Who is dumb enough to purposely go to the ground in a streetfight.

[phillyman]

Bruces ability

I once heard or read Dan inasanto say that when Bruce was standing up straight his arm were past his knees whick gave him a reach advantage that people couldnt see. Wouldnt this be considered a natural ability. (PS this is a general question not a smart comment)

[guardman]

Originally posted by darkyellowsky
I read a post early that said most of the people in this forum believe that a boxer has no chance against a grappler. First, of all I think this is bullshit. If a boxer is fast enough he can easilly end a fight with one punch. If anyone has read the Tao of Jeet Kun Do by Bruce Lee he writes that fights should be ended with the least minimal effort possible (one knockout punch or kick). Now in streetfight a grappler would have to takedown his opponent, gain control, and then end it with a submission, giving his opponent plenty of chances to punch him in the head. Now I hardly call this minimal effort. This is one of the reasons I belive BJJ is way overrated. It is defineately not a style of fighting a person should depend on in a streetfight, if it is one-on-one maybe. I don't know how many of you all have been in a real fight, but it is never one-on-one. It is stupid to purposely go to the ground because the opponent may have friends or even a single girlfriend that can come up and give you a good kick to the head and really **** you up. Don't get me wrong I believe you do need grappling skills just in case you do both end up on the ground, but I believe it is more impotant to train in various types of martial arts, particularly in your stand-up game. Like many martial artists say now 90% of all fights end up on the ground, but 100% start on your feet.

the ground is the ultimate equalizer. i don't care if you are a 12th degree black belt in karate, jkd, kung fu, muay tai champ. if you go against a bigger opponent who is stronger. your chances standing up aren't too good. chances are if he lands a good shot you are going down. if you take a bigger opponent down that evens out the playing field.

[darkyellowsky]

Bruce Lee was not that good?

Alan I don't know what you have read or if you are basing your comment from just watching his movies. But Bruce Lee did have that natural speed and strength. He was able to do perfect two-finger push-ups and he could do a full body bench elevation (like Stallone did in Rocky 4). Can you do either of theses exercises Alan? Matter of fact I would like to see any of the current NHB and MMA superstars do either of these exercises. Current quick-draw gunslingers can draw and fire in 3/100th of a second, Bruce Lee was able to punch (arm fully extended), faster than 3/100th of a second. Not only was Bruce Lee incredibly gifted with his body, but he was also a brilliant thinker. He had a library of over 3,000 martial art books and fight film. Do you know any other MA that has a collection like this? Bruce Lee was also a great teacher, he worked out with the biggest champions of his time (Chuck Norris, Joe Lewis, Mike Stone). I haven't heard that any of the Gracies are working out with the best martial artists in the world. Pile this all up and ad that Bruce Lee was a true streetfighter, that is why he had to leave his home land. Add this all up and if you can find a fighter that is better physically, mentally, and intellectually, I would like to know who he\she is. If you can't find one I suggest you start reading.

[Rob B]

Ok, alot of you are either really naive or just plain stupid.

***THE STREET IS NOT ABOUT WINNING, IT'S ABOUT SUVIING***

I can't stress this enough. Street fighting has denegraded to a contest of numbers and weapons. If you hit the ground on the streets you lose all of your mobility and about 70 per cent of your vision around you. you are completely commited and cannot escape if you are out numbered. If your opponent has a weapon, you're dead. If you keep it standing you are alot more aware of your surroundings and always have an avenue of escape. Your chances of survival have increased astronomically.

[Shrimp]

"Street fight" can mean so, so many different things.

Blacktop, grass, carpet, sand, obstacles, no obstacles, weapons, no weapons, etc. Killer, thief, aggressive friend, girlfriend, the guy who says you cut in front of him in line at Safeway, the 130-lber who has no chance against you but is in your face anyway: it's hard to say anything (about tactics) that applies to all of these situations equally.

And I haven't even begun to exhaust the possibilities.

[gungfuhero]

If I could avoid going to the ground with an opponent I would. I would also like NIKE contract, world peace, and end to hunger...

I could quote a plethora of Bruce Lee sayings denouncing the one hit or one kick knock outs, but I don't need to. Anyone who believes that their hit is going to knock someone out is deluding themselves. It may happen, but it usually won't. Although I would rather stand up and kickbox and trap, it is sometimes advantageous to grapple. By the way, the ground is only an equalizer if the big gut sucks at grappling and doesn't have a clue.

Sometimes you get the bear and sometims the bear gets you. The more experience you have in the different facets of fighting helps the odds of getting the bear.

[Linden]

I think the arguments in this thread are rather obvious ones.

