Ground Game?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

Ok, I was doing some thinking about the so called ‘ground game’ this weekend. When I got into work this morning, I had an interesting email on it as well.
I have come to a conclusion about the whole issue. Its mostly BS.
Now, before you BJJ guys get all sensitive and teary eyed, let me explain. BJJ is a martial art, and respectable at that. It has all the things most other arts do. I have no problem with it at all. Same with wrestling, a good freind of mine is the captain of the college team here and he has some awesome martial ability.
But…since it has become popular in sport fighting to go to the ground, we have a lot of martial artist out there who feel like they need to compensate for it. have to train for the ground game, just in case. for some MMA guys this is just the natural progression, jack of all trades, master of none. But for traditional arts this sort of grafting can be dangerous.
I looked back at my experience, for myself, I have only been in a few fights, only one after I started seriously training in the MA. None of them went to the ground. I thought back to high school fights ( I had a friend who fought weekly!) and to the last 6 years working security and medical response at the local Renaissance festival. Of all of the fights I have seen, basically your average street fights and drunken brawls, I rarely see a fight go to the ground. I hae seen one or two, and I have seen one or two combatants go to the ground while the other does not, they mostly struggle to get back up and either do or do not.
I think the ‘ground game’ is mostly hype. Not the martial arts that are specifically designed for this. Most of you guys who read this and do BJJ or whatever, may get all puffed up and say “what the heck is this guy talking about!?”, well I am not talking about your art. For instance, If I met you on the street, and didnt have any experience with fighting on the ground, I could be in some serious trouble. Do I think I would be in the same amount of trouble if someone untrained took me to the ground, if we were 1 on 1, no. My martial art gives me the ability to deal with my opponents from any angle, and ultimately, as I practice and improve, even against trained opponents.
This is more about classical arts, like most Kungfu that does not seem to focus a whole lot on going to the ground. The new thrust towards concentrating on this, and not realizing that for most people, thier art has what they need.
Anyway, before you react violently to my statements :), stop to think about any or all of the experience you have had. What are the chances you are going to the ground? For myself, pretty slim.

Disclaimer: I got much love and respect for you guys so no hard feelings. If you get to the end of this and feel angry, then reread it…

2

I also have a very profound respect for ground fighting arts.

However, I think the need for a quick fix to the fear of being harmed has driven a lot of folks to over value it, or at least make some false assumptions about it its ability to dominate physical confrontations.

I train with several cops, and they warn against the dangers of these assumptions. Of course, that just their opinion and they face confrontation armed in many cases.

Regardless, jiu-jitsu, wrestling, jujutsu, judo…all amazing arts. But no art is a quick fix and statements like “90% of all fights end up on the ground” are always flawed and anecdotal.

Sometimes flawed anecdotal assumptions seem to be the rule in MA rather than the exception.

But in the end, does it really matter?

3

Of course they did Ryu, you are a good ground fighter :stuck_out_tongue:

4

Shaolinboxer, I hardily agree, the problem is statements like that, backed up with ‘evidence’ from sport fighting make it even worse!

Ryu - I have seen many a fight do that weird sort of standing grappling thing, most martial arts definitely train you for that! if they dont, you should either find a new art or a new instructor.

5

Actually guys that is a good point, We do what we know. When I was sparring in my karate school many years ago, we almost never went to the ground, ever, and grappling was almost never an issue, although we trained for it. Thats because our strengths werent with those areas. We kicked and punched and chopped, because that is what we trained for.
If you are a grappler, most of your fights will more then likely end up on the ground. Not that a grappler would necessarily look for it to go that way, but that you are trained to do it that way, and that is where your strength lies.

