points to share after seeing a fight break out

Wow, I hear alot about how Brazilian Jiu jitsu is the way to go, even the us military is using bjj in their combatives.  The argument is "all fights end up on the ground'   Im a traditional shotokan stylist, and have a few friends who are bjj'ers and wrestlers.  What are everyones thoughts on grappling/groundwork in self defense situation? 

Neilmag, we work a handful of drills from the floor and they're all concerned with getting back to our feet as soon as possible. In my opinion the 'all fights go to the floor' line is an urban myth. Certainly, victims of assault often end up on the floor, but rarely (in my experience and from my research) does the attacker follow them down. A fallen victim is much more likely to be kicked repeatedly whilst on the ground. Even if two people do end up grappling on the floor there's a real danger that accomplices of the assailant (and animalistic passersby) will join in the fray.

We train that if we can put our assailant on the floor we should flee the scene.

I can understand why people enjoy training groundwork within a rules-bound and safety conscious environment, but for real life confrontations it's the last place I'd want to find myself.

nielmag wrote:

The argument is "all fights end up on the ground'  .... What are everyone’s thoughts on grappling/groundwork in self defense situation?

I love groundwork. The physical chess of it is hugely enjoyable and I totally get the attraction. I also think any worthwhile pragmatic arts needs to include groundwork; BUT in a way that is relevant to what is needed in self-protection.

I’d dispute the statement that “all fights end up on the ground”. People tend to base that on viewing MMA matches (where the participants deliberately try to take people to the floor) or police statistics (where the need to handcuff also means a deliberate attempt to go to the ground). Some fights go to the ground; some don’t.

Those who totally omit ground fighting often resort to denial (“all fights stay standing up”) or dismissal (“you don’t want to go to the ground in reality”). It’s true you don’t want to go to the ground … but it’s not always your decision.

When it comes to discussing what is relevant to self-protection, we need to put egos aside. I say that, because whenever this comes up egos can take things off topic and it becomes “Who would win in a ‘street fight’: the stand up fighter or the ground fighter?” with each camp arguing their corner. It’s not about martial artists fighting each other; it’s about what is the smart thing to do when in a real situation.

1 – Don’t deliberately choose to take it to the floor. It’s harder to escape from there and hence the person on the floor’s colleagues will have a real easy time kicking you to pieces or stabbing you at will (spar with multiple opponents to really bring this home – the person on the floor always get a kicking, even if they are “winning” the ground fight).

2 – You need basic ground skills should the fight go to the floor. Ignoring that need through denial or dismissal just won’t wash. The aim though is not to establish a hold, lock or choke (although you may also train those things for “fighting”) but to get up as quickly as you can and get out of the there. Self-protection based ground-fighting is “won” by getting up; not holding down or submissions. You can be stabbed innumerable times by a third party while looking for the hold, lock or choke.

3 – Don’t overestimate or exaggerate the effect of “dirty fighting”. Sometimes those dismissive for groundwork say things like, “well in a real fight I’d bite”. All well and good, but that does not take away the need for solid basic grappling skills. Bites and gouges can help, but if you have no grappling skill at all it’s going to be hard to get back up.

4 – Realise the difference in environment and train with weapons and multiple opponents. Both change things massively and cannot be ignored or dismissed. The “pro-ground fighter” sometimes dismisses the importance of multiple opponents by saying, “well it’s impossible to outfight multiple opponents anyway”. For a start, it’s extremely difficult, but not impossible. However, being on the ground with one guy while the others are free to do as they please makes escaping practically impossible (the smart thing to do when facing multiples is to escape; don’t fight). This is why we never want to take it to the ground and get up fast if we end up there. Weapons also change things a lot. The guy who is pinned and out grappled can still cut you up really bad if they have a knife.

In summary: Ground fighting to the self-protection exponent is like crash-landing is to the airline pilot: it’s not something they ever want to do, but they better know how to do it if it’s the only option left.

There also needs to be an acknowledgement that many of the skills used for outfighting another martial artist on the ground, do not fair well when moved into the self-protection environment and hence we need to train appropriately for that environment. Forget looking for pins, ankle locks, chokes, etc and fixate 100% on getting up! Remember that multiples and weapons change things a lot.