First off, in an ideal situation it would of course be wise to stay on your feet, and prevent yourself from being attacked on the ground by your opponents friends or whatever.

The fact is there are the ideal factors that would have to be taken into account before you made that decision:

1. You would have to be much better at striking than your opponent.

2. You would have to be truly confident that you are much better at striking than your opponent.

3. You and your opponent would essentially both have to agree that the fight will be fought standing up with no clinching involved.

4. Your opponent would have to not want the fightt to go to the ground, and whether you believe it or not, your have a better chance of taking someone down than to provide them with a one punch knock out that ends the fight, and prevents the both of you from clinching, and going to the ground at some point.

5. You would have to be bigger than your opponent. I.E. reach and so forth, for your odds to be the greatest that you would prevail in a boxing match with him. You can be the greatest lightweight there is, but if a large man wants to toss you around, or dominate your reach, then he can. This I doubt most would argue. Of course there are exceptions, but we are speaking of odds.

What it comes down to is this, you can have great boxing skills, but if you are fighting a larger opponent, who takes you from behind, or even one who decides to throw down with you, your size is a factor. On the ground, size is less of a factor.

I pity any man who tries to duke it out with larger opponent, when he has the opportunity to get out of range of his punches, and finish the fight on his own terms.

Now if you are larger than your opponent, or even if you are the same size and have a strong standing game you are better off trying to keep it standing, but again this is an ideal.

What I see people forgetting on here is that it's not a matter of "I can punch so I'm going to," it's matter of "Can my punching ability win this for me."

Grappling can be a life saver for a smaller person, because no matter what level your stand up game is, if your opponent is bigger than you, he has the immediate advantage standing up.

Grappling should be used as a forced offense, or as an option for a smaller fighter to survive in a fight against a larger opponent.

We forget that boxing is a sport as well, and there are rules and agreements made in a match that take the spontaneous close range elements out of the natural fight scheme.

I doubt the average fight begins with two people agreeing to start in their respective corners of a parking lot, and breaking each and every time they clinch with one another.

Besides, most fights may begin standing, but very few are kept there, even when the fighters have no desire or intention of going to the ground.

Boxing still seems to delude many on this forum. Of course it is valuable, and you need to train in it to be a complete fighter, but that also applies mainly to NHB, a completely different fight game than actual street fighting.

Practically speaking, for you to have the best advantage in a street fight you will be best served having a good ground game, where you have the chance to dictate the action no matter what your size, than to base your game primarily on hoping that your punches land in the midst of the flurries from a larger opponent.

[Bau13]

Bottom line...
streetfight = too many variables
weapons,multiple attackers, surface etc etc etc...

standing ,grappling...whatever...
If you HAVE to fight.....just do it..

[The Colonie Crusher]

Attention Linden...

Linden, from reading your post I can see that you think size is more of a factor with striking rather than grappling. I disagree 100%. Size has very little to do with punching power. If that were the case powerlifters would be the strongest punchers on the planet. Obviously they're not. Roy Jones is about 190 lbs. when he's at his heaviest. He is one of the hardest hitting guys on the planet. I can confirm my theory to this because I was once sucker punched by this 6'5 280 lbs. bouncer and he hit about as hard as a retarded 2 year old. But than I spar with 200 lbs. fighters and they hit twice as hard than him with gloves on. Go figure?

I think size matters on the ground. Why else would Kimo, who had virtually NO ground experience at the time hang with the best BJJ fighter around(again, at the time)? Size matters on the ground and anyone who says otherwise is clueless.

And you say even if you're the lightweight champ a big guy can toss you down to the ground? Obviously you have no respect for boxers. But than again, that seems to be the norm on this board, so I won't even touch that one.

Also, you claim boxing has rules and "we seem to forget that". Well I hate to break it to you, but NHB has plenty of rules too, pal.

The bottom line is this: In a streetfight anything goes. Do what you have to do to win. Wheather it be striking, grappling, using a weapon, etc.

[Edited by The Colonie Crusher on 12-30-2000 at 01:55 AM]

[Ryu (non-working password]

Bruce Bruce Bruce!

Jojitsu where are you?? We need you for this one.

