Started this as a response on another thread but decided it would be best as a new topic.

I would like to point out that in a real altercation, having the intention of avoiding the ground and actually avoiding it are two completely different things. Going to the ground is often more a function of the cirumstances and the environment of the attack.

As a police officer, I have taken to doing an informal survey when I respond to fight calls, domestic violence, etc. Physical altercations not involving police (we tend to take people to the ground and control them there more often.)

Roughly 1/3 of the people I talk to note that at some point during the altercations they were involved in, one or both parties were "on the ground." I place this in quotes because very often, inside homes, etc. this may mean that they are fighting on a bed, on a couch, etc. Common Domestic Violence patterns involve one person forced on a bed with another straddling them, choking them. Similar things occur with couches and fights (not always domestic) that start with one person sitting down or reclining and someone doing violence to them there.

Responding to these kinds of things would involve fighting while seated or laying down. The principles are the same as in ground fighting.

Often, fights go to the ground but do not stay there because neither person has any skill there. They are primarily flailing away at each other, and unless one maintains his attacking pressure, they separate and stand back up. This rarely occurs when one or the other presses the attack and/or has some kind of wrestling skill. Then one person gets hammered while the other guy moves freely.

Multiple attackers almost always go to the ground if they last more than a few seconds and the attack is a committed one. The famous "boot party" is notably frequently fatal for the guy on the ground - or I should say the guy who goes to the ground and doesn't know how to fight from there or get up quickly.

Which kind of makes you wonder at the oft-repeated statement "I avoid the ground because of multiple opponents." In reality, if you are attacked by multiple committed persons you are more likely to end up on the ground in a real fight.

All this being said, there is *NO* better training method for avoiding the ground, and getting up quickly from the ground, than having the ability to move freely when on the ground. The more you can maximize your positional advantage during a takedown (i.e. a sprawl, or maintaining a superior position while the other guy tries to tangle you up and drag you down) are most trained in wrestling, Judo, and BJJ - arts that have a significant ground component and train against actual takedown and control attempts.

If you actually are taken down and controlled, the best way to maximize your ability to prevent being dominated, and to escape before the boot party begins, is to be VERY comfortable fighting from the ground.

Due to the heightened danger of a real fight that goes to the ground, it behooves anyone interested in all around self defense to commit at LEAST a third and maybe closer to half, (due precisely to the level of danger and because it is a different skill set than when on two feet) of training to an effective groundfighting method that trains against resistance.

Note that "grappling" with buddies when no one knows how to actually grapple correctly is not groundfighting training - ignore the taekwondo, kung fu, and karate articles and instructionals that teach "how to beat a grappler." Just glancing at these things reveals to a trained grappler that these folks typically have no idea what they are talking about - based on their postures and their chosen "defenses" against shoots, control positions on the ground, etc. They would be better titled "How to Beat a Grappler that Doesn't Know How to Grapple."

Get to a BJJ or Judo school or wrestling club and learn there. You will find it remarkably easy to control non-grapplers, even bigger and stronger people, after only six months or so. You will find that your own striking or weapons based art blends very well with basic defensive grappling moves. If you want to go further you can train grappling with practice weapons, etc. to expose the weaknesses of the grappling art that the striking or weapons art might exploit in the "real thing."

Simply put, if you want to be effective against grapplers, learn to grapple. Guys like Chuck Lidell are able to use their striking art to control distance, prevent being taken down, and escape from bad positions on the ground because he IS ALSO A WRESTLER. He is a good enough wrestler to allow him to keep the fight where he is at his most devastating. The exact same thing is true of real encounters.

Thanks Tactical Grappler,

I hope everyone is paying attention.

They will be safer for it!

Thanks, Tim.

Yes!

Great words. This could save some "martial artist's" life one day.

Thanks.

The Chuck Liddell example is a great one. People forget he is a former NCAA wrestler, who spent the majority of his fighting life on the mat.

I'd like to also add the importance of the "clinch".

Knowing how to swim for underhooks, whizzer, over and under, collar and elbow, double inside bicep, Muay Thai neck lock and 2 on 1 ones are another aspect of grappling, but it's on the feet.

