90% of fights go to the ground?

[rogue2257]

While I was teaching tonight, the subject of ground fighting came up and the inevitable "90% of fights go to the ground" got thrown around. I'm convinced this is inaccurate, and I don't have any statistics that support the idea that most fights end up as ground fights.

It seems to me that this has to be a gross generalization, or something taken out of context. Self defense fights are different than bar fights, which are different than law enforcement confrontations, and it seems hard to generalize them all in such a way.

Has anyone else had this subject come up in class? How did you deal with it?

[Oni Kudaki]

If it comes to grappling, it will most likely end up on the ground. If you can keep it to striking, it probably won't.

[joesteph]

While I was teaching tonight, the subject of ground fighting came up and the inevitable "90% of fights go to the ground" got thrown around. I'm convinced this is inaccurate, and I don't have any statistics that support the idea that most fights end up as ground fights.

These are schoolyard fights in middle school grades. Everyone circles around and immaturely (b/c they're kids) goes "Wow!"

Don't let a fight with another adult go to the ground, b/c his friends will do a dance on your head. If you do a takedown, have him land hard and maybe give him a quick shot to the gut (not the head; it has nowhere to go against the floor, the impact will kill or brain damage him, and you'll be in boiling hot water).

Always watch out for his friends. Who told me that? A JJ sensei who's also a police officer.

[brickshooter]

I've never seen any statistic from any reliable source that can back up the statement that 90% of all fights go to the ground.

I grew up in a tough neighborhood and saw fights all the time. From my own personal experience, roughly 1/2 of the fights end up on the ground.

[Capt Jakk]

As near as my search fu can tell me this is the abstract of the article that is often misquoted for the 90% statistic. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=164308

A break down of the article's points can be found here. This breakdown appears to be biased though it does appear to be from a journal article. http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html

Some interesting points and my observations.

1) The study was done by looking at Use of Force reports from the LAPD about arrests. Not fights in general. It appears only .6% of all arrests resulted in an "altercation"

2) The reports used were from 1988. I'm betting fighting may be a little different now due to different training and new technology.

3) 62% of altercations lead to the officer taking the subject to the ground for a handcuffing. Not the 90% often quoted.

4) Taking a swing at an officer often resulted in being hit with a baton and then being handcuffed. Assuming a martial arts stance would also lead to being hit with a baton. I'm guessing now you are more likely to be pepper sprayed instead of being hit with a baton.

In my opinion, people are using an apple to comment on an orange. An officer's goal during an arrest is to subdue the other person. My goal as a civilian in an attack is to run away from my attacker and reach safety. These goals may require different strategies. (i.e. putting someone in a hold vs kicking someone in the groin and running away) I believe it is much more practical to be a generalist in both striking and ground fighting than to focus exclusively on just one or two fighting ranges.

I can see two strategies you can take on this subject in class. The first is to talk about where the 90% statistic came from and explain how it is being misused much like I have just done. Appearing as the expert can help your argument, especially if you are already the teacher. Hopefully they will make a good conclusion on their own. The second thing you can do is explain that statistics don't mean crap in a specific situation. Even if 90% of fights went to the ground it wouldn't mean that the fight they find themselves in would end up on the ground. It's better to be prepared and not have to use something than to be unprepared and not able to defend yourself.

To probably misquote Mark Twain. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

[dwarf2]

Great subject , i think that most fights dont end up on the ground because they took it to the ground, but i think that alot of fights go to the ground because the people in the fight aren't fighters most of the time. Years ago i had a job that i had to go to the ground to put cuffs on people, and you never did it by your self . There were always people waiting for you to, if you turn your back ,and did not see them, then they would all stomp you. When i was in high school i got in a fight with the captain of the football team and i knew that if i stood toe to toe he was going to hurt me, so i drug him down to the ground where i knew i could hurt him, i dont know if i won , but i didn't go to the hospital so it worked out for me . after that i really got into grappling and it is one of the best things i ever did. Now i tell people that if you don't have a ground game do yourself a favor and get one , and if your a instructor get it for your students and you'll be glad you did.

[rogue2257]

As near as my search fu can tell me this is the abstract of the article that is often misquoted for the 90% statistic. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=164308

A break down of the article's points can be found here. This breakdown appears to be biased though it does appear to be from a journal article. http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html..."

EDIT: FIXED HYPERLINK. I found those same two articles searching last night. I also found another abstract from someone who did some independent research on the subject here: http://jiujitsu365.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/do-most-fights-go-to-the-ground-research-i-conducted/

The article states that "It is probably closer to 42% where both fighters hit the ground and 72% where at least one fighter ends up on the ground." Those LAPD statistics are just for law enforcement, if I understand correctly, while this article uses average individuals.

I'm still curious what the differences would be between statistics for self defense situations, law enforcement situations, and bar type fights (where the individuals are fighting just to fight.) I have to imagine that there would be some differences in the results.

Edited September 11, 2010 by rogue2257

[Capt Jakk]

Rouge, that link is not woking for me. I'll try to find it though as any work on this topic is interesting to me.

I do have some experience working with statistics and comparing self-defense situations, law enforcement situations, and bar fights would be difficult to do. You have to define exactly what going to ground means. It could include tripping and falling on the ground or it can be narrowed to only when a person is thrown to the ground. Each definition would change the final statistic. You also have to determine where your data is coming from. People self reporting about a fight is likely to have inaccuracies. Police reports represent a small portion of total fights as many are not reported. Video or other media of actual street fights are not representative of all fights, only the ones with some bystander recording it with a camera. All of this is even before someone determines a statistic or comes to any conclusions.

This whole area is subjective enough that I just don't believe any statistics about it. There are too many variables that just can't be controlled to get an accurate picture. You,re probably better just going with what ever your gut tells you.

[Snake1725681530]

90% is definitely an exaggeration but I would agree that a lot of fights have the potential to go to the ground. This is based on the idea that people that go around attacking others, usually attack whilst in a group- and so taking the victim down in in their benefit as they are able to smother him in that position. If I were a teacher in your situation, I would be honest about this possibility but I w would also say that, if as a fighter, you're smart and your stand-up abilities are strong (including balance and footwork), you can stay on your feet. I, as a student, have always appreciated this type of honesty.

Takedown defence should be addressed in class though IMO, although it doesn't have to be extensive.

[rogue2257]

Rouge, that link is not woking for me. I'll try to find it though as any work on this topic is interesting to me.

Fixed the link.

Takedown defence should be addressed in class though IMO, although it doesn't have to be extensive.

I couldn't agree more. I feel strongly that we as stand up strikers in karate need to have SOME techniques for the ground as well. Even if it is just a few simple but effective techniques (which I think are the best kind).