6

red5angel,

never had a real fight. but i’ve sparred with people from a lot of different backgrounds and levels. so that’s my best analogy. i did fine when sparring people trained in similar ways to myself. and i didn’t spar with people trained in completely different ways to myself (read: grapplers). but when i trained with people with very little training, i can remember a couple of sparring sessions that ended promptly with me on back and the ‘beginner’ on top.

ask yourself this (and this isn’t rhetorical; i genuinely don’t know the answer): if your style did address groundfighting in a significant way (and mine does not, just so you don’t think i’m being defensive), would you still see the current emphasis on it as being overreactionary? or would you see it as a topic that had been overlooked until now?

that’s the sort of question i think we need to ask ourselves if we’re going to honestly analyze this sort of thing: if groundfighting were taken completely independent of the current hype, the trash talking by SOME MMA types, the garish depiction of it in certain competitions, etc. if you could consider groundfighting independent of the things currently associated with it, would it still seem the same way to you? if it were an aspect of your style, would you still deem it overrated?

i agree with you that stats like ‘90 percent of all fights’ seem a bit overblown. but even if more like 30 percent of all fights ended on the ground, wouldn’t that still be statistically significant enough to warrant serious consideration?

stuart b.

7

Hey Ap, without playing the if and when game, I would say that any good martial art out there has answers for what to do when going to the ground. for instance, without geting into specifics, I have seen that WIng Chun can work very effectively on the ground.
I do feel that this is an aspect of martial combat and should be addressed. I would never deny that! But I think it has been overblown as of late, possibly because it hasnt been an issue for a while, and probably because of its success in sport fighting.
Now, I do think that if you are an earnest martial artist, and you study everyday, the answers can possibly come to you through your art. you may have to get someone who plays a good ground game to help you figure it out.
For classical styles, I say some people are not looking hard enough to see the answers. You dont have to be a wrestler to beat a wrestler. Like bizarro Ryu pointed out we have seen guys who have no training take out guys who have plenty, some of it boils down to luck, speed, toughness, or a combination of both. To train for all of these things would be rediculous, you would never have the time and you would probably be the most mediocre martial artist around. :slight_smile:

8

So, if I use the above logic, BJJ is a complete art. If you can use stand up theory to fight on the ground, they can use ground fighting theory in a stand up altercation.

9

Probably a good portion of it. My wrestler friend says they have plenty fo stuff to deal with opponents on thier feet, granted most of it is to get the opponent on the ground, but same idea.

10

Please keep in mind that when the “.” is behind my name it is not really me. I am not “Ryu.” I am “Ryu” But “Ryu.”,I know who you are now. :smiley:

My experiences actually have been the same to my bizarro friend here :smiley: Most fights go the clinch. Whether they end up on the ground or not depends on teh fighters. If they want to punch they’ll probably seperate and punch…but that usually means none of them know anything about the ground, and would be helpless there with a good ground fighter. Good fighters know that people can be weak on the ground. So to think streetfighters won’t take you there is a dangerous assumption. Groundfighting depends on the situation. In a real fight it will be more direct (the same as kung fu would be) A grappler will probably trip someone down, and either punch him repeadedly from mount or knee on stomach. It takes very little time for the person to be knocked out from that. Sometimes under a couple of seconds.

Ryu

11

In the current Qigong Kung Fu mag, there’s a good article on this subject called “Fight the person, not the style.” It makes one good point (and this is from a Whin Chun perspective): Use your style to address different problems that occur when fight someone from another style. For myself, a Praying Mantis player, I have to ask myself how I would deal with an opponent who grapples. Could I avoid a take down and have him/her play my game? If I am taken down, what techniques/theories/principles of Praying Mantis can I use?

Sure, I think you will get taken down eventually, but what makes me a good traditional martial artist or not is how I use my mind, body, and art to cope with and eventually overcome it.

Just thinking . (I know, its dangerous. But I do it anyway).

12

red5angel,

i can’t fault your logic for the most part. as i hope you know, i wasn’t being accusatory. it’s just that statements like this are difficult to judge in and of themselves. it helps to know the thinking behind them.

i agree with a lot of what you’ve said. and if you’re right, that wing chun is applicable on the ground, then the next question is, "yes, but are YOU training it that way? if you aren’t, then the fact that wing chun could work isn’t necessarily helpful to you individually. and if you are, then you’re training groundfighting. not necessarily BJJ groundfighting. but you’re addressing it. and that’s cool. i think you have a good point that a dedicated person should be able to find the answers to different situations within his style.

that said, i disagree with the persistent notion of a jack of all trades and master of none. if i told someone that i trained in kicking, punching, trapping, and footwork am i a jack of all trades? but if i have one term that unites those things, wing chun, i’m now a serious martial artist?

