Study on fights

[honoluludesktop]

The study of this topic uses bad statistical analysis, but is not invalid because there is no control group. Control groups are used (for example) in medical studies where you give people drugs, and measure their response relative to a control group that is given a placebo. The study is invalid because it attempts to create global conclusions out of insufficient data. The conclusions of the study are only valid for the people it measured, not the general population.

In a fight, the person that loses, is typically on the ground, unable to get up, and continue the fight. That matches common sense. So what is the big deal with this study. No one, would deliberately go to the ground first in a fight without rules. If you do, you are probably injured, have lost position, have poor mobility, are susceptible to being kicked, being hit with a "picked up" weapon, or jumped upon by your opponent's friends. So, to conclude that it is important to stay off the ground is like stating that water is wet.

[Liver Punch]

No one, would deliberately go to the ground first in a fight without rules.

If you add eye gouging, fish-hooking, and biting, you've sorta got an early UFC. I just have a hard time seeing some members of the Gracie family not pulling guard against an unskilled opponent. If we're discussing a fight where we've got more real life variables like weapons and multiple attackers, nobody would deliberately get into a fight.

If we could theoretically gather the data for all the fights on Earth, I don't think most of them are on-on-one contests. I don't even think most of them would probably involve willing contestants on both sides.

My guess is that if you get into a fight on planet Earth, that on average it is a lot of guys attacking one person. They're watching their victim, stalking them, following them into a poorly-lit area without a lot of prying eyes, and robbing, raping, or killing them. I can't imagine living in a place like Rwanda and being worried about a one-on-one fist fight outside the local Catina.

It's often hard for me to imagine a fight that doesn't involve someone like me in a one-on-one contest. But certainly in a violent attack (especially against a child or woman) with multiple attackers and no fair warning, the ground is big trouble. Even someone well versed in ground fighting is in trouble if he gets knocked to the ground in a dark place with several guys surrounding the victim.

Edit: For the record, I think youtube is a lousy measure of anything. This study does mention "However, what was probably the most important finding in this study is that if you are untrained and are the first person to end up on the ground in a fight there is a good chance that you will lose and the best you can hope for is that no victor can be declared." So, it technically does address that this data is intended for average morons and not most people on this forums.

[bushido_man96]

No one, would deliberately go to the ground first in a fight without rules.

If you add eye gouging, fish-hooking, and biting, you've sorta got an early UFC. I just have a hard time seeing some members of the Gracie family not pulling guard against an unskilled opponent. If we're discussing a fight where we've got more real life variables like weapons and multiple attackers, nobody would deliberately get into a fight.

I agree. You fight like you train, and a Gracie would likely street fight on the ground when given the chance. Someone with that kind of skill, though, could likely pull it off quick.

If we could theoretically gather the data for all the fights on Earth, I don't think most of them are on-on-one contests. I don't even think most of them would probably involve willing contestants on both sides.

I agree with you here, too. There is a different between a "fight" and an "attack." An attack is usually going to put someone behind the 8 ball real fast, because they didn't see it coming. That person probably ends up falling down a lot of the time, too.

[honoluludesktop]

........... You fight like you train, and a Gracie would likely street fight on the ground when given the chance. Someone with that kind of skill, though, could likely pull it off quick..

While a obviously accurate observation, this is not a good example when the context of the discussion are fights like the YouTube sample. Is there any chance that the survey included persons from MMA, boxing, wrestling, etc. fights? Probably not, but that can't be determined from reading the study.

If we could theoretically gather the data for all the fights on Earth, I don't think most of them are on-on-one contests. I don't even think most of them would probably involve willing contestants on both sides.

This is another assumption, however correct sounding it is, IMO is "out of context" regarding the kind of fighting that is the topic of this discussion. Is it relevant to include in all the fighting, that which is part of warfare, being blind-sided, etc.? I don't think this is what LP meant, but clearly a better definition should be provided for "all the fights on earth" to make this a discussion.

[bushido_man96]

Well, at the same time, were the "fights" viewed on youtube considered consentual combat, or were they jumpings and muggings that didn't involve weapons? All these things are part of what needs to be considered for a more accurate idea of how things happened, and the results they led to.