What art is better for street fighting?

[delta1]

1: yes most fights WILL go to the ground- go buy yourself ANY Dvd of street fights at your local mall and see how, in fact, every one practically goes to the ground. To be fair though, most fights start standing up.

 

I've seen several videos of street fights that do not go to the ground. I've seen and been in many fights that did not go to the ground. I'll grant you that in a really seriouse fight, where one or both fighters intend to do real dammage to each other, there's a good chance that at least one will go down. But this is often the result of a good striking game, not just grappling.

 

I'm not dissrespecting grappling, nor saying it isn't a good thing to learn. But a lot of grapplers, especially BJJers, have a really good propoganda thing going where they have convinced everyone that all fights go to the ground. They don't. They've also mixed the phrase 'going to the ground' with 'grappling/ground fighting'. It isn't necessarily.

 

Also, grapplers do learn to strike, and most strikers these days (talking of only the combative arts here) learn to grapple. But obviousely the emphasis is different. Which is better? Whatever you like- take your pick.

[Sasori_Te]

Where was it that I read that the figures that BJJ uses are from statistics concerning police officers?

 

The cops take any resisting subject to the ground, thus "all fights end up on the ground". I've never been in a confrontation where I ended up on the ground. In my younger days I was in my fair share. I too have watched some of these street fight videos (they are/ were posted somewhere on this forum) Maybe 1/3 had one or both participants go to the ground. I don't recall any that stayed there.

[Sinar89]

tell me more about mui thai (sp?) sounds interesting cause someone else suggested it. also, about street fights. i get my info from my dad who used to street fight all the time an he said that is the worst thing you could do and i would trust him over any martial arts teacher atleast around here

[Gumbi]

I've seen several videos of street fights that do not go to the ground. I've seen and been in many fights that did not go to the ground. I'll grant you that in a really seriouse fight, where one or both fighters intend to do real dammage to each other, there's a good chance that at least one will go down. But this is often the result of a good striking game, not just grappling.

 

The latest street fights video I bought- if I remember correctly- EVERY fight went to the ground. Now, when I say that I dont mean that someone shot in for a takedown or went to the clinch for a hip throw.

 

But let me ask if you would agree on these 2:

 

1: hits that stun are more common than hits that knock someone down (as in, a good shot gets through and dazes the person, but doesnt knock them down)

 

2: knock downs are more common that straight knockouts

 

When someone takes a good shots and gets put on the ground, usually (in a serious fight) the puncher looks to take advantage of it and stomp him into the ground, or follow him down and pound him. When someone catches a good shot that dazes them, they're likely to clinch- not because they're thinking "takedown!" or anything like that, but because they dont want to get hit- so its either stay too far away or stay too close. Now, its not to say that grappling would have won every guy the fight, but it certainly could have helped him alot more

 

 

I'm not dissrespecting grappling, nor saying it isn't a good thing to learn.

I didnt think you were- its a discussion forum- lets discuss

But a lot of grapplers, especially BJJers, have a really good propoganda thing going where they have convinced everyone that all fights go to the ground. They don't. They've also mixed the phrase 'going to the ground' with 'grappling/ground fighting'. It isn't necessarily.

 

Well, fights certainly go to the ground, but I think what you're trying to say is that you're certainly not doomed if it is. Certainly I've seen fights where a person's gotten knocked down as was able to regain his feet, keep fighting, and sometimes even win.

 

I think the whole concept of convincing people that fights go to the ground (at one point or another of the fight) is for people who say "when would you use this stuff?" So, by showing the fight hits the ground at some point in the fight you can prove there is a point in a fight where grappling is very applicable and you can take advantage of what your opponent doesnt know and win the fight at that point.

Also, grapplers do learn to strike, and most strikers these days (talking of only the combative arts here) learn to grapple. But obviousely the emphasis is different. Which is better? Whatever you like- take your pick.

 

Very true, once you crosstrain, the decision to stand and strike or take the fight to the ground is entirely up to you with neither being "wrong" or "right"

[Hudson]

I would not suggest Muay Thai for street fighting at all. The reason people say this is because of the conditioning Muay Thai fighters are always bent on conditioning - if you don't have the strength or time to put into it, Muay Thai can become useless. Although, to be fair, that's true of almost all MA's. Also, Muay Thai has also found a way to become something thrown on to certain schools you'll find teaching something likened more to cardio kickboxing. But, again, if the instruction is bad in any art, you will fail.

 

I think the art that would suit you most is Hapkido - it has a well rounded curriculum and while it not be as refined as some or have the blunt, raw strength of others, it's very well balanced and quick to find useful.

[delta1]

The latest street fights video I bought- if I remember correctly- EVERY fight went to the ground.

 

Videos can be made to show anything you want. Not all videos of fights show all fights going to ground.

1: hits that stun are more common than hits that knock someone down

 

Yes.

2: knock downs are more common that straight knockouts

 

Yes.

When someone takes a good shots and gets put on the ground, usually (in a serious fight) the puncher looks to take advantage of it and stomp him into the ground, or follow him down and pound him.

 

Usually, in my experience, the guy standing up will try to kick the floored opponents brains out. This is still stand up fighting. But if the standing fighter mounts and pounds the floored fighter, it's still basically a stand up fight in a horizontal plane. With the exception of chokes (which rarely occurs- I can only recall a couple of times in a real fight) no one intentionally gets down and rolls with a downed opponent. A downed fighter may manage to bring down the other fighter, and grappling would be a good thing to know then. But if we're talking percentages, the standup from start to finish has the edge. And they all started upright.

When someone catches a good shot that dazes them, they're likely to clinch- not because they're thinking "takedown!" or anything like that, but because they dont want to get hit- so its either stay too far away or stay too close.

 

I love it when they try that! There are soooo many things to do to them at that point... ! On the other hand, a seriouse clinch as part of an offensive strategy to take the fight to your own range is dangerouse. All standup fighting styles should work on defending and fighting in this situation.

 

 

I think the whole concept of convincing people that fights go to the ground (at one point or another of the fight) is for people who say "when would you use this stuff?" So, by showing the fight hits the ground at some point in the fight you can prove there is a point in a fight where grappling is very applicable and you can take advantage of what your opponent doesnt know and win the fight at that point.

 

It is mostly an ad campaign by the Gracies. But there may be some truth in your reasoning. We all tend to focus on defending what we do, while disregarding what the other guy does. One of the great things about MMA competitions is that they have convinced a lot of people that there's no one solution. You need standup striking, stand up grappling, ground grappling, and I'd say ground striking as well. How you mix it is up to your individual tastes and needs, and of course what's available.

 

But to say that all, or almost all fights go to the ground is as extreme and unrealistic as the guy that says he can't be taken to the ground. I'm not a grappler, but I've worked with them and fought them (friendly), and they can take you down- but not every time.

[SevenStar]

I've seen several videos of street fights that do not go to the ground. I've seen and been in many fights that did not go to the ground. I'll grant you that in a really seriouse fight, where one or both fighters intend to do real dammage to each other, there's a good chance that at least one will go down. But this is often the result of a good striking game, not just grappling.

 

also from slipping - one will slip and fall, dragging the other down. Or it may be done on purpose, a la judo's ko soto gake.

I'm not dissrespecting grappling, nor saying it isn't a good thing to learn. But a lot of grapplers, especially BJJers, have a really good propoganda thing going where they have convinced everyone that all fights go to the ground. They don't. They've also mixed the phrase 'going to the ground' with 'grappling/ground fighting'. It isn't necessarily.

 

I hear ya - not all do go to the ground. There is a real statistic though, and it is published - I'll try to find it. The study was done on police officers and says that something like 70% of all altercations cops are involved in go to the ground. From there, the perp is restrained. Also, in the case of security, you are not allowed to hit - you can only restrain.

[SevenStar]

I would not suggest Muay Thai for street fighting at all. The reason people say this is because of the conditioning Muay Thai fighters are always bent on conditioning - if you don't have the strength or time to put into it, Muay Thai can become useless.

 

a mistake a lot of people make is thinking that thai boxing relies soley on strength and speed. That is false.

 

Speaking of using it in the street though, an article came out a few weeks about a thai boxer who fought of three guys - two of them had weapons - who broke into his house, assaulted his mom and tried to rob the place. he sustained some minor damage, but sent the three guys running for their lives. I'll find the link if anyone is interested.

 

 

Although, to be fair, that's true of almost all MA's. Also, Muay Thai has also found a way to become something thrown on to certain schools you'll find teaching something likened more to cardio kickboxing. But, again, if the instruction is bad in any art, you will fail.

 

this is true, as is with TMA and McSchools. find a thai boxing school that competes though - then you can be sure that they aren't just doing the cardio stuff.

[SevenStar]

Where was it that I read that the figures that BJJ uses are from statistics concerning police officers?

 

I've seen that as well.

I don't recall any that stayed there.

 

this is where the beauty of grappling can come in. People tend to think a grappler wants to get to the ground and stay there. There's more to it than that. If you do get taken down and your opponent is heavier than you, who is more adept at getting the attacker off and getting back to his feet - the striker, or the grappler?

[SevenStar]

actually, the main reason kempo would be innefective is not because of its grappling but because of how they teach striking.

 

Well, that comment certainly begs an explanation

 

the kenpo guys I've seen teach that certain strikes to certain areas make the opponent react a certain way. Those reactions are what their strikes are based on. What if the person doesn't move that way? A friend of mine tried seven swords and other techniques on me and could never finish one full combination. I'm sure not every kenpo class trains this way, but perhaps vinne has had a similar experience to mine.