The dangers of groundfighting in WMA

[Mike Cartier]

I understand your points Rob and certainly good striking is a critical part of anyones martial capabilities. Noone chooses to hit the ground underneath their opponent. However when you rush in on someone to hit them, one of the best ways to stop you is for them to clinch up on you. This often precipitates a furious stand up grappling struggle which invariably brings both people to the ground.

I am only suggesting that grappling in battlefield combat with weapons is not completly useless, grappling between two opponents of similar size and skill will more often than not, end up with both of them on the ground.
Thats also where most boxing matches would go if there was not a referee to break it up.

Likewise on the battlefield if someone passes up the pleasure of hacking you to pieces so that they can come to grips, then the chances skyrocket that you may both end up on the ground. If you grapple with a person who has a weapon you want them close to you and smothered so they have no room to bring that weapon to bear on you. If you are bigger than your opponent it will be alot easier for you to force him in to grappling and groundfighting range. Thats the big difference between grappling in general and striking, its a phase of combat that you can ber forced into against your will. If you decide to beat my ass in an alley way and try to strike with me i have room to move, room to try and escape. If you grapple with me and have more skill or are bigger i will find it very hard top get away at all without a skillset to get me up of my ass. Thats where groundfighting comes in as part of the overall skillset.
Greek Hoplites clearly valued grappling as a battleifeld art, grappling on a battlefield in ancient greece would have been mostly, two people trying to throw each other, unless one comes off as a clear winner fast there is a good chance they will both end up on the ground. Which is why you learn ground fighting, not to go to the ground the first chance you get but to bring those skills to bear when forced into that phase of a fight.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Guys,

On a battlefield, when both of the grapplers go down, the first one who has a friend show up with a weapon wins!

Peace,

Tim

[Casper Bradak]

Heh, honestly, the only people who I hear say fights from grappling when standing invariably go to the ground are groundfighters. Those arguments would negate thousands of years of battlefield techniques, and from what I've seen isn't much of an issue. It does happen though, so best be prepared.
If throwing someone makes you any more likely to be punched in the back of the head, you're trying too hard and you should stick to striking at range until you're better at it. Throws can be extremely useful in multiple opponent situations, creating barriers, and is often faster than trying to beat someone into the same position. And when one is standing and the other isn't, one of the quickest and best ways to stop them is to do a little dance on their chests, among other things.

[Mike Cartier]

"the only people who I hear say fights from grappling when standing invariably go to the ground are groundfighters. "

Well i think that if you break down stand up grappling its 2 guys trying to throw each other to the ground, stands to reason that it would increase the chances of one or both of them ending up on the ground.

Watch a grappling tournament wrestling/judo or BJJ and watch how many times the two grapplers end up on the ground together by negating each others moves.

"Those arguments would negate thousands of years of battlefield techniques, and from what I've seen isn't much of an issue. It does happen though, so best be prepared. "

I don't see how awareness of the ground phase in unarmed or weaponed combat would negate thousands of years of grappling arts, i think rather i am making a case for the fact that existence of one requires the other, grappling is more than stand up wrestling and fighting is more than just grappling or striking alone.

The multiple opponent issue while true is not any more made to be battlefield friendly by changing the fight from the ground to stand up grappling or striking. Any sort of individualist combat during a battle would seem to be a poor choice of timing. but battle often did break down into single combats.

Also remember Its not easy to illustrate groundfighting so expect alot more stand up than grounded stuff in the historical sources.

[Matt Shields]

Heh, honestly, the only people who I hear say fights from grappling when standing invariably go to the ground are groundfighters.

The only people I hear argue that, are Kickboxers and Eastern Martial Artists, many of which believe that their Chi/Ki will finish their opponents for them. Ironically, in Mixed Martial Arts tournaments, they are usually the same few who get taken down in the first ten seconds, try to do something stupid like sit up, and then either get beaten to a bloody pulp, or submit to various locks/holds which they don't understand.

[Casper Bradak]

I don't think tournaments or NHB fights should be brought into it, namely because, despite the name, there's no such thing. And within those, rightly enough, the groundfighters usually have the advantage if they can take a hit, but face it, it'd get 'em killed elsewhere. They can go all out in a tournament where the striker is limited.

"I don't see how awareness of the ground phase in unarmed or weaponed combat would negate thousands of years of grappling arts, i think rather i am making a case for the fact that existence of one requires the other, grappling is more than stand up wrestling and fighting is more than just grappling or striking alone."

