http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20011015220606.01583.00000098%40mb-mj.aol.c om Subject: Re: Multiple opponents scenario Date: 16 Oct 2001 02:06:06 GMT From: robrpm2222@aol.

comInternet (RobRPM2222) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts >Well, I guess I'll just have to keep my eyes open. :P are you talking about the X% of fights go to the ground statistic? Well, here's what I've heard, and posted a while back, which is namely that those statisistics come from LAPD officer arrest records, and that somewhere between 90% to 95% of fights where the subject(s) resisted arrest went to the ground. Rorian Gracie was the person to first publicize those statistics to promote groundfighting, and since Rorian was very much buddy-buddy with the LAPD, I have no reason to doubt this. What Rorian didn't say, however, is that the police were trained to take a subject to the ground during an arrest, being that it is easier to restrain a person there with fewer injuries to the subject being restrained ( important in our lawsuit culture. ) Since there are more police officers than opponents in most cases, this is a viable tactic a large percentage of the time. Despite the misuse of statistics, what Rorian implied was correct, namely that fights often went to the ground whether the opponents wanted it to or not. -Rob Meyer Kempo-Jujitsu, Sombo, Goshinbudo Jujitsu ( MMA ) | As Voltaire once said| " Witty quotes mean nothing."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=B5B5D255.D71%25jls%40jps.ne From: Jason Lawrence Stauff (jls@jps.net) Subject: Law enforcement: where "most fights go to the ground" may have begun. Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts View: (This is the only article in this thread) | Original Format Date: 2000/08/08 Hello, I was reading a law enforcement self defense book called Law enforcement: reasonable force options. It was written by Rod Sanford. In this book he said that, based on an L.A.P.D. study by Sergeant Greg Dossey, 62% of officer involved altercations ended up with the two parties grappling on the ground. I am attending a P.O.S.T. academy in California now. This is the basic academy that California requires in order to become a peace officer. I am very, very upset that there is no ground fighting taught in the academy. I have taken it upon myself to teach some other interested recruits a little grappling. I have found more than a little resistance from the self defense instructors and others in the academy staff. I took a strong stance when they tried to

dissuade me from teaching the grappling. After I got a cautious okay to start teaching I only had two willing students. After the first class I now have about fifteen who want to be in the next class (this Sunday). Opening their eyes to ground fighting has actually made them scared of their own ineptness on the ground. I am left with just one question: why is there so much resistance against just learning some ground fighting skills and California P.O.S.T. academies? Regards, Jason ================================================== http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fights+%22go+to+the+ground%22+lapd&hl=en&rnum= 7&selm=37E006FD.497376FB%40healtheon.com From: Damon Stone (damon@healtheon.com) Subject: Re: ufc is real-life combat. Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts View: Complete Thread (78 articles) | Original Format Date: 1999/09/15 Jerry Love wrote: > > > >In a match geared (at least somewhat) toward grapplers > > > > Like hell it is. > > Soft floor, one-on-one, nothing on the floor, no weapons, no walls, no > eye-goughes, groin shots, tearing, biting...... Speaking from experience right Jerry? I mean you have actually been INSIDE of one of SEG's regulation octagons to speak about it right? The floor is soft in comparison to concrete, but isn't any softer than a number of surfaces you may find yourself fighting on such as a field of grass or the like. Nothing on the floor... Well in all honesty my city is pretty clean there isn't much on the city street or sidewalks that stays there long. No walls... no but the fenced cage does a good job of restricting movement and getting thrown into it or pressed against it hurts. As anyone who has fought in one should know... Eye gouging, groin shots, tearing and biting... got news for you Jerry, a grappler has access to these exact same tactics as a striker and considering all require you to be reasonably close if he has you on the ground he will be in a FAR better place from which to use these techniques than you are. > > > > > > > > > > ed > > > > >in the birthplace of >a grappling art, in a competition full of grapplers, many fights go to the >ground? I am not suprised. One dimensional strikers dont enter anymore,cause they all got the shit kick out of em. See previous entry.

Which was that? That grapplers who train against strikers could takedown and beat strikers who never trained against