I have frustrated many "ground experts" because they can't get beyond the clinch for their ground strategy.

And "attached" striking is a lot more efficient than "unattached" striking.

I highly recommend greco training and Shuai Chiao, along with the Judo. For there not as much dependence on the cloth.

I've always said that a BJJ expert's worse nightmare is a wrestler that is also a good boxer.

But the modern BJJ fighters are now learning wrestling. That is a nightmare for all!!!

Backarcher-

Great points. The clinch is a crucial point in real world altercations. One could argue that the better you are at the clinch, the less likely you will end up on the ground as well. I know you are a proponent of ISR Matrix and I think their approach looks great. This is especially true when weapons are involved.

Now, this may run counter to what a lot of people might think are the primary concerns of self defense - the same thing taught to police officers in defensive tactics - maintaining reactionary gap, keeping the gun side back, not letting suspects get close, etc.

Unfortunately this is not reality. The only time you see this kind of behavior is in a) staged training and b) when no physical confrontation actually develops.

In other words you can only use these tactics when you are aware of the threat before it happens and the other guy chooses not to close. In real terms - cops will use their batons, or Tasers, or bean bags, or sick a dog on the guy, or what have you. In self defense - you have the time and room to leave at this range.

Combat in earnest - those that involve highly committed, pain resistant attackers, typically start with the bad guy being cooperative and luring the officer in. You lay on hands for cuffing, and BAM the fight is on at "kissing distance" and before you know it his hand is on your gun. Or, for both police and civilians, the altercation starts as an ambush or surprise attack. Where is your gap? Your "gun side back" stance? You try to make distance and he stays on you like stink on poop!! What then?

With the dynamics and pressure that occur in these kinds of encounters, coupled with the usually cluttered terrain or environment, if you do not effectively control the clinch you will usually end up going down.

Many misconstrue this and think it to mean overpowering, outmuscling and outwrestling the bad guy. Not at all.

Proper clinch is all about position and mobility. The less he controls you the more mobile you are - to maintain your balance and put him off balance, get to his back, to get to an angle and push him away to access weapons, or to get him down with you in a superior position. As well, with proper weapons awareness in mind, the better you control the clinch the better you are able to control his access to a) your weapons b) his weapons and c) the ability to use either against you.

Its much more about being highly sensitive to his pressure, where is hands are, and in what way he can make best use of his hands, and what you need to do to get away from or shut down those same angles/options. Done right, it can be done deftly and without needing to outmuscle someone. Done right, the man is down on the ground before he can mount an offense, or you are at his back with a weapon in hand and able to respond with higher force.

Many systems technically practice at "clinch range," but if they do not practice it against live resistance, they aren't working against a real clinch. Likewise, for self defense purposes in the armed environment, clinching needs to be practiced "live" while armed (with training weapons) to learn weapons awareness and what methods are better for protecting any weapons you may carry.

Bringing striking in, more traditional methods as well as alternative skills and "odd angle" striking only ices the cake. And as you say, practicing both with and without clothing is important to practice the gamut of responses (training only against a gi will mean for a rude awakening when you try to control someone's arms who is all sweaty, or bloody, and not wearing a shirt or jacket.)

There is almost a universal fear of being that close to someone who is trying to hurt you, or worse. So for most arts and training they simply pretend it won't happen and spend all their time at striking distance and taking people down with wrist controls and unresisted head takedowns. Doesn't quite work that way when you are dealing with a real fighter.

I wonder if Painter's student No Lems is reading this. (I'm sure he wont respond to keep us convinced he's really 'giving up' on this rediculous board).

Bob#2

TACTICAL,

I hope you don't mind, but I'm printing this and giving it to the LEO training group I work with. Great work.

Our LEO training focal "physical" combative component is the "clinch". Control is the key and learning to be "sensitive and aware" in there. You can only do that by training with a live resisting body.

Backarcher, I know this sounds loaded, but from your personal experience do you feel that greco-roman wrestling may have an edge on the other grappling arts in some ways?