Finally, moving away from self-protection to fighting; ground fighting is great fun and can be a key deciding factor in a straight fight … but that does not mean it is the way to go in self-protection. Different environments require different approaches.

All the best,

Iain

Thank you so much Sensei Lee & Sensei Iain.  That makes so much sense.  I think both of you helped me understand the reality of grappling, ground fighting.  I know you guys are quite busy, and thank you for the quick response.  Iain, have you cross trained in the grappling arts judo/or bjj, etc?  Or is your grappling knowledge from Wado Ryu?  Im fascinated by your Bunkai Jutsu series and was wondering where you learned some of that.  My impression prior to finding your website/articles/videos, karate was blocks/strikes, which is all I know.  I always wondered what some of those strange looking techniques in the katas were.  Though I never want to get into a grappling situation, especially on the ground, I completely see where you guys are coming from.  I need to know just in case it comes to that.  by the way, do you ever do any seminars in the US?

When I read these insights I often wonder if it works the other way ...

Do judo coaches that market it as self-defence add striking or encourage their athletes to fill in the gaps?

Not making a case for it either way, just curious.

I remember being tied up by a judo bloke on an early Geoff Thompson course.  He got the right hump when I got bored and twisted his nuts inside out.  God knows how upset he'd have been if I'd punched him in the throat. 

Gary

Thats a good question.  From what i understand, the local bjj'ers do nothing but groundwork, not even standup takedowns, let alone strikes.  I think the local judo place does 50/50 standup takedowns/throws and ground work, but no strikes whatsoever.  Gary, now that you mention it, I dont know if I would want to pull someone into full gaurd and have my testies open to God knows what!

There's two ways to win. 

The first way is to train hard so your skills/power/aggression are superior to your opponent(s).

The second is to be a devious *******.

At my age it's a no-brainer.

Gary

I find myself in agreement with all of what you wrote Iain, amazingly, it still seems to be a minority opinion in most MA circles...it seems like common sense to me!

I ahve talked to many people who still insist that learning and training exclusively in ground submissions can be effective self defense, for the life of me I have no idea what the logic is there, it seems to me by definition any options that keep you on the ground should be secondary at best in self defense. Their arguments rank up there with people who claim high kicks are great for self defense as far as i'm concerned, the risk vs. reward just isn't there at all, no matter how good you are at it.

On the other side I am sure the "just bite him" people are still out there too, but I have been lucky enough to not meet them.

I have been doing Judo casually for  a bit now, it's great fun and I have learned a ton about fluidity, and how to react when someone manhandles me, my generally understanding of balance disruption, throws, escapes has improved, even from just a bit of training. It's a very, very deep skillset I can tell, and honestly it's had a lasting effect on my Karate already, I reccomend it to anyone. There is real merit to immediately learning to go full bore with someone trying to throw and pin you (I am a beginner so that's usually where it ends up).

There is a ton there that is useful in self defense, but like anything I suppose you'd have to approach it that way. Alot of the time I feel like my "filter" for the information is different than other whitebelt students in Judo class, since I have done stuff that is "self defense" related for  a bit, and this is where my personal focus lies. I feel like honestly if someone went into Judo with no previous training and assumed it would be ideal for self defense, and took what is taught at face-value as self defense training that would be an error in thinking.

Alot of combat sports seem to market the sport as synonamous with the self defense aspect, I think that 's questionable personally, but it's much less questionable than all the "Kickboxing Aerobics" classes that also claim to teach self defense from doing an hour of random punches and kicks!

So I think that the issue is that 90% of what is taught as self defense is miscategorized, and the groundfighting thing is just a symptom of that. I'm glad I met Kris and get to train with him, do events like Crossing The Pond, and get exposed to you and others that take a critical approach to martial arts training, because it seems like the vast majority of the martial arts community (TMA, MMA, strikers, grapplers, whatever) does not.

The “all fights go to the ground” thing is misleading. First off, the study it came from was conducted by and for law enforcement officers. When you’re cuffing someone, it’s virtually always done with the perp on the ground; they’re easier to control that way. "Normal" fights (meaning social or predatory violence between civilians) such as you witnessed are a different beast. Furthermore, when you're cuffing the bad guy(s), there’s also almost always backup, other officers whose role it is to make sure the perp’s friends don’t get a shot at you while you’re distracted.