grapplers and relied on "anti-grappling" techniques that worked when used against their karateka/kung-fu/silat training partners? Well then you are right. If it was the bit about the enviroment favoring grapplers, how about you wait until you have actually been inside of one before you pass judgement on something you have no experience in. > > >So you are saying there is no actual study to validate a claim the 95% of > > >fights end up with both fighters on the ground? > > > > i'M SURE THERE ARE STUDIES,BUT I ONLY CARE ABOUT MINE,AND IN MINE,MORE THAN 95% > > GO DOWN(GENERATED THROUGH WATCHING VALE TUDO) > > Strike a nerve? You complain when I don't have video-tape and you don't even > have literature. Actually a number of reports about it have been cited. Contact the FBI or LAPD for their reports on crime statistics. The original reports used were from 89-91 I believe but any year should be able to provide you with the general statistics. If you want to attack this point you are going about it wrong. The stats are there, what you should be arguing is whether any of the participants were trained fighters when the fight went to the ground. If they were was either or both of them trained as grapplers/groundfighters. If the combatants were average Joe's and Jane's then the data becomes questionable. Also you should inquire whether this includes altercations were one of the principles was a member of law enforcement. If so then a number of their "fights" go to the ground since they are attempting to restrain someone versus beat the piss out of them (though with the LAPD that may not always be true ;). > I take the possability of ending up on the ground very seriously. How > seriously do you take the possability of your opponent NOT ending up there? Me personally I treat both very seriousely. I train in maintaing my feet and being able to escape from the ground if I find myself there and fight from the ground if returning to my feet is not a viable option at the time. I also train on how to execute throws and takedowns that either leave me still standing or place me in a controling place on the ground where I may strike as I return to my feet. Mobility is key to survival in a fight. > I take one-on-one fights very seriously, but you seem to ignore the > possability of multiple attackers. I don't but being able to fight effectively on the ground is VERY important against multiple attackers. One on one you have the freedom to focus a lot of your attention on one person and resist any takedowns or other influences (enviroemnt, plain bad luck) that may put you on the ground. Against multiple assailants you must divide your attention and this increases the chances that you may find yourself on the ground. A grappler is NOT a groundfighter necessarily. I can grapple extremely effectively from a standing position, and use oneof my opponents as a shield and even a weapon if need be from other attackers. I can use pain and threat of injury/death to aid me in my escape. Grappling will allow me

to neutralize a non-grappler and still allow me to use striking skills which for some may be rudimentary but in my case are probably my best asset. > I take unarmed fights very seriously, but you seem to pay little heed to the > effect of armed conflict on your fighting style. Whereas I am always aware of the potential for any conflict to esculate to the point of weapons and generally expect it to do so. Better safe than sorry. If your opponent has a weapon I have found it safer to either avoid them completely or control the hand with the weapon. I'm either going to take the first oppurtunity to bail or the first chance to close and control. What I won't do is stay on the outside and hope to strike at an armed attacker in hopes of getting the KO or a maiming or killing blow. If I can control the weapon it is MUCH less of a threat and by controling the weapon I control him allowing for any strikes I use to be that much more effective. dms ========================================================= http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/02/police.misconduct/index.html Study by police chiefs: Cops rarely use force [Police trainibg] Los Angeles Police must take an arrest-and-control training course every 18 mont hs May 2, 1998 Web posted at: 10:54 p.m. EDT (0254 GMT) LOS ANGELES (CNN)--A nationwide study of police departments shows that police ra rely use force in their interaction with citizens, according to a report released Saturda y by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. [vxtreme] CNN's Jim Hill reports The report, funded by the Justice Department, examined nearly 400 law enforcemen t agencies from 1994 through 1997, including their use of physical, chemical, impact, elect ronic and firearm devices. For every 10,000 responses to police calls for help, force was used an average of four times, according to the study. The study also found: * Officers were most likely to use force while making arrests, followed by t raffic stops and responses to disturbances. * There were 61 reported cases of people using chemical force against police officers. * Seventy-eight percent of female suspects and 60 percent of male suspects s uffered no reported injuries resulting from the use of force. * In 63 percent of arrests, force was used by both suspects and officers dur

ing confrontations. * Fifty-two percent of reported confrontations were interracial. The report is the largest examination of police use of force based on data compi led by law enforcement agencies, according to the police chiefs' organization. Public perception affected by high-profile cases But the highly publicized cases of violent arrests paint another picture of how law enforcement officers perform on duty. [king beating] A citizen captured the 1991 police beating in Los Angeles of motorist Rodney Kin g Some examples: The arrests and beatings of suspected illegal immigrants by Calif ornia authorities that was captured on videotape by a Los Angeles news helicopte r, the case of Haitian-born Abner Louima, who allegedly was sexually assaulted w ith a plunger by New York Police officers, and the videotaped beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles Police, which sparked riots in Los Angeles. "Police misconduct is not rare ... I regret to say," said attorney Hugh Manes, w ho specializes in cases of alleged police misconduct. The Los Angeles Police Department is trying to use a kinder, gentler approach to subduing violent suspects. The LAPD began arrest training after a study of past incidents and recommendations from self-defense experts. "What was the most effective way to restrain them and what was the safest way to restrain them ... not only safe for the officer but safe for the suspect," said Los Angeles Police Sgt. Greg Dossey of the training, which is required every 18 months. Despite the Justice report, Manes doubts police violence is decreasing, and he s aid Los Angeles' new training requirement is still not enough. "Once every 18-months ain't gonna cut it ... you need training on a daily or cer tainly on a several-times-a-week basis in order to be effective," Manes said. Correspondent Jill Hill contributed to this report. ========================================================================== http://www.nlectc.org/inthenews/newssummary/12171998.html http://www.nlectc.org/justnetnews/12171998.html#story7 "The LAPD's Reality Check" Los Angeles Times Magazine (12/13/98) P. 22; Cray, Dan Greg Dossey of the Los Angeles Police Department is revolutionizing law enforcem ent confrontation techniques, starting with his troubled hometown force. Dossey base s his new training program on the findings from his University of Southern California doct oral thesis, which found that a substantial number of arrests that involved force could have been prevented or handled better if the officers had been more well-trained. His appr oach differs from traditional police confrontation training in the way officers are t