Also, how different is it from "catch" wrestling? I noticed some people on this board seem to have a low opinion of Matt Furey (although that doesn't necessarily prove anything).

I would like to offer praise for Tactical Grappler and Backarcher. That is some of the best stuff from any forum that I have read.

Really, quite frankly that knowledge and understanding is true wisdom and brilliance, and I hope that you continue to progress and write your experiences down here. I know that I could learn a lot and probably a few others here could too.

Thank you very much.

Backarcher-

I'd be honored. Double check for spelling and edit for ease of reading as you see fit.

I should note that I have never wrestled (though I have grappled with a lot of wrestlers). I have done judo and jujitsu, and I think when you start working on grip fighting, with the gi and "no-gi," and you are mainly concerned about where the guy's hands are, a lot of the same strategies start to come out - especially when your opponent is trying to do the same to you!

Thanks a lot guys!

Tactical, once again you've struck gold!

"Grip Fighting" and "Hand fighting"!

These are two of the most ignored aspect of "in fighting and clinch work".

You learn it in a good judo class and any greco training. But some people forget that good BJJ fighters have excellent hand fighting strategies also, for the guard is just another form of the clinch.

Free and Folkstyle wrestlers have excellent hand control on the mat, but the problem is Free and Folkstyle wrestling takes place mainly in the "middle plane". That is they learn to wrestle in a crouched position. I was watching RPW (Real Pro Wrestling) and I was thinking that I could never take those guys down. They were crouching so low they could touch the mat.

In a "real world" situation or in MMA, that is an invitation for a knee in your face. Many former Free/Folkstyle wrestlers and some BJJ blackbelts have been knockout in this posture. Ralph and Royler were the most recent victims and years ago Trigg kOED one of the Machado brothers while he was in this posture. However most of the older BJJ blackbelts from Brazil started out in Judo and they can adapt to a more upright posture easily.

Greco teaches you to keep your head up and chest out. Greco isn't about dramatic throws, but hand and upper body control.

Most of the successful wrestlers in MMA come from a Greco background. If you add boxing to those greco skills...wow! and then BJJ...mercy!

I've met really good Free/Folkstyle wrestlers who knew very little about the clinch, for their tactics were more focused on the double, single, high crotch. All lower plane tactics. In a real fight, the "gap" closes too quickly at times. There is no room for dancing around or establishing a "rooted" stance. There's usually a sucker punch and then a clinch.

Watch any boxing match and count how many times the clinch happens in just one 3 minute round. I counted 17 times in a recent bout. But the ref breaks it up. In the real world there is no ref to break the clinch up.

Even watch "Jerry Springer" and see how most "immediately" go to the clinch in there ridiculous fights.

I refer to "handfighting" in the clinch as "functional trapping". Believe it or not, but a good resource for developing clinch attributes is a good Tai Chi and push-hands class. Attributes...not tactics!

All you need is a little instruction and someone to "play" with.

I forgot to add to the list of clinch tactics, the head snap and the front-headlock. Every stand up fighter needs good front-headlock tactics to defend against the grappler who shoots for the legs.

Catchwrestling is not about the "clinch". Is more submission and control focused. Yet, the foundation of any Catchwrestler should be "pure wrestling". There's no "Catch" without it.

Matt Furey isn't the best resource for "Catch", but the guy(as over priced and poorly produced he is) is a good resource for the clinch, like it or not.

www.championshipproductions.com has great products, as well as Randy Couture and Dan Henderson of Team Quest, Matt Thorton, Karo, Greg Nelson for a more Muay Thai clinch and Scott Sonnon has good clinch basics in his "Fisticuffs" series.

I'm older now. My reflexes are not what they once were. I don't have a lot of time to train. So, I focus my training mainly in the "clinch". Why?

If I fight a good striker, I can negate his superior striking skills and attributes by smothering him in the clinch. If I face a good groundfighter, I can deny his takedowns with a superior clinch and force him to strike with me.

I tell fighters, one of the best ways to improve your clinch and takedowns is by learning to box. Why? Now, he is not only worried about your takedowns, but getting hit also.

