Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

fights go to the ground...90%?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    fights go to the ground...90%?

    I have often heard it said that 90% of fights go to the ground. In my personal experience, some 20 real fights, about 25% went to the ground. However using my own personal experience would skew true results, due to the fact that there are thousands of fights everyday.
    To make this fair we need to set the criteria for a "ground fight"

    Here is what I came up with.

    1. The fight must be 1 minute or more in duration. This will avoid counting lucky punches or kicks as data.

    2. Both fighters must be on the ground continuosly at the same time for more than half the fight. (see 2a,b)

    2a. One fighter on the ground and the other with one knee on the ground.
    2b. Both fighers with one knee on the ground continuosly.

    3. Punches, knees, elbows, and kicks while on the ground are ok. As long as both fighter meet the criteria for a ground fight.

    4. The manner in which the fight goes to the ground does not matter. AS long as the fight falls within the above criteria.



    If anyone else has an idea for criteria let me know.

    Now......

    I watched 100 fights. (its all I had time for)

    The sites I got fights from were....

    Youtube.com
    Psfights.com
    Comegetyousome.com

    Out of 100 fights 44 met the above criteria for true ground fights.

    Simple math will tell us that 44% of fights go to the ground.

    This number is slightly flawed since it does not take into acount that some people train for takedowns to deliberatly take the fight to the ground.

    This %age can be altered after we set a definite list of criteria.

    #2
    Any statistics you draw from fight videos will most likely not be representative of the overall population of fights due to the fact that the vast majority of fights are not videotaped, and the ones being taped are usually arranged.

    Besides, who gives a crap what the actual percentage of fights that go to the ground is? It's been shown that the ground is a range that must be trained if one wants to become a complete fighter, and that those who train for the ground will be able to beat those who don't.

    Comment


      #3
      I've been trying my best to find the actual study that this came from. I remember reading somewhere that the study was done for the LAPD where the officers were trying to get the person to the ground and wound up going down with that person.

      Comment


        #4
        I don't know if 90% go to the ground. but almost all fights involve some sort of grappling, ground or standing

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by GoJu - Joe
          I don't know if 90% go to the ground. but almost all fights involve some sort of grappling, ground or standing
          I agree....this fact became apparent to me early on.

          For everyone else.....

          It is important to train for ground fighting, but that isnt the point of this thread. I am trying to set some rules that we can go by. This way people can use them to judge their own personal fight experience and go from there.

          I can get a truer cross section of the fights out there. I only watched the video fights so I could get some sort of starting place.

          Comment


            #6
            Just think about what is most natural and instinctive? Trying to use fancy footwork to keep someone from taking you down, while peppering them with jabs, or grabbing their shirt, tackling them to the ground, and pounding on their face? I was in 9 fights lasting more than a minute in high school, all before id done a martial art, and all of them ended up on the ground. I either tried to choke the guy or hit him on the ground, it just felt natural to me. I lost 2 of the fights and the other guy did the same thing, tackled me, took me down, hit me. You have to force yourself to stand face to face and take a punch, it is the most unnatural thing in the world.

            Comment


              #7
              Jeez, give up the anti-grappling crusade already.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by mmafreak422
                Just think about what is most natural and instinctive? Trying to use fancy footwork to keep someone from taking you down, while peppering them with jabs, or grabbing their shirt, tackling them to the ground, and pounding on their face? I was in 9 fights lasting more than a minute in high school, all before id done a martial art, and all of them ended up on the ground. I either tried to choke the guy or hit him on the ground, it just felt natural to me. I lost 2 of the fights and the other guy did the same thing, tackled me, took me down, hit me. You have to force yourself to stand face to face and take a punch, it is the most unnatural thing in the world.
                For some people stand up comes naturally. My brother for instance. He has been in around 50 fights (he is an asshole) but about 5 went to the ground.

                This is why I am trying to set up some criteria for what constitutes a ground fight.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Tenebrous
                  Jeez, give up the anti-grappling crusade already.
                  WTF are you talking about?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    First of all, where do you propose to get an accurate sampling of fights from?

                    Second of all, why does this matter at all? I can understand when people look at statistics for say, the distance most LEOs are killed at (I think this is the statistic quoted in the Dog Brother's video) because it shows why it's necessary for them to train for short-range combat. This statistic is pretty much unaffected by any amount of combat training the LEOs have - they need to be at that range to talk to suspects, and it's the suspect's decision to attack.

                    But going to the ground? I don't understand...if you train grappling, you should be able to control to some degree if or if not the fight goes to the ground. So the statistic will not hold, even if you could get an accurate one, for trained combatants or even for one trained and one untrained.

                    So basically I'm asking...what is the point of this thread?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by oldman34
                      WTF are you talking about?
                      Your ymas posts have had a decidely anti grappling bent to them lately. Which is really strange considering your style field. Reconsidering grappling as a whole or somethin'?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by ViciousFlamingo
                        First of all, where do you propose to get an accurate sampling of fights from?

                        Second of all, why does this matter at all? I can understand when people look at statistics for say, the distance most LEOs are killed at (I think this is the statistic quoted in the Dog Brother's video) because it shows why it's necessary for them to train for short-range combat. This statistic is pretty much unaffected by any amount of combat training the LEOs have - they need to be at that range to talk to suspects, and it's the suspect's decision to attack.

                        But going to the ground? I don't understand...if you train grappling, you should be able to control to some degree if or if not the fight goes to the ground. So the statistic will not hold, even if you could get an accurate one, for trained combatants or even for one trained and one untrained.

                        So basically I'm asking...what is the point of this thread?

                        I didnt say I could get an accurate number. However if I we can come up with a set of criteria then each person can apply them to their own "real" fight experience and put down a %age.

                        Personal satisfaction......thats why I made this thread.

                        If you dont like it then go away...sheesh


                        but I did try to account for deliberate attempts at a takedown...see

                        Originally posted by oldman34
                        This number is slightly flawed since it does not take into acount that some people train for takedowns to deliberatly take the fight to the ground.

                        I know that this wont be a set in stone kind of thing but I would like to get a closer Idea.
                        Last edited by HonkyTonkMan; 11/02/2006 5:56pm, .

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Tenebrous
                          Your ymas posts have had a decidely anti grappling bent to them lately. Which is really strange considering your style field. Reconsidering grappling as a whole or somethin'?

                          I never discounted grappling. Actually I am starting BJJ Tomorrow...cant wait.
                          The posts I think you mean are the ones where I deliberatly antagonize the BJJ guys. I am doing that for fun. A little like trolling.


                          But I did start a thread called real answers about BJJ. I was looking for some insight before I signed up because the school is a long way from my house.

                          This thread is just for my own info. I dont believe that 90% of fights go to the ground. Just a discussion that me and some guys I train with in TKD are having and I figured that this was the best place to get an semi-accurate answer.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by oldman34
                            Personal satisfaction......

                            If you dont like it then go away...sheesh


                            but I did try to account for deliberate attempts at a takedown...see


                            I know that this wont be a set in stone kind of thing but I would like to get a closer Idea.
                            Ok, in that case, the real number is 1%. See: :new_321:


                            :laughing5

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by ViciousFlamingo
                              Ok, in that case, the real number is 1%. See: :new_321:


                              :laughing5
                              I knew that I would have to take into account the asshats that would try and skew results for the hell of it.

                              Thats why I am only going to count people I personally trust, and supporting members and sponsors.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X