I'm not sure why I'm responding because I have a strange feeling this thread will lead into a troll.
But to be honest, streetfights happen in different degrees.
You don't know what will happen. Most of my fights have been one on one. I used grappling to win. I fought two people at the same time once, and wound up on the ground again, where I escaped and was able to stand up again. I'm not too patient with the "don't go to the ground with multiple opponents." If you're fighting more than two people at a time you'll lose. I don't care who you are or what you know. It's about escaping at that point.
Since the majority of martial artists learn to be able to fight on the street, you are saying BJJ has no merit as a real martial art. Which is somewhat lame.
This particular post is not to any particular person, but just to general people. Everyone has the right ideas, but real fights happen without you knowing it. Suddenly you're in a fight. You don't have time to get in a stance, strut around, or put up your dux. A guy sucker punches you, or you all of a sudden find yourself in a headlock on the ground. That's what happens. You don't decide to fight, you simple "are" fighting. The other stuff is just the "rooster dance".
Besides, if you want to be a deadly streetfighter just shoot and stab people. No martial artist will be able to touch you...until they shoot you back

Ryu

[RGJJ]

you are a fool to not take it to the ground.i've been training jiu jitsu for four years and that is the first thing i would do if i was in any threat.

[Linden]

"Linden, from reading your post I can see that you think size is more of a factor with striking rather than grappling."

Yes I do, I think gravity is "less" of a factor than it is on the ground. See that I stress "less."

I think this is proven by physics alone.

"I disagree 100%. Size has very little to do with punching power."

We're not necessarily talking about punching power, it was not mentioned in my post.

You can have no punching power and hit a man in the right spot, and KO him. So punching power in and of itself is not necessarily the deciding factor either.

I do however feel that size can effect punching power. Can it make it the be all, end all? No, but it does play a role.

I don't think Mike Tyson punches harder and with more power than Roy Jones Junior simply because he has better technique. It's because he has a significant size differential.

"If that were the case powerlifters would be the strongest punchers on the planet."

Yes, or they could be worse. The point is if they learn the proper technique the potential for power could be made greater by their size.

That is why boxing has weight divisions.

"Obviously they're not. Roy Jones is about 190 lbs. when he's at his heaviest. He is one of the hardest hitting guys on the planet."

But is also true that a man of much more significant size with equal technique would most likely punch harder than him.

Just lik in Jiu-Jitsu, if a man is larger and is of the exact same skil level as you, the odds of him applying his skills and winning is greater.

Size matters when tchnique is greater or equal.

"I can confirm my theory to this because I was once sucker punched by this 6'5 280 lbs. bouncer and he hit about as hard as a retarded 2 year old. But than I spar with 200 lbs. fighters and they hit twice as hard than him with gloves on. Go figure?"

I understand, they had better technique and I never denied that this was a factor.

"I think size matters on the ground. Why else would Kimo, who had virtually NO ground experience at the time hang with the best BJJ fighter around(again, at the time)? Size matters on the ground and anyone who says otherwise is clueless."

Well, that could be looked at in many ifferent ways, depending the particulars of how the fight transpired, and the leverage involved due to positioning.

The fact remained that Royce beat Kimo, a much larger man than him. Size mattered, it made it more difficult, especially due to the fact that Kimo exhibited some ground knowledge, and even had royce's back at one point.

But it only helped in terms of actual resitance, not overall results.

Many things are a factor in a fight, but due to his ground knowledge alone, Royce won.

If he had punched with him he would have died.

"And you say even if you're the lightweight champ a big guy can toss you down to the ground? Obviously you have no respect for boxers. But than again, that seems to be the norm on this board, so I won't even touch that one."

That's not true. I have respect for boxers in their particular skill and knowledge.

"Also, you claim boxing has rules and "we seem to forget that". Well I hate to break it to you, but NHB has plenty of rules too, pal."

I never disputed that it does. I think I even stated that NHB has biases as well.

"I was speaking about streetfights in particular, and how they are much different than what we see performed in NHB fights, and in boxing. They are much more spontaneous, and have many more variables.

"The bottom line is this: In a streetfight anything goes. Do what you have to do to win. Wheather it be striking, grappling, using a weapon, etc."

Of course do what you have to do, but be sensible about the odds, and your skill level. You have to make wise decisions based on your isntincts, and what you're best at. If you are incapable of hanging hang with a man while he is caving your skull in, then get his ass to the ground.

The problem with guys getting KO'ed in NHB nowadays has to do with one glaring fact: They are trying to prove their punching ability instead of allowing their newly acquired stand up skills to create openings for them, and allow them to exploit what they do best.

Instead, they are forcing themselves into a one dimensional style of fighting just to prove to everyone that they can do the manly thing and knock a guy out.

I think this is changing. As of late more and more fights are going back to the ground. The great knock out rush of '99 is coming to a close, and fighters are getting back to a much more intricate way of fighting.

The concept of a purely balanced fighter, in my opinion, is a myth.

You can never fully integrate punching, kicking, and grappling equally into a fight. You will always have one great strength, and one or many underdeveloped skills.

