All Fights End up on the Ground

[DCDesigns]

Good choice....if they shoot for your legs, a kaNock on the head...the kimber is heavy enough to work...LOL...Doc :D

haha, yup, a good 'ol pistol whip will solve things quick lol. Like Ray Liotta in that gangster film...

[2cha]

I don't know Doc. Just about every fight I've ever seen that wasn't a one-puncher ended up either on the ground, or broken up by the crowd. I spent my mid-twenties working in a bar-zone--dozens of bars in a two square block area--and I've seen and/or been involved in literally countless brawls. This could be because the guys who start fights tend to have wrestling or football backgrounds--or it could be that the physical environs of most altercations tend to be laden with obstacles and other uncertainties so that closing and staying close seems like the best option. [This experience is why I once asked you about an Aikido teacher here in Philly.] This experience is also why I plan to encourage my sons to take up Judo or Aikido for a while. It seems to me like striking arts are great if you can devote the time to them (I fenced for 5 years, and know that it takes a good long while to get proficient at incorporating footwork and strikes), but I must say that after only 6 months of non-aggressive self-defense classes (work related), 8 months of Aikido lessons and a handful of Judo classes, I feel like I can stay on my feet unless facing someone who is really trained. As a bonus, it's a lot harder to break your hand if you don't punch someone in the head.

Doc, from your experience, how much kung fu training would it take for the average person, learning from the average teacher, to be useful in a brawl?

[SolidState]

I guess I'll throw my $0.02 in this ring.

I've seen a lot of fights and been in quite a few myself. I generally avoid the ground and try to put my opponents there. I've been brought down in roughly 30% of altercations I've been in, one of them ending in a group stomping. The first school that I attended for MA training did not sufficiently train me in boxing, nor ground fighting and it ended up costing me severely in altercations.

That said, since becoming much more aware of my hands, I have thwarted attempts to take me to the ground more successfully. I think the important factor in training is learning how to deal with people shooting on you to take you to the ground. 2cha is correct in his assumption that people who wrestle/play football love to tackle and think that ends a fight. This has been my observations from my own personal scrapping.

Since learning how to deal with shooting via strikes, holding&striking and knees, I have had way less issues with hitting the ground. I haven't been in any 100% fights since acquiring these skills, only sparring, however I think I can handle myself a lot better.

Now that I'm older, I'm also a lot meaner and more conniving. I'm way less worried about the other person's knees, elbows etc. If the person looks like a wrestler or football player, I'm way more apt to go all kinds of cheap to keep their body off of mine. Wrestlers and football players rarely have contingency plans for broken knees.

[angusW]

Thinking way back to high school and my early 20's, if I ended up on the ground then it didn't turn out very well but staying on my feet always ended with better results.

[Dr. Snubnose]

I don't know Doc. Just about every fight I've ever seen that wasn't a one-puncher ended up either on the ground, or broken up by the crowd. I spent my mid-twenties working in a bar-zone--dozens of bars in a two square block area--and I've seen and/or been involved in literally countless brawls. This could be because the guys who start fights tend to have wrestling or football backgrounds--or it could be that the physical environs of most altercations tend to be laden with obstacles and other uncertainties so that closing and staying close seems like the best option. [This experience is why I once asked you about an Aikido teacher here in Philly.] This experience is also why I plan to encourage my sons to take up Judo or Aikido for a while. It seems to me like striking arts are great if you can devote the time to them (I fenced for 5 years, and know that it takes a good long while to get proficient at incorporating footwork and strikes), but I must say that after only 6 months of non-aggressive self-defense classes (work related), 8 months of Aikido lessons and a handful of Judo classes, I feel like I can stay on my feet unless facing someone who is really trained. As a bonus, it's a lot harder to break your hand if you don't punch someone in the head.

Doc, from your experience, how much kung fu training would it take for the average person, learning from the average teacher, to be useful in a brawl?

Ay 2Cha, Depends on the system and how extensive their foundation material is, but I'd say around 3-5 years to put enough together to be able to use....6-8 years can make a very big difference in skill level though...Doc :D

[psychophipps]

That long, Doc? I figure you could be a real badboy within 3 years with a Kempo(-based) system if you were diligent and came as often as you could (3-4 hours a week). This typically gets you about starting Green Belt (Mean and Green) where you finally get to realizing that you can put the serious hurt to someone.