Going to the ground, when backed up by a team of professionals be they bouncers, security guards, or LEOs, generally works pretty well. So does submission grappling in the ring. But that sort of thing usually ends badly in the back alley, barroom, or whatnot if you’re a civilian or alone. The challenge is that when you are on the ground, you’re vulnerable. You can easily get stomped, kicked, and seriously messed up by your adversary. If you become tied up, his/her friends might put the boots to you as well

Sure, it’s very important to have the skills necessary to fight on the ground since you don’t always have a choice of whether or not you’ll end up there, but unless you are a skilled professional working with an experienced team, it’s a dangerous place to be. In a stand-up fight, on the other hand, it's much easier to handle multiple adversaries, weapons, or other hazards since you have a better chance of being able to use distance, movement, angles, and whatnot and can usually find a way to disengage and escape to safety.

Lawrence

Wow, this is the best forum, thank you all!  Theres so much info out there on the web.  In my brief research in MA, its like studying religion, interpreting kata is like trying to interpret the Bible (I went to 2 Bible colleges, by the way).  I am of the opinion that in MA as well as religion, anytime someone dogmatically says "This doctrine is the only doctrine" is probably missing something.  I get it from both sides, my shotokan circle (perfect punch, kick, etc) and thatll be enough, and the bjj/wrestlers (that standup stuff is BS, once I get my hands on someone.etc).  Hearing a balanced discussion from people with great experience like you guys is so refreshing and more importatnly, enlightening.  Thanks all!  ps-ill prob train with both groups, I figure ill stay a level headed hybrid!

Hi Nielmag,

nielmag wrote:

Iain, have you cross trained in the grappling arts judo/or bjj, etc?

Glad that was of use! Yes, I’ve trained in judo for a few years (when the karate permits) and found it very useful. Only a relatively small percentage of competitive judo (which is what the dojo I train at emphasises) transfers over, but that which does is very potent and I think judo is a great supplement to my karate. As I say the majority of it does not transfer over when environments are changed, but what does has had a positive effect on my training and teaching. Great workout and lots of fun too! Zach’s comments on the benefits are something I’d totally agree with:

Zach Zinn wrote:

I have been doing Judo casually for  a bit now, it's great fun and I have learned a ton about fluidity, and how to react when someone manhandles me, my generally understanding of balance disruption, throws, escapes has improved, even from just a bit of training. It's a very, very deep skillset I can tell, and honestly it's had a lasting effect on my Karate already, I recommend it to anyone.

nielmag wrote:

Thanks all!  ps-ill prob train with both groups, I figure ill stay a level headed hybrid!

You can get a great deal from training with dedicated grapplers. As has been said, it’s valuable and fun in and of itself and can have much pragmatic value so long as we are mindful of environment and train that side of things appropriately.

nielmag wrote:

Wow, this is the best forum, thank you all!

Yeah, we are pretty fantastic!

All the best,

Iain

PS You asked me a few personal questions, but we try to keep personal chatter off the forum so people don’t get distracted by it reading through as certain issue. Please email me (iain@iainabernethy.com) or message me with any questions and I’ll get back to you when I can.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

When I read these insights I often wonder if it works the other way ...

Do judo coaches that market it as self-defence add striking or encourage their athletes to fill in the gaps?

My experience is that the Judo people I know never really meaningfully consider self-defence (not saying that’s the case for all, but it most definitely is for those I know). Asking how something would be applied in “the street” would get the same confused glances if you asked a tennis coach how to use a serve in the street. They are 100% focused on competitive success and the self-defence aspects are completely off radar.

I really like the fact that they don’t suffer from the “martial schizophrenia” that so many karateka do. They know what they are training for and train hard for it. That clarity of goal is why they are so good at what they do, and I really admire it.

Most judoka would have no problem adapting what they do though; if they were so inclined and understood the effects of the change in environment. My judo coach (Mike Liptort) certainly has no problem altering the grappling he teaches to be suitable for karateka. But generally judoka are not at all inclined that way. They tend to be more focused on the insular goal of competition with each other as opposed to defending themselves or “cross training”.