What knowing these skills should do for you is make you more able to exploit an opening to employ your particular strength, whether it be by dazing an opponent so you can take him to the ground, or by knowing enough ground work to be able to escape or avoid a ground attack.

[Alan]

oh dear oh dear, i base my comments on what i have read about Bruce from as many different sources as i can find and what i have heard his students say in interviews, forums etc... Let me tell you that for every one event in this guys life there are 10 different versions of what happened. you say that Bruce could close distance quicker than 3/100th of a second? well i have read several different versions of this: it was 3/100th of a second according to an article in Black belt, in Bruce Lee's art of expressing the human body it was 5/100th of a second... so which do you believe? I've come to the conclusion that you can trust next to nothing you read about this guy. One example are Bruce's fights on the set of ETD, for every fight he had you read a slightly different version from different people. Some even say his fights were fixed to promote the film... Even accounts from close friends may be biased or distorted due to the passage of time etc. All you can do is read as many different accounts as you can and draw your own non-biased, realisic views on him.

Two fingered press ups don't make you good figter, I can't do them but I don't see why this has any relavance to this discussion. A large collection of books doesn't nessecarily make you a great fighter. Just as a large manhood doesn't well... you get the picture...

Bruce was a great technician and teacher according to almost everyone who trained with him. Which is probably why Joe Lewis trained with him, although Lewis insists they never sparred but says he was the fastest man who ever stood in front of him. The late Wong Sheung Long (Bruce's senior Wing Chun brother) says that Bruce's timing was bad and he wasn't that good when they supposedly sparred when Bruce went back to HK... soooo who do you believe? There are countless martial artists who people say that Bruce fought/didn't fight. Did Bruce stick hands with Yip Man when he went back to HK? according to what source you read he did (or didn't) and if he did he either got completely wasted by Yip man or Bruce was able to get in on him....

A better fighter than Bruce? I'm sure one exists, Bruce was an excellent martial artist and very capable fighter. but don't get too caught up in thinking that he could take anybody every single time they fought. he would have won some and lose some, like most humans... Dan inosanto said that Bruce was good but not invincible. But also, that Bruce was pound for pound one of the strongest people he has ever seen in the artial arts, which is quite something considering all the people he has trained with....

[Edited by Alan on 12-30-2000 at 06:45 AM]

[Alan]

phillyman: yeah it might be considered a natural adavantage but my main point was that his fighting prowess manily came from good knowledge of body mechanics, as many of his original students testify. The tricks he did with weights were apperently done with good body mechanics for example he took a 75 pound barbell, lifted it to his chest, from a standing position, and slowly extended it in front of him, elbows locked out, and held it for 15 seconds or more. His constant training would have definately have given him to ability to execute his techniques with good speed and power, but it's not really a natural ability...

[guardman]

Re: Bruce Lee was not that good?

Originally posted by darkyellowsky
Alan I don't know what you have read or if you are basing your comment from just watching his movies. But Bruce Lee did have that natural speed and strength. He was able to do perfect two-finger push-ups and he could do a full body bench elevation (like Stallone did in Rocky 4). Can you do either of theses exercises Alan? Matter of fact I would like to see any of the current NHB and MMA superstars do either of these exercises. Current quick-draw gunslingers can draw and fire in 3/100th of a second, Bruce Lee was able to punch (arm fully extended), faster than 3/100th of a second. Not only was Bruce Lee incredibly gifted with his body, but he was also a brilliant thinker. He had a library of over 3,000 martial art books and fight film. Do you know any other MA that has a collection like this? Bruce Lee was also a great teacher, he worked out with the biggest champions of his time (Chuck Norris, Joe Lewis, Mike Stone). I haven't heard that any of the Gracies are working out with the best martial artists in the world. Pile this all up and ad that Bruce Lee was a true streetfighter, that is why he had to leave his home land. Add this all up and if you can find a fighter that is better physically, mentally, and intellectually, I would like to know who he\she is. If you can't find one I suggest you start reading.

i don't see the gracies training with any great martial artists.......what's up with that comment.that's because the greatest martial artists go to the gracies.my man bruce lee is a legend. the gracies are today's legends in mma.fine you mentioned that bruce lee did have natural speed and strength and an incredible body. that is true but you can't teach someone to have natural speed and strength that was an anamoly and that is why bruce lee is a legend. but..............you can teach anyone bjj .....armlocks leglocks sweeps etc. and teach them how survive and succeed. take for example igor vovchanchin. i don't care who it is you can't teach anyone what he does because he naturally possesses it. there is no mystique to that. but you can teach anyone bjj.