Video showing the dangers of ground fighting when others are around

Damn...as a wider concern I think this also demonstrates how important awareness is wherever you happen to be fighting. He was so fixated on the guy on the bottom he wasn't even really aware of the female even though she was clearly hostile. The same could have happened if the two males were standing up with that level of awareness.

There were still tactics that the guy on top could have used to stop what happened to him. One of Geoff Thompson's famous invisible aggressive fences for example. "BACK OFF OR YOU'RE NEXT!" sort of thing, may have dissuaded the female.

Even just slightly more awareness may have enabled him to cover up when the kick came in.

PASmith wrote:

Damn...as a wider concern I think this also demonstrates how important awareness is wherever you happen to be fighting. He was so fixated on the guy on the bottom he wasn't even really aware of the female even though she was clearly hostile. The same could have happened if the two males were standing up with that level of awareness.

Tunnel vision is of course one of the effects of the chemical cocktail that enters the body when we are under stress, and that may well have played a part. The woman also does a pretty good job of not showing any intention of attacking until close enough to make it a decisive kick. However, with regards to the final sentence in the above quotation, I would suggest that being on the floor made him far more vulnerable than if he had been upright.

For a start I don’t think she would have been able to KO him so easily had he been upright. His head was ideally positioned for a kick. If he had been upright, she would have had to hit his head with her upper limbs, and hence would only have been able to generate a fraction of the force.

There is also more chance of him seeing her coming in when upright than there is when he’s looking at the floor (i.e. he would have benefited from an awareness that he was unaware).

His mobility was also greatly reduced due to his position. Even if he saw the kick coming, moving out of the way would have been very difficult, and seeing as both his wrists were gripped he many not have even been able to cover up anyway. Had he been upright he would have been far better placed to avoid her when she attacked.

PASmith wrote:

There were still tactics that the guy on top could have used to stop what happened to him. One of Geoff Thompson's famous invisible aggressive fences for example. "BACK OFF OR YOU'RE NEXT!" sort of thing, may have dissuaded the female.

It may have. Regardless, the best tactic by far would have been to try to get up and not leave his head at perfect kicking height. He is then in a far better position to deal with things physically and verbally.

I agree that there was a major failure of awareness here, but I would suggest that it was primarily a lack of awareness about the best tactic to adopt when others were around.

It’s true that he could also have been taken out by a third party had he been on his feet. However, he made the third party’s job infinitely easier by choosing to stay on the floor. He left himself in a very bad position through choice and paid the price for that.

When third parties are around the primary tactic always has to be to get to the feet if you can (good ground skills will obviously be a huge help with that), and never to stay on the ground through choice (i.e. adopt the best tactic). As we’ve said here many times before, you can never divorce what works from the environment and context.

All the best,

Iain

One quick thought: I don’t think people should look at this video and conclude that ground-fighting is ineffective. That would be mistaken in my view because you need a reasonable level of skill on the ground to be able to get back up. If you want to avoid being on the ground, then you need to practise getting back to your feet in training … and that needs a level of ground-fighting skill. As I say, the learning point for me is that you can’t use one-on-one tactics when others are around.

All the best,

Iain

The video certianly drives home the point that it was posted to show but to me it dosent look as much like a "self defence" situation as a consentual (and probably illegal) fight. Both combatants appear to be using standard MMA positions and tactics and do not look overly angry or emotional here. From the dialogue I get the impression that the woman involved is the bare chested combatant's mother and only intervened to stop her son from losing.

Also, in terms of awareness as mentioned above they appear to be fighting in the middle of a road (could be a car park or something though). Not the safest place to ground grapple... 

Gavin J Poffley wrote:

The video certainly drives home the point that it was posted to show but to me it doesn’t look as much like a "self defence" situation as a consensual (and probably illegal) fight.

Absolutely. Whether it started as a consensual fight, or evolved into one, we don’t know. If you listen carefully you can even hear the onlookers shout things along the lines of “use your wrestling” etc. It is very much “a fight” right up until its end (or at least the guys on the ground think it is: the woman is obviously thinking a little differently). And in approaching it as a fight, it leaves them both very vulnerable.

Tactically “fighting” in this context leaves you physically vulnerable and legally vulnerable too. As you point out, protecting yourself is legal; “street fighting” is not.

That’s why I separate fighting, martial arts and self-protection in my thinking. Context dictates all.

Gavin J Poffley wrote:

Also, in terms of awareness as mentioned above they appear to be fighting in the middle of a road (could be a car park or something though). Not the safest place to ground grapple... 

That was my wife’s first thought too when she saw it as I added it to the website! She was expecting a car to end it.

All the best,

Iain

This is a good clip that shows the dangers of trying to 'submission fight' in a street fight.  But, this just as easily could have been a video of a grappler choking out some poor slob in a street fight who didn't know he was facing a grappler and therefore in a 'grappling fight'.  So the lesson here to me is not (as I have seen some posters n other forums conclude, and as Iain noted above) that grappling is somehow 'bad' to know...  In fact, barring the intervention of the kids mom, it looks like the fight was going pretty badly for the kid based on an inferior set of ground skills. So, again, it is the value judgments (appearing elsewhere, I don't mean here) layered upon what is factually useful information to see that are the real lesson to me.  Strikers see this and kind of go "Aha!  See?!?"  Grapplers see this and get all defensive.    But in fact, "Grappling" was WORKING for the guy who got KO'd.  That is ONE set of lessons-- what worked with the grappling, and what didn't (for instance the kids failed triangle attempt) .  Also interesting is the fact that it is really the elbow strike that he hits the kid with (the first solid injury) that really takes the fight out of the kid and determines the course of the fight prior to the point of intervention. 