i know that it’s not the term that makes an art. wing chun is a cohesive style because it combines these different aspects in a physically and theoretically coherent way. there are themes and principles that remain consistent from one technique and mode to another. that’s what makes it a style.

but who made it so? were they superhuman? if not, why can’t people today make those same judgments? why is one person the grandmaster of a style and another a master of none?

the main point of this thread, i understand, is that the import of groundfighting has been overblown. that’s VERY possible. obviously, much of our exposure to anything new TO US is either hype or marketing. so i believe that groundfighting has been overblown. but the reaction to it is to now undervalue it. it’s very difficult to be objective about it. that’s why i asked how you’d feel if wing chun contained groundfighting.

what i continue to object to (object may be too strong a word) is the idea that grafting groundfighting onto your style doesn’t work. taking new ideas and synthesizing them with old is work, no doubt. but to say that it doesn’t work isn’t giving credit where credit is due.

consider wing chun for a moment. i’m not an authority on their history. but as i understand it, the long staff (very long staff) was added to the system later. added to a close range, rapid fire system. to me, that seems inconsistent. and yet, presumably, someone in wing chun’s history perceived a need and filled it. and presumably, he found a way to do so that didn’t seem at odds with the rest of the system. so why can’t practitioners today make those same sorts of judgments?

groundfighting is what it is. take away the hype. and what you’ve got is a possibility. a possibility that involves postures and considerations different from stand up. and that does need to be addressed, just as issues of range, weaponry, and any other circumstance need to be addressed. IMHO.

stuart b.

13

Hey Ap, no problem, you have always been civil and respectful and your ideas are always welcome and refreshing.
Now, I didnt say crosstraining made you mediocre, I also never said that grafting something to something doesnt work.
What I am saying is this - practice too much, all over the place, you spread yourself to thin. Preparing for every eventuality is not possible, preparing for the most common is.
Now, I knew my Jack of all trades comment was going to get some eyebrows raised. Anybody on this forum who knows me at all knows I am not a fan of excessive crosstraining, and I definitely do not think it is necessary. Why?
Well, most systems have already been well developed, they have been designed to accomodate most things. now, this brings me to my next point, Ap you poited out that Wing chun has changed. All arts change and adapt, and evolve. With this, I dont think there is an apex that can be reached for one big reason, what works for one may not work for the other.
The problem is, that some of these guys who helped thier arts to evolve had some brilliant insite. Most of them had studdied intensely and often and knew their arts inside and out. There are to many poeple out there now a days overcompensating for lack of knowledge by cross training. Ground fighting is the perfect example of this. I have heard a lot of people say, on the inside and the outside of Wing chun, that it lacks a ground game at all. Most of these comments come from people who have not enough experience to know whether it does or not. Those people going out and modifying the art on thier own, are more dangerous to the art itself then any proponent.

14

red5angel,

first of all, thanks. i’ve always regarded you as being civil and intelligent myself, which is what makes discussions like this possible.

“for some MMA guys this is just the natural progression, jack of all trades, master of none. But for traditional arts this sort of grafting can be dangerous.”

this is what you said. i’m reposting it so that nobody reading the later parts of this thread misunderstands your points based on anything i’ve said. you were clearly very careful to emphasize that SOME MMA types have this problem and that grafting CAN be dangerous. i agree wholeheartedly with both of these observations.

some people do bounce around too much, never getting a firm grasp on the concepts necessary to ground someone’s approach (excuse the pun). and some traditionalists do try to incorporate something new into their system without understanding enough to make that addition seamless. or even graceful.

that said, this is an indication of personal failings. not a failing in the approach. you’ve expressed your feelings on EXCESSIVE crosstraining. just as many MMA guys have expressed their feelings on EXCESSIVE traditionalism. the problem occurs when we take them as examples of the whole.

if someone took a half-arsed stab at psychology in college, then another half-arsed stab at sociology, would i regard them as an authority in social psychology? absolutely not. but would i regard them as indicative of social psychology or of GOOD social psychologists? nope. wouldn’t do that either.

like academics, i think any MMA needs a good understanding of his discipline before he starts making connections with other disciplines. but like academics, he does not have to have ‘mastered’ anything before doing so. just as freud undoubtedly did not master every single aspect of psychology before promoting psychoanalysis.

adam hsu has an analogy: studying one style is like climbing to the 30th floor of a skyscraper. from there, you can see things nobody below you has seen. studying more than one style is like climbing three different skyscrapers. while you only get to the 10th floor in each one, you see three different views, two of which that other fellow has never seen. so who has experienced more? who’s view is better?

anyway, i want to make it clear again that i’m not casting aspersions on you. your opinions have always been respectful and well thought out. and as a dissenter, i couldn’t ask anything more. cheers red5angel.

stuart b.

