Karate defence against BJJ

[White Warlock]

I don't think she is wrong. A clinch and a grapple isn't 'on the ground.' fights do not go to the ground as often as many purist grapplers would like to believe. Indeed, fights go to the ground because either both persons in the fight are n00blets or because at least one of them is a grappler and was able to bring it there. So yes, the majority do go to the ground, but not necessarily 'with intent.' A well-rounded standup fighter can virtually ensure a fight does not go to the ground, or that if it does, it doesn't stay there.

[y2_sub]

I have nothing against that , but that dosn't change the fact that lots of fights end on the ground

[AndrewGreen]

Pitting a skilled grappler against a skilled striker/kicker cannot be predicted accurately as to who will win.

No, but I'm sure you could get odds, the longshot always has a chance.

eliably. Hypothetically however, IMO, if the latter can deal a knockout blow or paralyzing strike first before the grappler who is not skilled in mid-range fighting can get a firm hold on the former, he will win.

How many people have you KOed? Paralized?

This is a very hard thing to do on even a moderate level fighter. Relying on the chance that you will KO someone in one shot is like planning your life based on the fact that you will win next weeks lottery.

[AngelaG]

like that old chestnut of 90% of fights ending up on the ground

Thank god that isnt true.

Nope, and in fact the reality is nowhere near that.

That's where you are wrong AngelaG , it may not be 90% , but the fact of the matter is : most of the fights end on the ground or in a clinch , even in a pure striking environment like in boxing , Thai/kick boxing the fight ends in a clinch which may lead to a takedown , in kyokushin fighters grab each other all the times , if a pure striker ends up in clinching/garbbing a grappler then he will find himself on the ground

Ok, I want bare facts - not just hearsay being spouted to promote the new popular MA. I also want it with regards actual altercations, not stuff going on in a training centre where there are nice soft mats, no risk of being stabbed, and no mates around to kick your head in whilst you are down.

I can give you cold hard facts that back up my claim, by people that have actually gone out and researched it. But first I want to see some facts on your side, backing up your extraordinary claim; and I don't mean some dojo coming out with the bog-standard saying on their website, as sales hype.

[AndrewGreen]

I've never seen any research that produced valid stats.

Several studies that interviewed people and got annecdotal studies.

The famous 95% go to the ground was a police report, on police involved enconters, where they are actively trying to get the person on the ground.

But it doesn't matter who does the study, there is always a percentage that hits the ground, and a even larger percentage that end up in a clinch.

These are must have skills if you intend on fighting when there aren't rules preventing them. But, most people have no intention of ever fighting outside the rules of there school, and most never will. So have fun, and don't worry about it. But realise that if you do end up in a real fight, unless you can provent those things you are in as much trouble as if you had never done any training at all.

[lgm]

Hypothetically however, IMO, if the latter can deal a knockout blow or paralyzing strike first before the grappler who is not skilled in mid-range fighting can get a firm hold on the former, he will win.

How many people have you KOed? Paralized?

This is a very hard thing to do on even a moderate level fighter. Relying on the chance that you will KO someone in one shot is like planning your life based on the fact that you will win next weeks lottery.

I have knocked out a grappler, but he was not a professional grappler-fighter at all and I'm neither a professional striker. Ordinary street people fighting, the two of us, just amateurs. So, anecdotally speaking, I wasn't talking through my hat.

Professional fighters who fight in the ring are a different breed. They are conditioned and hard. It takes more than one blow or strike to knock them out, though one can get knocked down in the first minute of the fight, if a really solid punch hits a relaxed jaw. Probably, in professional fighting, grapplers will have the upper hand.

But when it comes to real street fighting, it may not be the same. Streetfights are usually engaged in by people who are not conditioned to fight through several rounds, like professional ring prize fighters. Now, let me just paint this action scenario you could do:

After creating an instant distraction or diversion like throwing down your watch to the ground (or anything that can catch attention) with your left hand and then hitting the nose of the would-be grappler-attacker with a right heel-of-the-palm strike (as set up for a more lethal strike), followed with a solid left foreknuckle blow to the throat or Adam's apple, doubled by a whiplash clap on both ears and then an almost simultaneous front kick to the testicles and two-finger (nukite) strike to the eyes will make a copycat, amateur, professionally untrained "grappler" in the street end his career right then and there.

Your successful mid-range lethal strikes against vital parts of the body, which are banned in professional ring fights, but legit on the streets as self-defense against criminal attacks, will preclude not only the chances of the would-be-grappler getting hold of your legs or any part of your body as base to tackling you down, but probably render him out of commission for weeks or permanently so.

This may look like a choreographed fictional scene from a movie, but this script is fortunately based on a true action account narrated by one of our BBs who engaged a "grappling" thug much larger than he is in the streets of Manila.

Gene

[shotokan1725681457]

There are "Gracie jujutsu videos" in wich Gracies themselfs explain the basics of thier fighting system. It's worth seing for all strikers IMHO. On top of all this things like closing the distance, taking down your opponent, they show how to escape from the mounted position. Of course it's useless to fight a BJJ guy by wathing videos he-he... But at least you will know what to do when you are mounted. And don't forget to train kicks in the groin

[AngelaG]

I've never seen any research that produced valid stats.

Several studies that interviewed people and got annecdotal studies.

The famous 95% go to the ground was a police report, on police involved enconters, where they are actively trying to get the person on the ground.

Except it wasn't even 95% in that - the actual number was something like 65%, and as you correctly said, that is in a situation where they were actively trying to restrain the atacker by taking him/her to the floor.

[White Warlock]

Igm, thank you for your post. I wish to note that the example you presented does not indicate whether the opponent encountered was a grappler, nor if the opponent had any former training... therefore, in some ways it is relevant, in others not. The mistake a striker can make is to assume he will be able to 'knockout' the opponent, when in actuality he must be focused on causing as much damage as possible, in as short a time as possible. Of this, i think your example presented well.