I agree fully. But saying even most of such fights invariably go to the ground doesn't seem based on anything outside of the ring.

"The multiple opponent issue while true is not any more made to be battlefield friendly by changing the fight from the ground to stand up grappling or striking. Any sort of individualist combat during a battle would seem to be a poor choice of timing. but battle often did break down into single combats."

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I think combat is much more friendly to the outnumbered one when you're not on the ground. It's common sense that you won't want to face multiple opponents, but the very nature of medieval tactics when faced with the enemy in battle is to maneuver the many to face the few.

"Also remember Its not easy to illustrate groundfighting so expect alot more stand up than grounded stuff in the historical sources."

I'm not being stubborn but I doubt I can be convinced that such techniques are any harder to illustrate than any other technique. They do exist in the manuals, but I believe as a contingency. I seriously doubt any art prior to the modern age seriously focused on ground fighting as its central aspect outside of the sporting arena, however rough.
Such statements obviously cannot be based on historical accounts, be they from combat or passage of arms, fighting treatises, or artwork. You can absolutely find examples, but they are an extreme minority. It happened, it's good to know, but it is a poor way to fight intentionally in most cases and it certainly doesn't happen as often as some would like to believe. If it did, it would stand to reason, withing the last several thousand years of human history, someone would've realised it before the 20th century and made it a widespread art.

[david welch]

The only people I hear argue that, are Kickboxers and Eastern Martial Artists, many of which believe that their Chi/Ki will finish their opponents for them

Oddly enough, for you MMA fans, Judo didn't even have ground stuff (Ne Wasa) until the early 1900s when Dr. Kano developed them and incorporated them into Judo. He even SAID they were only necessary for sporting reasons, after he took the combat elements out of Judo. While it was a Combat Art, Judo didn't have a NEED for Ne Wasa. So much for the combat BJJ.

The story in itself is hilarious. Dr. Kano's school was fighting another dojo, and the other people were frightened because Kano's was undefeated. So they came up with a TRICK! When the fights would start, the challengers would fall on the ground. Since the rules said you couldn't stomp them to death (judo now being a sport and all) they had no idea what to do with them. To make a long story short (I know, too late) Kano's students wound up getting swept and losing the matches on the ground. After that defeat, Dr. Kano decided that since Judo was now a SPORT, he had to develop ground work. Which he did, after several years of work, and integrated it into Judo.

In an interesting parallel (for me anyway), concerning the inevitability of going to ground. In the old days, Cornish collar and elbow wrestlers would have matches that lasted ALL DAY, with rules specifying what happens if no one wins by sundown. The fights were to the first wrestler to win 5 throws against his opponent.

Maybe most people just don't train to stay on their feet anymore. There is not a reason too now days. But in fighting cultures, in their games you lost when you went down because if you did it for real in battle, you DIED.

[Mike Cartier]

"I don't think tournaments or NHB fights should be brought into it, namely because, despite the name, there's no such thing. And within those, rightly enough, the groundfighters usually have the advantage if they can take a hit, but face it, it'd get 'em killed elsewhere."

I'm not sure what you mean, If a wrestler rushes me and tosses me to the ground then puts his knee on my belly and smashes my face repeatedly until i go unconcious. i think thats a splendid way to take care of business, how would that not work for him on the street?.
I think you guys have a mistaken notion that ground fighters fight from their backs as a choice. The only time you end up on your back is when you are placed there against your will, everyman can be placed on his back by the right person, learning to fight from your back is simply dealing with the reality that you can be placed on your back.

Pankration is not modern and it was NHB except for eye gouges and biting (except for the Spartans of course)
Pankration was the martial art of the Hoplites so i think gorund fighting is not totally useless on the battlefield. They at least saw some sense in training it. They also saw the value of combat sports for developing fighting skills.

The whole thing with Kano and Judo and BJJ history is very interesting, its all still very strictly controlled sport. So of course the butt flop worked, just like the hip toss worked. Hip tossing doesn't kill you either. Its not so easy to toss everyone in such a way to kill them instantly or knock them out. A good wrestler will not be tossed, neither will a Judoka. Why? because they play a sport that develops attributes through long hours of training that are of great use in the art of grappling.
Sporting play as the method for developing skill in fighting with and without weapons is the backbone of our Western Martial Heritage. Sporting versions of many western arts exist for the simple reason that using a martial art skill in a sporting application develops realtime skills against a resisting opponent. Yes Boxing is not ALL of fighting, but studying it develops excellent striking skills , Likewise wrestling is not all of fighting but develops extremely effective attributes that give wrestlers and judoka a good advantage over non-skilled people in a clinch.