So many grapplers make the mistake of not learning good boxing and Muay thai. If the grappler has no striking skills, the striker only has to worry about the takedown. So his defense is less divided.

Well now, I HAVE studied Taiji a bit...

You might like this from Jigoro Kano, founder of Judo. It is part of a piece on his views on how to correct bad influences developing in judo randori:


"When we study Judo as a physical exercise the best posture is naturally not one with our necks stuck forward, or with our bodies bent or stiff. We should stand in a natural and relaxed way, and be able to direct our energy freely and instantly into our necks, arms, legs and hips when necessary, so that we can immediately react as we will with harmonious movements. When we study Judo as a martial art, we should be able to move our bodies freely, lightly and swiftly so that we can dodge whenever our opponent attacks us with a kick or a jab. At the Kodokan, we grab our opponents by their sleeves or lapels when we practice randori. This method is, however, only necessary to help beginners, so as we become advanced we do not necessarily do it. Even when we grab our opponent we should do it lightly, otherwise we are not able to dodge swiftly.

If you practice Judo following these points, you can avoid bad tendencies that are seen today such as using unnecessary strength or tackling each other. Our posture should be similar to that of boxers, rather than that of wrestlers. Wrestlers assume a forward stance because they do not have to be prepared for punches. However, if we are expecting atemi (punch) we must take a posture similar to a boxer's. In Judo, we do not necessarily keep distance between ourselves and our opponent like in boxing because we not only punch, but can also throw or execute a counter. We approach our opponent and try to grab him by his clothing, hand or neck. In these cases, we must be prepared for him to punch or kick. So how should we approach our opponent? When we pull him by his right wrist or sleeve, we should move to his right side. By doing this, we can avoid any counterattack, because his right arm is not free. Although his left hand is free, it is not so dangerous because it is far enough away. His left leg is not in a convenient position from which to attack either, while his right leg is too close to attack properly. We have to keep this in mind when approaching an opponent. We cannot move close to him. What is, then, the most efficient way to practice randori? We have come to the conclusion that we must return to the way it was done in the beginning of the Kodokan. "

Life of Jigoro Kano Founder of Judo (06)
by Jigoro Kano
Aiki News #85 (Summer 1990)

(Several installments if Kano's Autobiography can be found in the member's section at www.aikidojournal.com )

Awesome posts! I now know why I got so much out of our "sticking hands" in SPM which concentrates primarily on clinching.

Some clinch work stuff from Marcus Soares - 33 year BJJ practitioner and a club bouncer.

http://www.realfighting.com/issue7/marcosframe.html

I don't necessarily like all the moves (ISR Matrix's pike technique would be better in the one where he uses the knee strike, for example), but picture them moving. The key factor is that he gets to the guys back or side almost immediately through his control of the guys hands/arms - from there you own the guy and can strike, restrain, or take him down at your whim.

This is also a good piece to show that practical BJJ does not always advocate going to the ground.

my 2 cents - after graduating from pilot training in the late 80s I was involved in several follow up classes one of which included escape and evasion. We talked about this subject in detail, however, it probably has no bearing on sports or police work. basically we were taught to step into an attacker trying to go for the wrestling "up-root" and use our fist, hand or forarm to the adams apple. while being instructed, one of the instructors, got put into the hospital because his wind pipe was collapsed.

as an "old guy" I don't do the tournaments etc, actually, I am practicing tai chi for health (and golf - believe it or not) but thought his was an interesting thred.

the point being, I thought it was interesting hearing something from a police officer who had to be careful, and hearing something from "tournament" guys who have rules and it made me think back for a second - when there are no rules, you aren't standing or going to the ground for more than a second or two.

just something to consider.

Ya, but sadly nobody seems to want to train for that anymore. By the way, learning a proper cut with a katana has nothing on learning a proper golf stroke. That's why I don't golf.

"Safety is in the heart of danger"

Who said that? In taijutsu, we used to say that the closer you were to the attacking weapon, the less of a running start it had to hit you with. Great principle, but I don't think it would apply to a katana.