Combatives could probably do it way faster than this, but the skill set is much more limited and pretty much completely focused on "All killer, no filler"...

[psychophipps]

Three things:

First, I outweighed the guy by about 80 lbs and was a 4-5 days a week student in an active stand-up grappling art (Small Circle Jujitsu) on top of my ground fighting stuff.

Second, I was going for a clinch only, nothing more. You can shoot in (my term for closing the gap quickly to a good grappling position) "soft" to feed the sprawl and still have plenty of space and balance to step back and shoot in again as a "ba-bump" rather than try for a football tackle and end up on your knees for a slow recovery. Probably the best-timed shoot-in of my life.

Finally, at the school I was mentioning in my story, everyone wore a black sash (even the instructor) as "they were always willing to learn something new." I should have said, "black belt-equivalent" as they don't have rankings either, but the jerk was in the top three or so of his class.

The next week I was in class and the instructor and student stopped by our dojo "to discuss something". Next thing I knew, the instructor was handing me his student's sash and apologizing for his rude behavior with a very poorly hidden glowering, but chastened, student asking me to take it as a gift and reminder of the proper way of humility when my point was publicly misproven.

Not overly comfortable about the whole thing, I apologized for the misunderstanding and how my own reaction was far from the proper humility as well. Bowing to both and getting back to class as fast as possible without looking like I was trying to escape, I got back to training.

I still have that sash folded up in a drawer and every time I uncover it, it reminds me of the time I seemed to "win" even when I know I lost in a different manner.

[Dr. Snubnose]

That long, Doc? I figure you could be a real badboy within 3 years with a Kempo(-based) system if you were diligent and came as often as you could (3-4 hours a week). This typically gets you about starting Green Belt (Mean and Green) where you finally get to realizing that you can put the serious hurt to someone.

Combatives could probably do it way faster than this, but the skill set is much more limited and pretty much completely focused on "All killer, no filler"...

The more complete the Chinese System is the longer it takes. Kempo, other Karate Systems, and other basic level Martial Arts have a very limited framework thus a smaller scope of techniques. That can be good or bad depending on how you want to look at it. The smaller the framework the less you have to practice and over time doing the same thing you get better and better at it. The most involved systems like most Kung Fu Styles, will offer more striking, blocking and kicking techniques, grappling, ground fighting, weapons, more stances and leg maneuvers/ footwork, coupled with extensive body conditioning, So it takes longer for all things to fall into place and gain higher levels of proficiency. Now I have had students who only studied a couple of months that were able to use something that they had learned to defend themselves with in an altercation. I would not consider them to have any level of proficiency at all, but the fact that they didn't just stand there and do nothing, I guess was a good sign, they reacted and something came out that was effective. Mastery of all facets of the art comes with many years of dedication and hard work, figure 18-22 years for highest levels of proficiency. There is much to be said for basic level martial arts like Karate, Judo, Jujitsu, etc...as they don't take a lifetime to learn and gain some level of skill. But it has been my experience that those who study limited framework systems, end up with few effective tools to get the job done once they are pitted against someone who has a higher level of proficiency in whatever they have learned. Point is, 3-5 years in Kung Fu is not a long time of study..students might have to spend a year or more just getting an understanding of the basics, they are just beginning to realize the potential of the system and how to put things together to make them work. By 8 years they have a really good handle and things become more instinctual rather than by the numbers or having to think about what they are doing....At that time it just come out so to say. Now the system I teach has 1,500 blocks and strikes, 45 different individual stances which all bridge together, ground fighting. grappling and the list goes on and one...Quite extensive when comparing it to basic level systems that have 5-10 different hand blocks and strikes and three stances.....A Kia and Rolls Royce are both cars, and they may get you to where you want to go....but there is no denying, there is a different level in the comfort of the ride.....Doc :D

[flipe8]

Now the system I teach has 1,500 blocks and strikes, 45 different individual stances which all bridge together, ground fighting. grappling and the list goes on and one...Quite extensive when comparing it to basic level systems that have 5-10 different hand blocks and strikes and three stances.....A Kia and Rolls Royce are both cars, and they may get you to where you want to go....but there is no denying, there is a different level in the comfort of the ride.....Doc :D

That's an interesting way to look at it, but if I might add that I wonder what would you be inclined to rely on when the chips are down? From the way I see it, everyone goes back to the most basic, primal , hard-wired techniques when real risk faces them. In kayaking, for example, there are many ways to roll a kayak, but many refer to "combat rolls" as the one you rely on when you really have to get back upright. Fancier techniques are great for skill building, but getting caught on an eddy line is no place to try the most recent thing you've been working on in a sheltered inlet. I view the same mindset in martial arts. You yourself stated earlier how high kicks are really nothing more than a tool for lower kick power. So I wonders how many of the techniques you teach aren't just to help the base-line techniques you'd be hard-wired to use?