Unfortunately,  the monologging, the general lack of awareness, and the sudden and simple nature of the mother's boot to the face make for another set of really good lessons.

I agree that this was consensual, at least at first.  :-)   Anyone notice the kali sticks?   Based on their total lack of involvement in determing the outcome of the fight, I suppose we are left to conclude that sticks are 'inneffective' weapons, and that the study of stick tactics is therefore a total waste of time.  :-)

The devil is not in the details, he's in the conclusions we draw, at least IMO.

Talk about famous last words "why do you think i'm champion?" BANG.

On a serious note, this does seem to be a match fight by, what seems to me, the lack of agression. However, why was his mum there? Was she invloved in the fight starting? we will probably never know, but then i always find these "street matches" disturbing, and as such i don't think we can really apply self defence reasoning to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM7pEF2jRxk&feature=related

After a bit of browsing i found this clip, i'm going to guess that the people taking part have been drinking but it shows, multiple assailents, striking, grappling, posturing and and more that i'm sure you will see.

It starts by two women fighting then men getting involved, even the fighters changing around half way through.. The thing i take from this is (apart from not getting drunk and fighting in Poland) that things can change quick and successful striking is key. The bit that really relates the the previous vid is at 3:23min.

[Note from Iain: The above clip contain swearing & violence. It does require confirmation the viewer is over 18 so it can’t be watched by minors]

Here an example where it work out for the guy on the ground.

Warrning, the is a lot of fowl language.

http://youtu.be/eKB-BEtVR8g

Dom

[Note from Iain: The above clip contains swearing & violence]

diadicic wrote:

Warrning, the is a lot of fowl language.

.. things like "chicken"?

diadicic wrote:

Here an example where it work out for the guy on the ground.

Warrning, the is a lot of fowl language.

http://youtu.be/eKB-BEtVR8g

Dom

just underscores Iain's point really, the reason it worked out for this guy is that no one jumped in on the other guys behalf. Either one could have just as easily eaten a boot. This is social violence.

I think it highlights the reasons that I instill in to my students NEVER go down to the floor!!!!

If you do you MUST get back up as soon as you can.

As Iain Stated

Iain Abernethy wrote:

One quick thought: I don’t think people should look at this video and conclude that ground-fighting is ineffective. That would be mistaken in my view because you need a reasonable level of skill on the ground to be able to get back up. If you want to avoid being on the ground, then you need to practise getting back to your feet in training … and that needs a level of ground-fighting skill. As I say, the learning point for me is that you can’t use one-on-one tactics when others are around.

diadicic wrote:

Here an example where it work out for the guy on the ground.

Zach Zinn wrote:

Just underscores Iain's point really, the reason it worked out for this guy is that no one jumped in on the other guy’s behalf. Either one could have just as easily eaten a boot.

There should be absolutely no doubt that ground fighting can work incredibly well in one-on-one fights. You can see that in Dom’s clip and innumerable MMA fights, Judo bouts, wrestling matches, etc. Where it is much less effective, as a preferred tactic and sought situation, is when more than one person is involved (or could get involved). In Dom’s clip it stayed a one-on-one fight so the tactic worked out fine. However, in the initial clip it did not stay a one-on-one fight and we see what happened.

Because so many self-protection situations do involve more than one person, the point is that ground fighting should not be actively sought because you make it much easier for others to take you out … even if you were winning the ground fight.

Even people who have nothing to do with it can get involved if they think they can get a “free shot”. There’s a local station going through the courts at the moment where a person was knocked to the floor, only to have someone unknown to both parties run across the road and put the boot it.

Deliberately taking a fight to the floor – as opposed to staying upright and seeking to escape – makes escaping much harder, and actively choosing to continue a fight when you could have escaped could cause legal as well as tactical problems.

Things can go wrong and you can end up on the floor so a level of ground skill is required. So, as has been pointed out above, the first clip should not be taken as evidence that ground fighting does not work. If you end up on the floor, you need the ground skills to get back up. Deliberately keeping the fight on the ground would not be wise though.

The point is that you can’t take the tactics that are ideal for one type of situation and “cut & paste” them to another situation. Seeking the ground can work brilliantly in one context; but can be disastrous in another context. What works is always dependant upon the context and the goal.

All the best,

Iain

It's interesting, I have had this same conversation alot lately...

It's seems like common sense to me, there are certain tactics that are both time dependent, and require dedication to one target, it seems like these tactics are definitely secondary for self defense encounters, for obvious reasons!

However, I see a huge number of people who will rail against this idea, i've even heard people say things like they would be able to pull off an RNC in six seconds on someone in a situation with multiple attackers. I'm blown away when I hear this kind of thing, especially since often it comes from people with plenty of "live" training, who apparently have become convinced that their live training in the dojo or gym is a literal map of reality.

Of course none of this means we shouldn't be familiar with groundifghting, submissions, chokes etc...but it does mean (I think) that what many people are doing with them is trying to put a square peg in a round hole as far as self-defense tactics are concerned.

Thanks for the thought provoking  Iain.

The video shows that there is no perfect technique or approach that is 100% guaranteed, all the time, in every single situation.  Fighting is just as much a strategy problem as a physical problem.  I still will continue to train in the ground when I study Judo, but I know there's a time and place for it.  And I know that from experience.  I still remember that kick I got in the mouth from a bystander over 2 decades ago.   Yeah, ok, I rolled out of it/went with the force/did not resist/blended/etc., but man, IT STILL HURT (LOL).  I'm blessed that I still have my teeth.