As regards judoka using karate to fill their gaps, in the way that karateka use judo to fill theirs, it’s pretty much a one way street I find. I put that down to the fact that the majority of judoka (that I know) are focused on competitive success and striking skills have no bearing on that.

There are exceptions of course, but that has been my experience.

All the best,

Iain

I'm no expert at anything, by any means..but i'll take a stab there.

Techniques like the head and arm throw, harai goshi, osoto gari, pins like kesa gatame and kata gatame, really there are a ton of techniques in Judo that are very practical, which can be found other places as well.

There is alot of material that tranfers over just fine, the thing is that when you train completely for sport the context is different, so alot of times in Judo you need things like combo throws to setup an opponent, probably an absolutely teribble idea to fight like that in real life, as your setup depends on a "trick" using a sweep or throw to setup what you actually throw them with, not sure you can be that predictive of someone's behavior ont he street.  I've been told that in real life throws are more about opportunity rather than that kind of chess game

You willingly turn your back on your opponent, you turtle..etc. not stuff that's good for real life.

In Judo you are training to defeat another Judoka with a certain range of techniques, so it's more about the context than the material. I've been exposed top some "street Judo" type stuff from Kris Wilder, so it definitely can cross over...I think the main thing is that in many Judo dojos it doesn't really cross over because that is simply not what they are interested in.

Anyway I suck at Judo, i'm no amazing Karateka either, but I noticed the different mindset with the "sport" emphasis right away. There are good and bad things about it, I still think it's well worth people's time to pursue Judo, BJJ or whatever, if you take  a broader view of self protection there is a ton you can learn from them.

While I agree wholeheartedly with Iain's thought's I'd add one caveat.

Forget looking for pins, ankle locks, chokes, etc and fixate 100% on getting up!

While this is undoubtably a good maxim for "real" grappling it misses an important element for training I feel.

Namely...your training partners. Not every one in the club can focus 100% on training to get up as by definition you need someone trying to keep you down. As such you will get what I call "reciprocal skill development". As you drill getting up by default the other person is drilling holding you down (a skill they may not even want to have).

If you are drilling a simple bridge and roll mount escape for example (an escape that's valid in the street, MMA and grappling IMHO) then you also need someone mounting you. As you get better at bridging and rolling they will need to get better at maintaining the mount in order to push your skills. It'll be a little bit like an arms race in some ways. In the end, as a by-product you will get two people that can escape the mount AND hold the mount even though only one of those skills follows the "get up 100%" maxim for real grappling.

It's the same with almost everything. Someone learning to strike (a street skill) needs a good pad holder (not a street skill). Someone learning to defend kicks (a street skill) needs a kicker (perhaps not a street skill).

PASmith wrote:

While I agree wholeheartedly with Iain's thought's I'd add one caveat.

“Forget looking for pins, ankle locks, chokes, etc and fixate 100% on getting up!”

While this is undoubtably a good maxim for "real" grappling it misses an important element for training I feel.

Namely...your training partners. Not every one in the club can focus 100% on training to get up as by definition you need someone trying to keep you down.

I accept the sentiment entirely, but I’d be careful about saying that that one person in working to improve their pins. True, the drill needs a “villain” but I was making reference to the strategy used and the mentality of training so I would stick by the 100% figure. Allow me to explain a few aspects of my thinking …

Totally true you need someone to effectively play the role of villain(s), but I think we need to be careful about what the “villain” should be trying to do. Are they working their pins (fight training) or are they playing the role of villain realistically?

Firstly, it’s not just about pins. If we are drilling for reality, the villain is not only going to pin. They are going to try and kick seven shades of the brown stuff out of you when you’re down there. Try to stab you when you are down there. Try to distract you so his mate can stamp you flat, And so on. I’m not trying to improve my students “stabbing” ability when I do this though. They are playing a role.

We need to get the villain to act like a villain; not a skilled martial competitor. It’s not just about pins, but realistically playing the villain and including all of the above “villain behaviours”. If they focus on improving their “fighting skills” and working their ability to pin, then we are now moving away from the aim of the exercise.