[Matt Shields]

Casper,
I think NHB and MMA are good examples of "real fighting" and in no way favor strikers. Especially in the earlier days before McCain and angry mothers stepped in, most MMA tournaments only had rules against Biting and Eye Gouging, some later outlawed Fishhooking. Even if someone violated the rules it was usually just a fine and not a disqualifaction. The fighting was very real, and certain techniques and skillsets beat others.

David,
Fist of all, Jigoro Kano was also the founder of Judo (or "the gentle way") and intended it to be a sport from the begining. The story also goes that Kano removed the dangerous and lethal moves of Jujitsu, while making the throws more efficient. I've also heard an alternate ending to your story which says that Kano sent some of his students to the school which defeated him, and had them come back and teach him groundwork, which he then integrated. And it is not impossible to sweep somone when they attempt to stomp you in the head.

As for Cornish wrestling, like in Scottish Backhold wrestling, and folk wrestling from York, you also loose if you break your grip, or touch the ground during a throw. And for the account of day-long matches; I find it hard to believe that two wrestlers could actually be tied up trying to throw one another for an entire day. Even if you started the match at noon, thats still about a 5.5 - 7.5 hour tie up. You'd think they'd need some provisions to do that, like water, and bathroom breaks. I get the feeling these traditional wrestling styles have there rules in place, not for martial value, but for entertainment (ground fighting can be dull to watch) and for sport.

I think the large ammount of ground fighting in Pankration shows it's value enough. It's a fundemental skill that everyone should have, even if not to use then to defend against.

But skilled fighters can resist going to the ground and maintain standing striking if they are very skilled in in sprawling, striking from tie-ups, and resisting the clinch. And it's still not rare for people who almost solely practice these to get taken to the ground.

EDIT: I see Mike beat me to the post and already made most of my points. But to the idea of "ground fighters" going to the ground inentionally; they usually wish to do so in order to mount their opponent. Brazilian JiuJitsu practioners have been known to "pull guard" which is going to your back and dragging your opponent with you. This is usually a result of fighting large wrestlers, which they have no chance of taking down. But this "closed guard," in which the person on the bottom is on his back with his legs around his opponents torso, gives him many opportunites to use sweeps and submission locks, along with limiting the use of the opponents upper body. I saw a mention of this in a Greek account of a Pankration match in the olympic games. Similarly, it was the smaller person who "pulled guard" on the larger. In the end the smaller man won. So I think having mentions of similar methods being used over 2,000 years ago, gives ground fighting some credibility.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Mike

I do agree with most of what you say i know me personaly, i'm a wimp, I alway's try to get my opponenet on the ground and i don't care how i do it once your on your back most of the time i can take advatage of it and rock someone's world.

in ancient Olympic's i don't remember what the event was called(it was the over all champion) it was a fight and they would strike and throw, the whole nine yard's, guy's had ankle's broken all sort's of crazy stuff, and this was considered a sport, i think we need to aquaint our selve's as martial artist with all sort's of fighting, wrestling, pugilism, sword's, knive's, stave's, hmmmm sound's like what we are doing lol, seriously though in combat anything goes so we need to be at least aquainted with all sort's of fighting standing or ground and wrestlign is a very old combat art whether it be on the ground or standing, you try to throw me in a fight i will take you down with me and i imagine that is the mentality of most, i'll grab your hair, wrap a leg what ever i want to stand over you as you want to stand over me.

is just me though.

Jeff

[Mike Cartier]

Pankration was the event. The butt scoot in those days was called huptiasmos. There is a good description of the event here.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aid%3Dpancratium

[Shawn Cathcart]

There are a few things not being taken into consideration here in my opinion. Looking at the historical manuals, the images and text obviously show a clear preference for staying on your feet, while throwing your opponent to the ground in such a fashion as to injure them, and then finish them. I don't think that means they didn't study ground fighting, but it seems fairly obvious that at least in principle, they wanted to remain on their feet, while the opponent fell to the ground. Of course making this work in practice is a touch more difficult which I think everyone will acknowledge.