Another way I see it is how you referred to more basic styles are just that, more basic. But, I don't see that as a bad thing. I mean, my head instructor has been training over forty years now and there is no doubt how solid he is with his years of training doing the same "basic" techniques. It's all in what you're looking for, I suppose. I personally prefer the fairly rigid mindset of traditional Japanese styles , even if they are "basic"

[salimoneus]

I've had martial arts training, and frankly have never had a reason to use it. There are so many alternatives to violence that very rarely should it be necessary. Unless you continuously put yourself in a position where a violent encounter is likely to happen. Some people with training take jobs as bouncers, security, and other professions for the sole purpose of having the opportunity to beat on someone, which is unfortunate. You see these guys are right on the edge just waiting for a chance to pounce.

I'm not saying that anyone with advanced training of some sort is always out looking for a fight (although some absolutely do, I personally know several), but it's certainly not pure coincidence that many people with combat skills seem to find themselves in some sort of encounter time and time again, while most everyone else has little problem avoiding confrontations.

[2cha]

I'm not saying that anyone with advanced training of some sort is always out looking for a fight (although some absolutely do, I personally know several), but it's certainly not pure coincidence that many people with combat skills seem to find themselves in some sort of encounter time and time again, while most everyone else has little problem avoiding confrontations.

That's strange. My experience is just the opposite, people who with real skills don't tend to get in altercations probably for the same reason that people who legally carry firearms don't--they aren't (as) scared so they find alternatives to violence, and because they have been taught that obligations come with the weapon/art. From my experience it seems like there are some inherently more violent people who get a little training in order to feel more bad-***, but that these folks don't have the temperament to stick it out with long term training.

I was witness/minor participant in a case such as you describe. Several "strangers" came into a *tough" local bar I frequented. They started a fight with locals that went out to the parking lot. The strangers started to beat the crap out of everone until one of the locals shot one of the strangers in the leg with a .44. The wounded stranger died in minutes due to blood loss from femoral artery. Police investigation, exonerating my friend, the shooter, turned up that the strangers were professional stunt men in town for a movie shoot, that they were martial arts experts, and that they were "straight edge" fighters--people who don't drink or use drugs, but who have a history of starting fights with people who do, like a leisure activity.

Anecdote aside, I still think that people who've dedicated themselves to a martial art (other than american wrestling) are much less likely to start an altercation than average.

[salimoneus]

That's strange. My experience is just the opposite, people who with real skills don't tend to get in altercations probably for the same reason that people who legally carry firearms don't--they aren't (as) scared so they find alternatives to violence, and because they have been taught that obligations come with the weapon/art. From my experience it seems like there are some inherently more violent people who get a little training in order to feel more bad-***, but that these folks don't have the temperament to stick it out with long term training.

I was witness/minor participant in a case such as you describe. Several "strangers" came into a *tough" local bar I frequented. They started a fight with locals that went out to the parking lot. The strangers started to beat the crap out of everone until one of the locals shot one of the strangers in the leg with a .44. The wounded stranger died in minutes due to blood loss from femoral artery. Police investigation, exonerating my friend, the shooter, turned up that the strangers were professional stunt men in town for a movie shoot, that they were martial arts experts, and that they were "straight edge" fighters--people who don't drink or use drugs, but who have a history of starting fights with people who do, like a leisure activity.

Anecdote aside, I still think that people who've dedicated themselves to a martial art (other than american wrestling) are much less likely to start an altercation than average.

I don't really see a correlation between a concealed carry citizen, and a dedicated martial artist. Most that carry are not combat specialists, they do not have the same mentality as a fighter. Completely different things. There are very few irresponsible concealed carry gun owners, as you must have a clean record and take at least some sort of a safety course. If you do something stupid you lose our license. You surely can't say the same about any random fighter on the street? In fact many of the kids in training actually have violent pasts and have some sort of record. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's great that they have found a passion and something to dedicate themselves to, but it makes it clear to me that there's really very little in common between fighters and concealed carry permit holders.