15

I study all aspects of “fighting” right now I am studying small circle Jujitsu and It isn’t just ground fighting, small circle can be applied to every style. In the dojo there is so many picture of masters who signed their name and thanks to Professor Jay for him helping them get better in their style. It is pretty sad that us young people are the next generation of martial artist and that so many of us are close minded and don’t realize that we need to look at and study martial arts as a whole in order to keep it alive instead of discriminating and making the styles end up like coner stores or something along those lines.

16

Well said Ap, and I would like to take your example of the skyscrapers for a ride!
As a ‘classical man’ I prefer climbing up to the thirtieth floor. Why do I prefer it this way? Well, you are right, either way is still a way. If you were to go out and studdy, boxing, kickboxing, and grappling, you would be well covered, fist feet and ground. You would more then likely be a good fighter, and you may look good doing it as well.
I have to break in here, the problem with discussing this is on many levels for example, I am getting to the point where a good fighter, no matter how he became that way, has accomplished his goals. What defines a good martial artist? All of this is circular and all of it can become part of the same argument. To practice modern competition Wushu makes you a martial artist. does it make you a good fighter? Studying boxing may make you a good pugilist, but does it make you look good? the heart of the problem is what is defined and how to define it.
For classical Martial arts, when I get to the 30th floor, I have reached my goal. I have learned the art through and through. Now what do I do? Well, I can learn a new art, continue to practice my art. I will choose to build to the 40th floor, making my art my own. how do I do this? Well, I can do it several ways, I can learn other arts that seem complimentary, I can learn other arts that seem juxtaposed, or I can continue to learn my art.
I have an odd analogy here and it may be r rated! Lets say you want to be a good lover. You can sleep with many women, and learn how to generally give a women a good time, more often then not this will work, and probably work well if you are good at it.
You can marry, and learn how to flip someones switches inside and out. This will probably work most of the time, and it will work well.
How do you define which is better?
My point of all this is that the ground game is something that any martial artist should pay attention to. Would you as a martial artist totally leave out striking or kicking? But your art deals with those, why would it not deal with groundfighting as well?
Certain people and organizations would have us believe that it is teh only way to go. They have obvious motivation to have us believe this. With sport fighting going more mainstream, they can use this to back thier claims up. I just feel that although it may have been a wake up call for some who did not think of the ground game all that much, it has been way overstressed.

17

Ryu.

I believe I am far from mediocre, too. But not in a good way.

18

red5angel,

well said. the analogy, oddly, works. though to pursue it one step further, you’re married. and presumably, if you were to sleep with anyone outside of that marriage, it would be your choice. yeah?

but it won’t necessarily be your choice to go outside of your relationship with your style. it’ll potentially be someone else’s choice.

at the end of the day, i agree with you that there are two options. either is viable. to me, both have their appeal. no question. the trick is to get all of this off of the drawing board and see if it works. and it needn’t be real life either. if you could convincingly get taken down, chain punch the guy, and get out of it, i’d say you’re all set. wing chun did the trick. (or rather, you did the trick using what you know of wing chun.)

you know why we have so many theoretical debates in this stuff? my guess is that it’s because the actual performance of the event is so rare. and fundamentally undesirable. would i like to know, beyond doubt, that i could defend myself against an armed attacker? hell yeah. do i want to be repeatedly attacked in order to find out? not so much.

:slight_smile:

stuart b.

19

Yep, we debate because no matter what the martial arts is an organic thing. It flows in its own way, and no two situations are the same. One day you could kick the heck out of anyone who stepped in your way, the next you couldnt punch your way out of a paper bag.
Ultimately its each to his own. If you are good at grappling, then grapple, if you are good at running away, then run away!

20

i’ll be going with that second suggestion then. :slight_smile: