as we tend to like boxing and punching over here. Just go up to Brighton on Saturday night and have a look. Apprently we like to miss by about a foot and a half in a drunken stupor as well watching those guys, but that's a different story.
However, perhaps it's more likely in America, because the BJJ etc. and similar seem more popular and "trendy" over there?

I woudl say if you have any spare time or energy , the basics certainly of groundfighting might be worth learning, but perhaps no need to become expert at it.

 

Yep I agree, I think it is very valuable to learn basic ground fighting skills. But I would spend a lot more time on short range striking and standup grappling.

 

Out here in Canada, it's not the rugby/football tackles, irish boxing, high-school olympic wrasslin' or BJJ we've got to look out for on t3h str33ts, but the hockey cross-checks, shirt pulling and more importantly the d33dly curling stone throw!

 

Sorry to kind of necromance this thread, but here's quite a good clip I found of Jens Pulver who seems to get by without a lot of groundfighting. He obviously has groundfighting skills because there are about 3 or 4 times when it goes to the ground, but it's usually simply him landing on top of them and destroying them, not intricate groundwork.
This guy really does seem to get by with one or two punches most of the time. People still get hold of him momentarily but he just hits them immediately - and with such accuracy that they let go pretty quick as you can see. And I've deliberately chosen a mma style clip, not traditional.
Can you get by as mainly a stand up fighter? Sure. Just watch this. I'm not familiar with him but looks like mainly a boxer to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ba9llMljo&mode=related&search=mma striker

enjoy!

Oh yeah and at 2.48 is a good example of him using what I was talking about earlier, about landing. He controls it so he lands on top of the other guy.
Edit : nice guitar work too, shame about the vocals

 

http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?fighterid=228

Pulver has lost 6 times, won 21 but when you look at his record it seems that 3 of the 6 losses where due to being ground and pounded and 2 where due to being submitted.

On top of that the clip demonstrated him having some truly excellent grappling skills in his favour and he's managed to win two fights by submission and several br ground and pound.

Granted the guy is an excellent striker and he win's most of his ffights standing but he has a very good grappling base, he trains out of the Miletich Camp and if I remember rightly that means he has at least one BJJ Blackbelt coaching him.

 

The point being that he seems to specialize in striking, no? So he practises striking a lot more than groundfighting - he does some groundfighting but mainly striking. I was just trying to answer Timmyboy's original question. If you think you're naturally better at striking do mainly striiking with groundfighting on the side, adn vice versa.
So which are you better at Timmy?
You must admit that Jens Pulver makes that point fairly (if not totally convicingly for you) well.

 

He doesn't really make that point well because my question is not whether or not groundfighting should be the main focus but whether or not it's really necessary at all given that you're extremely unlikely to be attacked by a train groundfighter and are thus unlikely to be at a disadvantage in that respect. Jens Pulver's success simply proves that you can be successful in MMA if your main skillset is striking BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO GRAPPLE IN ORDER TO DEFEND AGAINST GRAPPLERS, even if you only have a rudimentary knowledge.

As for me, I'd say I'm probably best at groundfighting, though I'm by no means great in any range.

 

there's your answer then.
Concentrate on groundfighting if you're best at that, but make sure you know how to strike quick and powerful too. That's gonna be included in your mma though isn't it (obviously). You won't be able to strike as well as a specialized striker, but enough to get by.

 

Just typically 180-200 hotel nights a year. Not much at all.

I try to visit at least one school a week, unless I have another engineer with me. It is better than watching a tv in a hotel room by yourself. Most often, they are tkd, but they include all sorts of things. The nice thing is exposure to a lot of stuff. It helps to get some exercise and to see what others do, even if it is almost always beginning classes.

 

Well, in a sense, you never really need groundfighting skills. You don't need standup skills either. You can rely on having a weapon, brute strength, dumb luck, etc. But the more things in your favor, the better your chance of winning.

 

Timmy, let me answer your question this way: In my line of work, I wear body armor on a regular basis. It's heavy, cumbersome, and downright uncomfortable when riding in a vehicle. Knock on wood, I've never actually needed the armor because while I've been shot at, I've never been hit. But every time I go out, I wear the blasted thing, because if and when the day comes that I actually need it, I don't want to be caught short. Grappling skills are much the same. Upon analyzing your most probable threats in your area, you've decided you probably aren't going to face a grappler. But do you really want to stake your life on those odds? Obiviously, you can't be prepared for everything, but the odds of a fight going to ground whether by accident or design are significant enough to warrant the development of grappling skills.

To be honest, knowing I probably wouldn't be facing a good grappler would encourage me to work on my grappling skills. Why would I want to fight someone at a range and style that he's comfortable with when I can take him out of his fight plan and put him where he's least comfortable? At striking range, even a complete drunken idiot has a chance to land that once in a life-time punch. Why give him that chance?