I lived in Vegas for over a year, where a good number of pro fighters live and train. The well known/paid guys of course were smart enough to stay out of trouble for fear of risking their careers, and if not they usually had someone nearby to make sure of it. But a good number of the training scrubs and gym rats/wannabes showed much less restraint.

But you make a great point, all the MMA training in the world won't mean squat when faced with a loaded handgun. I guess if one lives in an anti-gun state it's not as much of a concern, but in many other states there are more and more people walking around strapped, which IMO is a good thing.


.

[Blerv]

Most the people I know with training have avoided fights too. Funny as for instruction I always look for people with tangible experience. Hypocritical or not if feels like you're getting a higher quality product.

I think most bouncers are just big poorly trained thugs. For those with real training and a sharp mind it's a great occupation considering the previously mentioned competition :) . Military folks often go into security once they leave the armed forces, not for the chance of shooting a gun but for the cash.

As for professional fighters and CWP's it reminds me of a drunken bar fight by Mayhem Miller who was later charged with assault with a deadly weapon (himself). Yea, it happens, lol. I know the tendency society has towards guns being the "I win" button but most trained shooters under duress get very inaccurate, even within almost point blank range. Then there are the stories of taking multiple bullets/stabs and keep going.

There isn't really proven solution but quite a few typical wrong ones. Avoidance when used is always successful. The rest comes down to the system of the jungle we aren't used too. Size, speed, strength, tools, and some luck.

As for the comment on Kempo, I would find a great teacher with impressive students. I'm sure there are some out there but with my limited training (mostly karate an TKD) I would avoid the sport arts. They spend more time on what looks impressive and less on movement, structure, breathing, and internal stuff the chinese/FMA/Russian arts get right. They don't apply the training to contact like the boxing arts either. I know Kempo is different than the average McDojo in theory and application but the tree it branches from leaves mixed results.

As this thread indicated there is a ton you can do while staying on your feet. Being able to hit really hard without falling over is a great start .

[tonydahose]

But you make a great point, all the MMA training in the world won't mean squat when faced with a loaded handgun. I guess if one lives in an anti-gun state it's not as much of a concern, but in many other states there are more and more people walking around strapped, which IMO is a good thing.


.

that reminded me of a video we saw in the police academy. it was from the secruity camera in a 5 and dime store. some young skinny kid bumped into a rather large muscular man. words were said between the two. the large guy had been a real good local boxer and he decided to teach the kid a lesson. as he took off his jacket the young kid pulled out a gun and shot him in the head and killed the boxer, then the kid walked out the door.

[salimoneus]

As for the comment on Kempo, I would find a great teacher with impressive students. I'm sure there are some out there but with my limited training (mostly karate an TKD) I would avoid the sport arts. They spend more time on what looks impressive and less on movement, structure, breathing, and internal stuff the chinese/FMA/Russian arts get right. They don't apply the training to contact like the boxing arts either. I know Kempo is different than the average McDojo in theory and application but the tree it branches from leaves mixed results.

If I was going to recommend a discipline to someone looking for street-usable skills as well as for training and in the ring, Muay Thai would be at the top of the list. The Muay Thai skill set translates very well to personal defense/combat situations, and much damage can be done from a standing position in short order.

[Blerv]

If I was going to recommend a discipline to someone looking for street-usable skills as well as for training and in the ring, Muay Thai would be at the top of the list. The Muay Thai skill set translates very well to personal defense/combat situations, and much damage can be done from a standing position in short order.

Same here. At least for those looking for minimum time to maximum results. Any art can be a lifetime pursuit.

Like all arts finding the right teacher is a must. There are plenty of "defense based" Muay Thai teachers out there for the reason you mentioned.

I've trained a little with a guy with an extensive FMA background and mainly mixes his Muay Boran with Zui Quan (drunken fist) principles. A less flashy and rather "end it quick" mentality.

No intent to discount guns,knives, etc for personal defense. It's just been shocking to see deadblow hammer equivalent loose/heavy strikes move so quickly. You don't necessarily have to be built like a brick house either.

..the large guy had been a real good local boxer and he decided to teach the kid a lesson. as he took off his jacket ...