Tactical Grappler:

You wrote:"Note that "grappling" with buddies when no one knows how to actually grapple correctly is not groundfighting training - ignore the taekwondo, kung fu, and karate articles and instructionals that teach "how to beat a grappler." Just glancing at these things reveals to a trained grappler that these folks typically have no idea what they are talking about - based on their postures and their chosen "defenses" against shoots, control positions on the ground, etc. They would be better titled "How to Beat a Grappler that Doesn't Know How to Grapple."

I agree with your above statement. I practice Kenpo but i can't consider myself a striker because in every single technique there is always a manipulating element (pinning the hands, buckle the legs with your legs, joint twisitng/locking/breaking, chokes, neck breaking, sweeping, throwing and projecting ).

We try to defend ourselves from diferent possible attacks that can happen in the street and the clinch situation and other graplling like wise situation are heavily considered.

We are taught to do the attacks properly so the defender learns to deal with them with certain realism but also these are part of our defenses.

In the orange belt level there is a tech. where you defend against a straight/circular punch and after parrying and hitting as a neutralizing and distracting maneuver , you lift his leg and advancing push him with your elbow to his chest causing him to fall. Then you follow up with controlling his leg and hitting him to the groin. This final part is taught for an in case. You should be able to knock him out with fall.

Once a teacher applied this tech.(taking the opponent down) knocking the guy out...he was disqualified.

I lack a personal knowlege of ground maneuvering when i am on the ground although i can choke and apply arms bars or ankle breaks. I have also borrowed the way Wing chun deals with grapplers once they are on the ground and to get up quickly.Hitting the way they do is effective. However i know that in near future when i have more time i will be getting back to this as i have in the past.

I agree that there are styles that don't offer realistic ways of dealing with grapplers but this happens because they don't really train against real grapplers.

I know that a branch of Wing Tsun has succesfully stop grapplers in the stand up fighting and on the ground. The only way to do this is risking yourself.

Yours,

Jagdish

Backarcher:

Dealing with a grappler requires to know their game but learning to strike properly when the attack is initiated/once applied/after the attack is something few know.

yours,

Jagdish

P.S:did you receive my PM?

No, I did not get it.

"...I know that a branch of Wing Tsun has succesfully stop grapplers in the stand up fighting and on the ground."

I know of Wing Tsun instructors with grappling backgrounds who would understandably know how to use their tools best against a grappler. But they had to know grappling first.

Personally, I don't think there is a "pure system" of WC students that have found real grappler to test their skills and found themselves successful, unless their instructor knew how to really grapple.

Their is a WC teacher I think in England who also crosstrains in NHB and "Catch" wrestling. I could see his students having success against a grappling offense.

I do believe in "the individual" who can learn grappling and use his WC skills in an efficent way against a grappler.

I've studied with two different Wing Tsun teachers. I have an idea of how to use my Wing Tsun against a grappler, but it's only because I know how to grapple.

I've read so many articles about "How to beat a Grappler" written by traditional martial artists. Some make sense and their usually the ones who understand the motto "Know your Enemy" and others make me sick or laugh, for I know they are only "talking" theories, without truly any dedication to actual proven "performance".

Likewise, the many grapplers today are beginning to understand that they can't be one dimensional.

In MMA, when I see a grappler is "working on striking", I know that usually it means they are not really doing real striking with real strikers.
One of the most pitiful sights is seeing a grappler who can't get a takedown or a clinch against a good stiker who knows how to "move"(Not the "rooted" striker) and knows how to sprawl. The grappler is forced to strike and then he usually gets knocked out.

But really, I say do what you like to do and be happy. If you are truly a good person and stay out of trouble, you don't have to worry about any of this stuff.

But if you are in Law Enforcement, security, live or work in a dangerous area, then you might need to explore other areas.

Let's explode another myth:

Police are bound "not to hurt" their attackers. They must use "more care," and must not injure their assailants.

WRONG.

Police must be careful in the tactics they use to subdue the people they must physically restrain - but who pose only minimal physical threat to the officer and/or others. Legally, they must use reasonable, and in some states reasonable and necessary force to do so.

