http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20011015220606.01583.00000098%40mb-mj.aol.com Subject: Re: Multiple opponents scenario Date: 16 Oct 2001 02:06:06 GMT From: robrpm2222@aol.comInternet (RobRPM2222) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts >Well, I guess I'll just have to keep my eyes open. :P are you talking about the X% of fights go to the ground statistic? Well, here's what I've heard, and posted a while back, which is namely that those statisistics come from LAPD officer arrest records, and that somewhere between 90% to 95% of fights where the subject(s) resisted arrest went to the ground. Rorian Gracie was the person to first publicize those statistics to promote groundfighting, and since Rorian was very much buddy-buddy with the LAPD, I have no reason to doubt this. What Rorian didn't say, however, is that the police were trained to take a subject to the ground during an arrest, being that it is easier to restrain a person there with fewer injuries to the subject being restrained ( important in our lawsuit culture. ) Since there are more police officers than opponents in most cases, this is a viable tactic a large percentage of the time. Despite the misuse of statistics, what Rorian implied was correct, namely that fights often went to the ground whether the opponents wanted it to or not. -- Rob Meyer | As Voltaire once said- Kempo-Jujitsu, Sombo, | " Witty quotes mean nothing." Goshinbudo Jujitsu ( MMA ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=B5B5D255.D71%25jls%40jps.ne From: Jason Lawrence Stauff (jls@jps.net) Subject: Law enforcement: where "most fights go to the ground" may have begun. Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts View: (This is the only article in this thread) | Original Format Date: 2000/08/08 Hello, I was reading a law enforcement self defense book called Law enforcement: reasonable force options. It was written by Rod Sanford. In this book he said that, based on an L.A.P.D. study by Sergeant Greg Dossey, 62% of officer involved altercations ended up with the two parties grappling on the ground. I am attending a P.O.S.T. academy in California now. This is the basic academy that California requires in order to become a peace officer. I am very, very upset that there is no ground fighting taught in the academy. I have taken it upon myself to teach some other interested recruits a little grappling. I have found more than a little resistance from the self defense instructors and others in the academy staff. I took a strong stance when they tried to dissuade me from teaching the grappling. After I got a cautious okay to start teaching I only had two willing students. After the first class I now have about fifteen who want to be in the next class (this Sunday). Opening their eyes to ground fighting has actually made them scared of their own ineptness on the ground. I am left with just one question: why is there so much resistance against just learning some ground fighting skills and California P.O.S.T. academies? Regards, Jason ================================================== http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fights+%22go+to+the+ground%22+lapd&hl=en&rnum=7&selm=37E006FD.497376FB%40healtheon.com From: Damon Stone (damon@healtheon.com) Subject: Re: ufc is real-life combat. Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts View: Complete Thread (78 articles) | Original Format Date: 1999/09/15 Jerry Love wrote: > > > >In a match geared (at least somewhat) toward grapplers > > > > Like hell it is. > > Soft floor, one-on-one, nothing on the floor, no weapons, no walls, no > eye-goughes, groin shots, tearing, biting...... Speaking from experience right Jerry? I mean you have actually been INSIDE of one of SEG's regulation octagons to speak about it right? The floor is soft in comparison to concrete, but isn't any softer than a number of surfaces you may find yourself fighting on such as a field of grass or the like. Nothing on the floor... Well in all honesty my city is pretty clean there isn't much on the city street or sidewalks that stays there long. No walls... no but the fenced cage does a good job of restricting movement and getting thrown into it or pressed against it hurts. As anyone who has fought in one should know... Eye gouging, groin shots, tearing and biting... got news for you Jerry, a grappler has access to these exact same tactics as a striker and considering all require you to be reasonably close if he has you on the ground he will be in a FAR better place from which to use these techniques than you are. > > >in the birthplace of > > >a grappling art, in a competition full of grapplers, many fights go to the > > >ground? I am not suprised. > > > > One dimensional strikers dont enter anymore,cause they all got the shit kicked > > out of em. > > See previous entry. Which was that? That grapplers who train against strikers could takedown and beat strikers who never trained against grapplers and relied on "anti-grappling" techniques that worked when used against their karateka/kung-fu/silat training partners? Well then you are right. If it was the bit about the enviroment favoring grapplers, how about you wait until you have actually been inside of one before you pass judgement on something you have no experience in. > > >So you are saying there is no actual study to validate a claim the 95% of > > >fights end up with both fighters on the ground? > > > > i'M SURE THERE ARE STUDIES,BUT I ONLY CARE ABOUT MINE,AND IN MINE,MORE THAN 95% > > GO DOWN(GENERATED THROUGH WATCHING VALE TUDO) > > Strike a nerve? You complain when I don't have video-tape and you don't even > have literature. Actually a number of reports about it have been cited. Contact the FBI or LAPD for their reports on crime statistics. The original reports used were from 89-91 I believe but any year should be able to provide you with the general statistics. If you want to attack this point you are going about it wrong. The stats are there, what you should be arguing is whether any of the participants were trained fighters when the fight went to the ground. If they were was either or both of them trained as grapplers/groundfighters. If the combatants were average Joe's and Jane's then the data becomes questionable. Also you should inquire whether this includes altercations were one of the principles was a member of law enforcement. If so then a number of their "fights" go to the ground since they are attempting to restrain someone versus beat the piss out of them (though with the LAPD that may not always be true ;). > I take the possability of ending up on the ground very seriously. How > seriously do you take the possability of your opponent NOT ending up there? Me personally I treat both very seriousely. I train in maintaing my feet and being able to escape from the ground if I find myself there and fight from the ground if returning to my feet is not a viable option at the time. I also train on how to execute throws and takedowns that either leave me still standing or place me in a controling place on the ground where I may strike as I return to my feet. Mobility is key to survival in a fight. > I take one-on-one fights very seriously, but you seem to ignore the > possability of multiple attackers. I don't but being able to fight effectively on the ground is VERY important against multiple attackers. One on one you have the freedom to focus a lot of your attention on one person and resist any takedowns or other influences (enviroemnt, plain bad luck) that may put you on the ground. Against multiple assailants you must divide your attention and this increases the chances that you may find yourself on the ground. A grappler is NOT a groundfighter necessarily. I can grapple extremely effectively from a standing position, and use oneof my opponents as a shield and even a weapon if need be from other attackers. I can use pain and threat of injury/death to aid me in my escape. Grappling will allow me to neutralize a non-grappler and still allow me to use striking skills which for some may be rudimentary but in my case are probably my best asset. > I take unarmed fights very seriously, but you seem to pay little heed to the > effect of armed conflict on your fighting style. Whereas I am always aware of the potential for any conflict to esculate to the point of weapons and generally expect it to do so. Better safe than sorry. If your opponent has a weapon I have found it safer to either avoid them completely or control the hand with the weapon. I'm either going to take the first oppurtunity to bail or the first chance to close and control. What I won't do is stay on the outside and hope to strike at an armed attacker in hopes of getting the KO or a maiming or killing blow. If I can control the weapon it is MUCH less of a threat and by controling the weapon I control him allowing for any strikes I use to be that much more effective. dms ========================================================= http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/02/police.misconduct/index.html Study by police chiefs: Cops rarely use force [Police trainibg] Los Angeles Police must take an arrest-and-control training course every 18 months May 2, 1998 Web posted at: 10:54 p.m. EDT (0254 GMT) LOS ANGELES (CNN)--A nationwide study of police departments shows that police rarely use force in their interaction with citizens, according to a report released Saturday by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. [vxtreme] CNN's Ji...
TheRedHood