When the Fight Goes to the Ground - Lori O'Connell

Скачать книгу

interested in self-protection to realize its place in an overall defensive strategy.

      Statistics on Ground Fighting

      If you have any interest in the martial arts or self-defense, you have probably heard the often quoted “statistic” that 80-90 percent of physical altercations end up on the ground. I, myself, heard this statistic quoted often enough throughout the entirety of my 20+ year career in the martial arts. Not once did I ever hear the source of said statistic. It was simply “common knowledge” that everyone accepted as fact.

      There are two legitimate sources that I am aware of that have presented statistics on this topic. One of them is the ASLET (American Society of Law Enforcement Training) pamphlet used from their July 1997 Use of Force Training Seminar. The seminar was presented in Los Angeles by Sergeant Greg Dossey, Sergeant John Sommers, and Officer Steve Uhrig of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). This document included a description of the study and methodology used in examining Use of Force incidents by the LAPD. In 1991, Sergeant Dossey completed a comparative study of use of force incidents reported by the LAPD for the year of 1988. He looked at all 5,617 use of force incident narratives written by officers for that year, and devised a method for codifying the information contained and analyzing it for what they identified as dominant altercation patterns. The study was replicated in 1992 by the LAPD’s Training Review committee.

      One of the main conclusions of the report was that “Nearly two thirds of the 1988 altercations (62%) ended with the officer and subject on the ground with the officer applying a joint lock and handcuffing the subject.” After this report was published, the LAPD instituted a program that included training in ground control skills, which were based on modern judo and jiu-jitsu grappling skills specially adapted for law enforcement.

      Respondents were asked whether an attacker had ever attempted to take them to the ground by force. Fifty percent reported this had occurred to them. Of that number, 60% reported that their attackers had been successful in doing so. Most of the attackers were reported as having been under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

      There were other statistics of note in this same study with regard to assault patterns. In 33% of these cases, the attacker pulled the officer to the ground. In 28% of the cases the attacker pushed them to the ground. In 24% of them, the attacker tackled them. And in 15% of cases, the officer was kicked and punched to the ground.

      Once the officer was down, 64% of the time the attacker continued to assault the officer that was taken down. In 31% of cases, the subject fled. And in 5% of cases the subject waited for the officer to get back to their feet to continue the fight. When it came to the ground fights, 77% of subjects that continued to fight used grappling and pinning techniques, 66% used strikes, and 21% of them attempted to disarm the officer, with 5% being successful.

      As with any statistical information, this must all be kept in context. We must remember that in both of the reports from which the above statistics came, the primary subjects being examined were police officers. In the case of the LAPD report, we must remember that police officers are more likely to willingly go to the ground in order to gain control over their suspect so they could make an arrest. In many of these cases, the officer is likely to have had a partner on scene for back-up, making it safer to do so. The results from the Calibre Press/PPCT Management Systems research project are a little more telling in that they reveal assault patterns for scenarios in which police officers were under attack. These statistics are likely more indicative of the assault patterns a civilian would experience, but of course there is no way to know for sure.

      What we can take away from these statistics is that a significant proportion of fights do indeed end up on the ground, even if it is not likely as high as 80-90%. This, however, does not mean that you would want to willingly go to the ground when you have the choice not to, even if you do have a strong base of ground fighting skills. In most street defense situations, the ground is a dangerous place and the last place you want to be if your goal is self-protection and preservation. Unfortunately, you don’t necessarily have the option of picking and choosing the type of physical conflict that you get to deal with. You may be forcefully taken down or knocked down with a strike. You might be attacked when you are already on the ground. Or you may trip and fall in the middle of a standing altercation.

      Whatever way you end up there, the ground is a very different type of defensive situation than a stand-up conflict. The skills you have developed for stand-up defense do not necessarily translate to the ground. If your goal in martial arts training is self-protection, it is important to learn skills for defending yourself specifically for this context.

      Ground Fighting: Competition vs. Self-Protection

      These days when people talk about ground fighting, most often they think of Brazilian Jiu-jitsu (BJJ), as created by the Gracie family. There is no doubt that modern BJJ is one of the most proficient ground grappling systems in the sporting arena. It has become synonymous with the “ground game” of mixed martial arts (MMA). The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) itself was created by the Gracies with the goal of making it a proving ground for their style. In the early days, before people knew what to expect from BJJ, it reigned supreme in these competitions in which different martial arts styles were pitted against each other. Because of this, many people believe that learning to defend one’s self on the ground means learning BJJ. It is not as simple as that, however.

      In any form of competition, there are rules. This is true even for competitions that try to simulate a real fight like the early UFC contests. Rules are put in place for a variety of reasons; for the competitors’ safety, to keep the competition true to a particular style of martial art, to make the fight more exciting for spectators, etc. On the street, in a real attack scenario, there are no rules or referees limiting your attacker’s or your actions. There is no control over the size or gender of the opponent you must face. There are no special rewards for achieving certain positions or using fancy moves, and people are not likely to let you go if you “tap out.” An attacker can and will fight “dirty,” and can do anything to get the advantage, whether it means biting, eye gouging, groin attacks, scratching, hair pulling, pinching, or using some sort of weapon.

      “There are no rules, only results.”

       —Professor Georges Sylvain, Founder of Can-ryu Jiu-jitsu

      While BJJ may have started out as a self-protection oriented martial art back in the 1920s, it has proliferated in North America as a sport. As a result, the vast majority of BJJ dojos are teaching the style in the context of the submission grappling and MMA as sports. When students train, they usually do so under the confines of the same rules that govern the competitions associated with the style. This means that they don’t necessarily learn tactics and skills that are outside of the rules; ones that can help them get the advantage in a street context. Nor do they necessarily learn to protect against someone using such tactics and skills.

      Moreover, the goals are quite different in a competitive context as compared to a street context. In competition oriented training, you apply your skills with the goal of earning points, knocking the other person out, or submitting them. In a street context, if your goal is self-protection and self-preservation, you use your skills to stop an attacker by disabling them or hurting them badly enough to make them stop, creating an opportunity for you to escape. Competition rewards engagement. In a street context, however, disengagement, when it can be safely accomplished, is the goal.

      That is not to say that sport BJJ or any other form of sport grappling has no place in self-protection.

Скачать книгу