aught to maintain control of the situation. The most striking finding Dossey uncovered was that two-thirds of all altercations with suspects take place with both parties on the ground, a contingency for which the LAPD was all but unprepared. Other tactics, such as pl acing a "firm grip" on the suspect's arm, tended to engender fights that otherwise might not have taken place. Dossey has replaced these old-fashioned methods with a combination of prevention, teamwork, and martial arts training, and all LAPD officers are now r equired to undergo Dossey's 40-hour training course and be re-certified every 18 months. Th e program seems to be producing results: since its introduction last year, less than 1 per cent of arrests have involved force--compared to the previous six-year average of 1.7 percent--injury rates fell 19 percent, and brutality rates dropped 13 percent. S ome groups are still skeptical, considering the LAPD's reputation, but others have faith. I n addition to continued support from the LAPD leadership, Dossey has been recruited to put on his training seminars for 65 police departments, the FBI, the DEA, and the Navy Seal s. ============================================================================ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:59:21 -0500 From: "Burdick, Dakin R" <burdickd@indiana.edu> To: <the_dojang@martialartsresource.net> Subject: [The_Dojang] 90% of fights go to the ground Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Kirk Lawson wrote: It comes from a study that Sergeant Greg Dossey did for the LAPD in which he found that about 2/3 (62%) LEO arrests or altercations ended with both parties on the ground. Apparently this statistic was commonly cited by Rorian Gracie for quite a while (used out of context actually) and the number grew from 2/3 to "most," to "90%" in the retelling by people who heard Rorian but didn't listen closely or forgot the source of the stat. My Reply: Actually, no. At the article by Dossey at http://www.defendu.com/10_bjj.htm, he mentions: "Both LAPD statistics and the Gracie family assert that between 65 to 85 percent of altercations eventually end up on the ground anyway." Dossey himself was a student of the Gracie stuff (taught in LAPD because of the marvelous influence of Hollywood on American fighting styles), so his "research" was really more in the line of supporting what the Gracies were teaching. Brad Parker's "The Ten Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Moves Every

Cop Should Know" at http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:6H65KhhAyigJ:scv1988.redirectme.net :64080/~fitzy/unarmed%2520combat/texts/Jujitsu%2520Moves.pdf+ground+%22g reg+dossey%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 had this to say: "Many martial artists and defensive tactics instructors tell their students to 'never go to the ground' with a subject because of the dangers to be found there. However, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners aim for the exact opposite outcome - their goal is to always take the fight to the ground. " Of course, even if most fights did end up on the ground, that is NOT where you should aim to be. The Gracies train for fighting one on one, without weapons, for a title. Their stuff works for that. On the street, try not to get in position where five guys can jump on you! True story time -- because of the Gracie success, our federation (USHF) increased the number of ground grapping requirements. For my 2nd dan test, I had to demonstration escapes from pinned position (man on top, etc.). My partner did this by bucking, turning over, passing the guard, and going to the mount. I did it by reaching down and grabbing his nuts. He jumped off pretty damn fast. :) Craig Stovall writes: That was just ad copy from Rorion Gracie back in the early 90's when he and Royce released the original Gracie Basics tape set. My reply: THANK YOU CRAIG!!!!! Yours in the arts, Dakin dakinburdick@yahoo.com ================================================================================ ==== Subject: Re: 90% of fights end up on the ground Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 13:49:52 -0400 From: Joao de Souza <no@sp.am> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts Kirk Lawson wrote: > Daaaaave wrote: > >>So i expect youve heard this before that 90% of fights end up on the >>ground. > > Yeah. This is a bogus stat. The most accurate you can be is "a lot of fights > end up on the ground." Its a bad cultural translation. Its very common in Brazil to use numbers such as "90%" to indicate a great majority, or 99% to indicate a vastly great majority. Those numbers are not meant to be taken literally, but that cultural aspect doesn't translate too well into

other cultures. So when the Gracies came to the US and started using the same "90% of all fights go to the ground" line they used in Brazil, most people (about 90% of them ;) took it as they meant it literally. Joao "93.7% of all statistics are made up" de Souza