But that always works in fight movies like Roadhouse! :p Taking precious seconds to intimidate someone by removing clothing (and tying up your arms) is pretty stupid. It's not as stupid as the reaction from the punk but the jacket wouldn't have slowed him down much.

[Dr. Snubnose]

That's an interesting way to look at it, but if I might add that I wonder what would you be inclined to rely on when the chips are down? From the way I see it, everyone goes back to the most basic, primal , hard-wired techniques when real risk faces them. In kayaking, for example, there are many ways to roll a kayak, but many refer to "combat rolls" as the one you rely on when you really have to get back upright. Fancier techniques are great for skill building, but getting caught on an eddy line is no place to try the most recent thing you've been working on in a sheltered inlet. I view the same mindset in martial arts. You yourself stated earlier how high kicks are really nothing more than a tool for lower kick power. So I wonders how many of the techniques you teach aren't just to help the base-line techniques you'd be hard-wired to use?

Another way I see it is how you referred to more basic styles are just that, more basic. But, I don't see that as a bad thing. I mean, my head instructor has been training over forty years now and there is no doubt how solid he is with his years of training doing the same "basic" techniques. It's all in what you're looking for, I suppose. I personally prefer the fairly rigid mindset of traditional Japanese styles , even if they are "basic"

First you must understand the concept that the most dangerous martial artists in the world are the masters and the white belts, this is because both are not limited in technique, the white because he doesn't know that the technique he just attempted would get his head handed to him by a more experienced player, so he is willing to take more risks as he doesn't know what he is not posed to do. Sometimes in schools you can observe white belts who seemed to be beating up the black belts. As the white belt learns more about what not to do, his skills start to become more limited till he reaches higher levels of proficiency. The Master has this same level of being unlimited, but has the skills to back it up. It is the basic difference between the skilled and unskilled.
Secondly, when I practice for myself, each night from 10pm to 2 am, I spend most of my time practicing foundation material...often students will ask my wife what I am practicing on my own time in the wee hours of the morning expecting to here some tales of secret techniques the, when she tells them that I mostly practice the same stuff I teach to beginners, they have a tendency not to believe her, but it's the truth.You must have a strong foundation. But I also have an extensive amount of other material to rely upon and bridge with that foundation....If all you have is a limited foundation of limited technique then that's all you have, sometimes it will work for you in a real fight, and sometimes not. Now Lets say for example you were to throw 100 punches at my head, what you will see me do is 100 different techniques. The reason is you can't throw that exact same punch at that exact same angle at me again, (like trying to draw a line on top of another exactly, it just can't be done.) So I will deal with each and every blow differently as each and every blow will come at a different angle. If I only have a limited framework, then I have to make that framework, work for me in every different situation that presents itself and the ever changing environment of combat, and that my friend seems to be more of a difficult task to accomplish when you have only a limited amount of technique no matter how good you think you are at applying them.....It's kinda like looking for that one good technique that will take someone out of the fight fast, and then practicing that one technique till you get really good at it and then you be well protected...unfortunately it just doesn't work that way..... Doc :D

[chuck_roxas45]

I guess it's the same thing in shooting doc. You study form to go beyond form, if I'm not mistaken.

[Dr. Snubnose]

[quote="chuck_roxas45"]I guess it's the same thing in shooting doc. You study form to go beyond form, if I'm not mistaken.[/QUOTE

Exactly....Doc :D

[Jimd]

I've been in a few scrapes in my time. Almost ever single one of them while on duty in the prison.

Been on the ground for a good many of them. Truth be told, "All" fights do not go to the ground. Some do, some don't.

One of the advantages of my taking a bad guy to the ground is that many of them can't fight very well when they get there. At least not as well as I can (not that I'm anything special, LOL!). It often takes away the nasty person's ability to deliver hard blows.

The step itself of helping Mr. Bad Person to the ground can be the very fight-ending move that I'm looking for, as well, depending on how fast the ground comes up and smacks him in the head.

As has already been pointed out, you have to be careful going to the ground because Mr. Bad Person's friends might come up and promptly deliver a shoe-job to your head. We actually trained to pull the bad guy over top of us (while subueing him) as cover against hostile blows from others.

Like everything else, it has its good and bad points. I believe the most important thing (with any technique, weapon, or philosophy) is to be flexible with it. Don't try to apply it 100% of the time.