So that’s the differences in action. The second thing is the mentality of the exercise:

PASmith wrote:

Not every one in the club can focus 100% on training to get up as by definition you need someone trying to keep you down.

Yes you need people to try to keep you down, but the focus of training is 100% on getting up. If the police get together and drill arrest techniques with the trainers acting the role of the suspect, is the person playing the role of suspect training to be a criminal? Likewise, are those involved in hostage rescue drills training to be kidnappers? When fire-fighters do their drills is the person who started the fire training to be an arsonist? Those examples need people to be realistic criminals, hostage-takers and fire starters, but I would not say they are training for that purpose. Likewise I would not say the person playing villain in self-protection drills is training to be a better criminal.

So 100% of the training is focused on getting up when we do ground work from a self-protection perspective … because no one is training with the view to be a better criminal, rapist or murder. They are simply playing a role – hopefully very effectively – to enable their partners to develop the skills that are the aim of the exercise.

In fight training (as distinct from SP training) if we are working on escaping from pins, then sure 50% are getting better at pinning and 50% are working to improve their escapes. They will also be looking for the chokes and pins that we would not be looking for in self-protection training. And we’ll get the “arms race” that helps everyone develop. (I like that way of putting it by the way!)

When I’m working self-protection though, I hope I’ve always made it 100% clear to the people I teach that no one is working to improver their “kicking the s##t out of a downed man” skills, their “hold this person down so you and your mates can assault them” skills, or their “murder people with a knife” skills. We are not that kind of dojo ;-)

It may seem like forced semantics or splitting hairs, but I am personally very keen on cleanly marking what is self-protection training and what is fight training, because I feel so many blur the boundaries and that has many problems.

In this specific example, the problem I can foresee is that drilling self-protection ground work and having 50% of people mentally understanding this to be an opportunity to improve their ability to pin would have us inadvertently endorsing the view that pinning someone is a smart thing to do in self-protection (because this is a self-protection drill - not a fighting drill – and I’ve told half the students to think of this as an opportunity to improve their pins). Not good!

So I would make it clear that the student is helping their partner to develop their ability to regain their feet while their partner practises regaining their feet … hence the emphasis is 100% on getting back to our feet.

If I were to say that one person is working on their ability to keep a person down, it’s now 50 / 50 and is very bad self-protection training (I’m endorsing one person maintaining a ground fight in reality by default), I’m training criminals, or I’m fight training. So I’m incompetent, unethical or unfocused! ;-)

In the two examples, they could well be doing the exact same thing physically … but they are very different mentally. By not being 100% clear on the mindset and objective I’ve became incompetent, unethical or unfocused I hope people see what I mean and why I use the 100% figure.

PASmith wrote:

It's the same with almost everything. Someone learning to strike (a street skill) needs a good pad holder (not a street skill). Someone learning to defend kicks (a street skill) needs a kicker (perhaps not a street skill).

That’s it exactly! The person keeping them down is not drilling a self-protection skill; they are helping their partner to do so. And to keep the mentality right, I’d say that skill they were working was not their ability to hold others down, but their ability to help others develop their ability to get up :-)

A very important distinction! I do feel it is vitally important to get it right and it is something I feel strongly about. So worth exploring I feel and I hope the above post, although a little long winded, communicates my thinking OK?

All the best,

Iain

PASmith – Thanks for feeding that one in! I hope I’ve helped add something to the discussion on the role of “the other guy” ;-)

Hi all,

The roll of the '' bad guy '' is one we use on everything we do. One of the key things is for your training partner to almost forget his training to play the role of aggressive thug. They should purposely try not to use the techniques as they train them, a right hook from an untrained opponent will be significantly different in appearance than a tight mechanically efficient strike from a trained exponent, we say just start swinging arms, let it be as uncultured as you like.

For ground fighting I say if you're down there the aim for me is not to inflict pain on my opponent, rather regain my feet so I can then start inflicting pain( or escape), our drills from Naihanchi reflect this, we never practice as though we are fighting another Martial Artist.

As Lee Richardson said usually if one is on the ground then the other will probably be on their feet, but its worth training simple drills for groundwork.