No matter what, the intent is to finish your opponent quickly, and its clear that two skilled opponents in ground fighting take sometime, at least several minutes to achieve this. I'd argue this is likely too long in a battlefield scenario, but of course that depends on where and when in the battlefield scenario it was likely to occur. What we are forgetting is the common implement of knives daggers and pure no holds barred, biting, eye gouging, and fishhooking. A knife for either opponent in a ground fighting scenario drastically changes the dynamic. A knife simplifies things because now instead of say weak punches to the ribs you have deep puncture wounds due to the knife. Instead of attempted punches to the face you have mouth and nostril fishhooks as well as eye gouging.

Even though they are only a few rules, even taking out eye gouging, biting and fishhooking drastically changes the encounter on the ground. Most ground fighters keep their heads tucked in or close in in order to avoid strikes. However, doing this would put them in danger of biting gouging and fishhooking. Since these are not allowed, it is safe to do.

I think you'd see a more simple, but more brutal form of groundfighting than we see depicted today in most MMA styles. The more complex holds and bars are used because for the most part they can be executed with a degree of safety and control. I think you'd see them traded in for gouging biting and fishhooking until one or the other could pull a knife and end things quickly.

The main challenge for grappling, ground fighting included, is how quickly can a debilitating action be accomplished, in direct comparison to how much time a fighter has unmolested from an interfering 3rd party.

In order to judge how much time a fighter might have you'd have to identify at what points or phases of the battle grappling and groundfighting would be likely to take place. When solid lines are held jostling back and forth? When a breaking of a line occurs and enemy troops get caught behind your main line? When a route is accomplished? During retreat? Each of these would likely put a different time frame and scenario and how much time to accomplish a victory in grappling was allowed.

[JeffGentry]

hey Shawn

I know what you mean, ask Jaron i took him to the ground and as soon as i got away i was looking for the dagger he dropped, if i go to the ground my first priority is alway's to get back up if i go with you and find a weapon any weapon be it a rock, big stick, whatever.

i don't think going to the ground is so much a bad thing what is bad is staying there and trying to fight.

is MHO.

Jeff

[Casper Bradak]

"Casper,
I think NHB and MMA are good examples of "real fighting" and in no way favor strikers. Especially in the earlier days before McCain and angry mothers stepped in, most MMA tournaments only had rules against Biting and Eye Gouging, some later outlawed Fishhooking. Even if someone violated the rules it was usually just a fine and not a disqualifaction. The fighting was very real, and certain techniques and skillsets beat others. "

I said it doesn't favor strikers.

"I'm not sure what you mean, If a wrestler rushes me and tosses me to the ground then puts his knee on my belly and smashes my face repeatedly until i go unconcious. i think thats a splendid way to take care of business, how would that not work for him on the street?.
I think you guys have a mistaken notion that ground fighters fight from their backs as a choice. The only time you end up on your back is when you are placed there against your will, everyman can be placed on his back by the right person, learning to fight from your back is simply dealing with the reality that you can be placed on your back."

No one would argue against that. I know groundfighters don't prefer to fight from their backs, and like I said, it happens, and it's good to know as a contingency because of that, which I'm not argueing against, but it's a lousy way to try to fight in most situations. NHB fights definitely favour the grapplers by limiting strikes and gouges, hooks and breaks that a striker would use to free himself from said situations in reality.

"Pankration is not modern and it was NHB except for eye gouges and biting (except for the Spartans of course)
Pankration was the martial art of the Hoplites so i think gorund fighting is not totally useless on the battlefield. They at least saw some sense in training it. They also saw the value of combat sports for developing fighting skills."

Pankration is in fact a modern art, with an ancient name. There is no lineage, direct or otherwise, and there is insignificant source material for reconstruction. Though rough, it was a sport and it did not focus on ground fighting. Neither was it the martial art of the hoplites, though I'm sure it was A martial art used by many hoplites.

[Stacy Clifford]

Although it's not shown as ground fighting, Passchen shows this and a few other, um, ungentlemanly techniques in his manual, so we know the masters taught the dirty stuff: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Passchen/Passchen.htm

When Advers. has enclosed you with his arms [a bear hug from the front], push both your thumbs in his mouth between his cheeks and teeth, and tear his mouth, as in N° 34 [the drawing shows this with one hand - try it on yourself to feel if it works].