Civilians are bound by the EXACT SAME CONSTRAINTS - except that in many cases, except in their own homes, civilians have a duty to retreat (if possible) before violence occurs (check your local statutes.)

Now, assuming that a struggle with a suspect turns south, and the suspect uses highly damaging blows - an officer has the right to defend himself using the same or more damaging blows.

Or assuming the officer is ambushed or surprise attacked in an aggravated, assaultive manner, the officer has the right to defend himself in the same manner.

EXACTLY THE SAME CONSTRAINTS A CIVILIAN HAS.

In fact, when a fight goes to the ground and the officer is not in a dominant position, the officer is in greater danger because the chance of losing his firearm is higher. He is perfectly justified in using higher levels of force by the mere fact that the fight has gone to the ground.

JUST AS A CIVILIAN WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN RAMPING UP HIS RESPONSE.

The only advantage that a civilian has is that he may be considered NOT to have the same level of experience with violence as a police officer, and might get away with being a little more paranoid and a little more violent.

If that same civilian reads too many Internet self defense forums and believes the absolute drivel written by so called experts, that he can face smash and throat rip and testicle twist any street bum who gets a little too close to him, he's in for a long road in the courts - and maybe even jail time.

Jagdish-

I'll let Backarcher take the lead with your questions.

I really don't know how to respond. We are on entirely different wavelengths.

Backarcher:

i agree there are not pure styles of W.C. .
When pure knuckles meets pure flesh you can't get anything purer than that.

Yes, the W.T. branch i am talking about , his chief instructor, used to grapple in his youth so he knows their game.

I believe any serious martial artist should explore different possibilities like learning to use some blade weapons within other possibilites.

I also believe that striking and grappling should be separated only in a conceptual phase as i don't believe there could be pure strikers or pure grapplers. I can't define myself as a striker as the manipulating element is always there and sometimes i think of finishing an opponent with a throw.

I will try to resend the PM.

Thanks for your time.

Yours,

Jagdish

Tactical Grappler:

I thank you for your posts as they are honest and realistic. I agree with them more than you think.

If you let me discuss one thing:

I have heard that in any street encounter one should be able to choose not to damage the attacker/s. I disagree. From my experience (which is limited) any attack will get you nervous/tensed due to its suddenness and there is no time to think of what doing.

If properly trained there are chances that you could survive the assault but may be you have to pay a price. Hand swords to the neck/throat and other dangerous element should be heavily considered.

Thanks for reading.

Yours,

Jagdish

Jagdish wrote:

"I have heard that in any street encounter one should be able to choose not to damage the attacker/s. I disagree. From my experience (which is limited) any attack will get you nervous/tensed due to its suddenness and there is no time to think of what doing."

I don't know about "any." There are plenty of times where you would want to do damage - through "hand swords" or whatever.

You SHOULD be able to choose how much damage you do - because you have to judge that based on what you are facing.

With experience, and with proper training, and proper internalization of that training, you can lessen the effects of that nervousness and tension and very much be able to think what you are doing.

That is the problem with the "kill or be killed" mentality used to address any and every street confrontation. It does not prepare you for the more likley low level stuff that you should be able to handle without getting overly upset or losing your ability to think.

I have read people who are seen as experts on forums, in magazines, and elsewhere who state that you should treat every encounter as a potentially lethal threat and act accordingly. They are, to put it bluntly, full of ••••. They don't get in many, or ANY encounters, and so they can afford to spout this nonsense to a fearful readership with tough guy fantasies.

You should certainly be PREPARED for any encounter to potentially be lethal. But you must ACT according to the threat you are actually faced with.

Unfortunately, the latter course is a lot more uncertain for people to think about - and that scares people. AND it requires that responsibity be accepted by the defender for his actions - another very frightening thought for the inexperienced.

T.G.

nice posts and very informative!! you guys should check AVCI Wing Tsun. It is very different from the traditionl WT / WC stuff, it has a lot of ground work. check it out, especially if you are in law enforcement!!!

Not surprising, quite a few guy who excel in the arena have wrestling, or judo as a background.
Matt Furey (wrestling to shuaijiao), Daniel Weng (judo to shuaijiao), amongst others.