As to the debate about percentages and statistics, who cares. The definer of a confrontation are the persons within the confrontation, not the averages. Of the experienced persons, two grapplers combating will go to the ground, virtually guaranteed. One grappler and one striker... very good chance it will go to the ground. Striker vs striker, a smaller chance it will go to the ground. Of the inexperienced, it will very likely go to the ground, simply because one of the combatants will realize he cannot dominate standup and will therefore attempt to take it to the ground, or they will fumble all over each other and thus fall. Again, who cares what the averages dictate, exceptions exist and that is exactly what we strive to be... exceptions.

Now, unless you prop your opponent up on a hook, eventually at least one of you is going to go to the ground. Awake, or unconscious... but someone 'is' going to go there. Except, what is actually being debated here is when both combatants go there, and not merely whether one person hits the ground while the other remains standing. Thus all these talks about statistics and all these analogous discussions on how many, are moot. What matters for these debates is not when and why, but how. So, when you filter out all the other factors, you deal with that aspect.

Let's examine 'how' that particular scene happens, and whether actions can be taken to prevent what is presented (in the context of real confrontations):

• Ranges - from the further ranges to the inner range, the assailant's path is inherently forward, which translates to 'closing the gap.' To close the gap all the way means to enter into a clinch that is likely to go to the ground.
   
  
• Forward/backward - forward motion is our 'normal' movement, and thus we can perform this without conscious thought. However, moving back and away, or to the side, to prevent the gap from being closed is not a normal movement, and thus requires conscious thought.
   
  
• Distraction - when all you need to focus on is in front of you, there is but that... and yet you can still trip over your opponent and fall to the ground. Compare this to moving back or to the side and you see the likelihood of falling, tripping, is substantially increased.
   
  
• Focus - with your attentions pulled to the fore and the aft, or side, your focus is split. You are unable to provide 100% of your attention to your opponent if such is the case, therefore the approaching assailant, the person attempting to close the gap, has the inherent advantage. His/her focus is in front, only.
   
  
• Inherent - now mentioning inherent, we must spend a few moments to examine this. It means that things are 'naturally' of this way or that. Dedicated standup practitioners can train to 'counter' what is natural and develop habits to nullify most 'inherent' factors. However, the blindspot that is inherent in moving backward is not one of them. Thus the trained practitioner learns to move 'to the side' instead, where his/her peripheral vision will allow him to manuever with little loss on focus.
   
  
• Counter - unfortunately, dedicated grappling practitioners are capable of reacting to side motion far more effectively than they are backward motion. I.e., it is easier for them to safely pivot than it is for them to safely charge, while still maintaining the aggressive advantage.
   
  
• Aggressive advantage - this is a big issue. A grappler, when going against a striker, immediately opts to go for the aggressive stance... of going for the takedown, while the striker tends to go on the defensive stance, of trying to prevent the takedown. Being the aggressor is inherently advantageous.

The error is in the striker who falls into the defensive stance against a grappler. While this may 'seem' the more effective posture, it is actually fighting the other person's fight. Worrying about what the opponent will do, rather than focusing on what they themselves should do. It is the unwritten rule that one should always fight their fight, not the opposition's fight. To not overly concern oneself with what the other person is going to do, but instead cause them to worry about what you are going to do. It is the prey/predator concept, where you must take the stance of the predator and cause the opposition to take the stance of being prey. They're breakfast... and you're hungry.

So, my thoughts are this - The best defense is a good offense, but the best offense is knowledge. Learn what your opponents 'can' deliver, so that you can ensure when you deliver, they cannot exploit it and use it to their advantage. A standup fighter is at an inherent disadvantage against a grappler. However, if they train to avoid the pitfalls and train to be the aggressor in all cases, they will have edged their bets. Again, there is no guarantee.

Thanks for reading

[lgm]

Lgm, thank you for your post. I wish to note that the example you presented does not indicate whether the opponent encountered was a grappler, nor if the opponent had any former training... therefore, in some ways it is relevant, in others not.

Unlike in a professional ring fight, you know exactly before hand that your opponent is principally a grappler, not a standup fighter, and had former training on ground fighting, so your fight strategy is well-defined from the very start.

In the streetfight example I gave, the defender doesn't have any idea before hand if the attacker is a grappler and not a stand up fighter. However, when his opponent goes on a tackling stance and attacks, he has only a split second to determine that he is dealing with a grappler. Since he is not experienced and skilled in grappling defense, the stand up fighter must aim to knock down or knock out the attacker through mid-range techniques like punching, striking, kicking and sweeping before the latter can clinch or grapple any part of his anatomy. Failing to do this, his chances of surviving the grappling attack become dimmer.

Unlike in a professional fight on the ring where attacks to vital parts like eyes, throat and groin are disallowed or banned, this is not so in a streetfight and must be the primary targets of the standup streetfighter, inexperienced in grappling defense. The standup fighter's chances of defeating a grappler on the street depends precisely on how successful he is in attacking those vital parts to stop the grappler from taking him down to the ground and disable him first at mid-range.

I take the view that in a streetfight where there are no rules and no ban on body targets, a grappler will not necessarily or likely to be at a greater advantage than a standup fighter. A standup fighter knows that his success depends on his long- and mid-range effectiveness and knowledge of vital points, keeping distance and avoidance of a body hold and preventing a takedown. If he knows his weapon well as against that of the grappler, he can effectively use it against the latter. I'm not ready to admit karate being an inferior martial art nor believe that a street grappler is superior to me yet, but I won't fight a professional grappler or BJJ in the ring.

Gene