[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20011015220606.01583.00000098%40mb-mj.aol.comSubject: Re: Multiple opponents scenarioDate: 16 Oct 2001 02:06:06 GMTFrom: robrpm2222@aol.comInternet (RobRPM2222)Organization: AOL http://www.aol.comNewsgroups: rec.martial-arts>Well, I guess I'll just have to keep my eyes open. :Pare 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 thatthose statisistics come from LAPD officer arrest records, and that somewherebetween 90% to 95% of fights where the subject(s) resisted arrest went to theground. Rorian Gracie was the person to first publicize those statistics topromote groundfighting, and since Rorian was very much buddy-buddy with theLAPD, I have no reason to doubt this.What Rorian didn't say, however, is that the police were trained to take asubject to the ground during an arrest, being that it is easier to restrain aperson there with fewer injuries to the subject being restrained ( important inour lawsuit culture. ) Since there are more police officers than opponents inmost cases, this is a viable tactic a large percentage of the time.Despite the misuse of statistics, what Rorian implied was correct, namely thatfights often went to the ground whether the opponents wanted it to or not.--Rob Meyer | As Voltaire once said-Kempo-Jujitsu, Sombo, | " Witty quotes mean nothing."Goshinbudo Jujitsu ( MMA )----------------------------------------------------------------------------http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=B5B5D255.D71%25jls%40jps.neFrom: Jason Lawrence Stauff (jls@jps.net)Subject: Law enforcement: where "most fights go to the ground" may have begun.Newsgroups: rec.martial-artsView: (This is the only article in this thread) | Original FormatDate: 2000/08/08Hello,I was reading a law enforcement self defense book called Law enforcement:reasonable force options. It was written by Rod Sanford. In this book hesaid that, based on an L.A.P.D. study by Sergeant Greg Dossey, 62% ofofficer involved altercations ended up with the two parties grappling on theground.I am attending a P.O.S.T. academy in California now. This is the basicacademy that California requires in order to become a peace officer. I amvery, very upset that there is no ground fighting taught in the academy. Ihave taken it upon myself to teach some other interested recruits a littlegrappling.I have found more than a little resistance from the self defense instructorsand others in the academy staff. I took a strong stance when they tried todissuade me from teaching the grappling. After I got a cautious okay tostart teaching I only had two willing students. After the first class I nowhave about fifteen who want to be in the next class (this Sunday). Openingtheir eyes to ground fighting has actually made them scared of their ownineptness on the ground.I am left with just one question: why is there so much resistance againstjust 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.comFrom: Damon Stone (damon@healtheon.com)Subject: Re: ufc is real-life combat.Newsgroups: rec.martial-artsView: Complete Thread (78 articles) | Original FormatDate: 1999/09/15Jerry 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 haveactually been INSIDE of one of SEG's regulation octagons tospeak about it right? The floor is soft in comparison toconcrete, but isn't any softer than a number of surfaces youmay find yourself fighting on such as a field of grass orthe like. Nothing on the floor... Well in all honesty mycity is pretty clean there isn't much on the city street orsidewalks that stays there long. No walls... no but thefenced cage does a good job of restricting movement andgetting thrown into it or pressed against it hurts. Asanyone who has fought in one should know... Eye gouging,groin shots, tearing and biting... got news for you Jerry, agrappler has access to these exact same tactics as a strikerand considering all require you to be reasonably close if hehas you on the ground he will be in a FAR better place fromwhich to use these techniques than you are.> > >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 kicked> > out of em.> > See previous entry.Which was that? That grapplers who train against strikerscould takedown and beat strikers who never trained againstgrapplers and relied on "anti-grappling" techniques thatworked when used against their karateka/kung-fu/silattraining partners? Well then you are right. If it was thebit about the enviroment favoring grapplers, how about youwait until you have actually been inside of one before youpass 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 crimestatistics. The original reports used were from 89-91 Ibelieve but any year should be able to provide you with thegeneral statistics. If you want to attack this point you aregoing about it wrong. The stats are there, what you shouldbe arguing is whether any of the participants were trainedfighters when the fight went to the ground. If they were waseither or both of them trained as grapplers/groundfighters.If the combatants were average Joe's and Jane's then thedata becomes questionable. Also you should inquire whetherthis includes altercations were one of the principles was amember of law enforcement. If so then a number of their"fights" go to the ground since they are attempting torestrain someone versus beat the piss out of them (thoughwith 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 inmaintaing my feet and being able to escape from the groundif I find myself there and fight from the ground ifreturning to my feet is not a viable option at the time. Ialso train on how to execute throws and takedowns thateither leave me still standing or place me in a controlingplace on the ground where I may strike as I return to myfeet. 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 isVERY important against multiple attackers. One on one youhave the freedom to focus a lot of your attention on oneperson 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 attentionand this increases the chances that you may find yourself onthe ground. A grappler is NOT a groundfighter necessarily. Ican grapple extremely effectively from a standing position,and use oneof my opponents as a shield and even a weapon ifneed be from other attackers. I can use pain and threat ofinjury/death to aid me in my escape. Grappling will allow meto neutralize a non-grappler and still allow me to usestriking skills which for some may be rudimentary but in mycase 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 conflictto esculate to the point of weapons and generally expect itto do so. Better safe than sorry. If your opponent has aweapon I have found it safer to either avoid them completelyor control the hand with the weapon. I'm either going totake the first oppurtunity to bail or the first chance toclose and control. What I won't do is stay on the outsideand hope to strike at an armed attacker in hopes of gettingthe KO or a maiming or killing blow. If I can control theweapon it is MUCH less of a threat and by controling theweapon I control him allowing for any strikes I use to bethat much more effective.dms=========================================================http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/02/police.misconduct/index.htmlStudy by police chiefs: Cops rarely use force[Police trainibg]Los Angeles Police must take an arrest-and-control training course every 18 monthsMay 2, 1998Web posted at: 10:54 p.m. EDT (0254 GMT)LOS ANGELES (CNN)--A nationwide study of police departments shows that police rarely useforce in their interaction with citizens, according to a report released Saturday by theInternational Association of Chiefs of Police.[vxtreme] CNN's Ji... [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]