From personal experience I can say the ground is a bad place to be when one (or more) opponent is still on their feet, so one thing to remember is practice ground drills but at all costs stay on your feet , you may get lucky as the troublemakers in Leigh's post did , but if your opponents mean business then serious injury is virtually certain, its unlikely the trouble makers were actually getting kicked full force in the head, more likely the kicks were pulled on impact, I doubt they would have been asking for another ruck if the kicks had been with full intention.

All the best

Mark

This is really interesting stuff to read guys, giving me alot to think about..some thoughts:

Being a "thug" is a type of skill, people who  are good at violence have a type of trained skill, the training maybe simply be haphazard application on unsuspecting opponents, but it's still a kind of skill, and doing that is training of a kind.

So if someone is playing "the bad guy"..are they always doing something fundamentally different from the Karateka or trained martial artist, or should the the principles actually be the same? Not the same morally of course,  just physically.

At crossing the pond Rory Miller and Marc Macyoung said some interesting stuff about "fighting like a criminal", I wonder if that's relevant here, to me the only real difference between playing the good guy and playing the bad guy is the area of ethics..it's strikes me as quite reasonable that everyone should fight like a "bad guy" in a self protection sense, albeit with some more honed skillsets.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

When I read these insights I often wonder if it works the other way ...

Do judo coaches that market it as self-defence add striking or encourage their athletes to fill in the gaps?

Not making a case for it either way, just curious.

I remember being tied up by a judo bloke on an early Geoff Thompson course.  He got the right hump when I got bored and twisted his nuts inside out.  God knows how upset he'd have been if I'd punched him in the throat. 

Gary

Thank you for sharing that Gary, am now mopping up tea off my keyboard!

Enjoying the discussion though!

I'm no expert, but regardless of the merits of take-downs, stand-ups or group fighting, I would suggest that to avoid the same kind of situation it would be best not to down 12 pints of larger or whatever it was that passed their necks, in front of hundreds of others who are doing the same thing, and then go on a fantasy trip. I may sound flippant but I have a serious point. I think that the vast majority of 'situations' can be avoided by not being there in the first place, or by not being in that condition if you are. Sun Tsu should have a few words to say on this; for me I would say ' Self protection begins at home.'

nielmag wrote:

Wow, I hear alot about how Brazilian Jiu jitsu is the way to go, even the us military is using bjj in their combatives.  The argument is "all fights end up on the ground'   Im a traditional shotokan stylist, and have a few friends who are bjj'ers and wrestlers.  What are everyones thoughts on grappling/groundwork in self defense situation?

I would say from my experience in the Police, unless you really really have to, then don't. If you really  need to control people fighting with you going to the  the floor is a brilliant tool as it can be used as your friend. I have to agree its good to know what to do if you do end up there but any comments about getting back to your feet asap are very valid. There are  times someone not even involved with the warring parties will come in and take a punt for no good reason than that they can.

On the subject of "fights go to the floor" i would like to ask, how often is that done deliberately by one of the fighters? (throw/takedown) and how much is that they have fallen? (tripped over object or other fighters legs) Of the fights i have witnessed i have never seen someone perform an obvious single/double leg takedown or hip throw (not counting law enforcment or security) rather one has fallen and then got a kicking or  one falls and drags the other down. So with this observation it makes sense to me to train more in standing gappling if only so you can avoid falling. Personally when i train in standing grappling getting back control takes priority (second to striking of course) as it means i have a very dominant position. The 'human shield' you get from here works well from multiple attackers.

A very quick bit on throwing makes you turn your back so is dangerous, Anyone who has spent time in grappling arts will agree that controling the opponent before throwing is essential. If the opponent has space to move then your setup was not correct, not to mention the 'blow before throw' tactic. As a person of small stature i find that when i am out matched for strength that throw/takedowns work well, but that may just be the training i have had.

Hope this help the discussion.

Neil

From a Krav point of view, the class I train at has a simple rule - if someone ends up on the floor by accident ( slips , trips, thrown, etc) the rest of the class are at liberty to administer a controlled kicking until they regain their feet or the instructor calls stop.  Obviously this does not apply when training for takedowns or ground drills, it's intended to drill for things going wrong and build a 'get up and get out' reaction.