Question posted by nobody.  I submitted this myself on 04/05/05:

 

You know Tim, in principle, I agree with the philosophy of the Wednesday Night Group to “get back up” if the fight goes to the ground.  It’s certainly the wisest course of action in a bar situation where multiple opponents might be on the heels of the first.  Still, ground fighting is SUCH a trump card against an untrained fighter. 

 

Most “tough guys” I know can throw a haymaker with enough power to knock a guy out if they connect.  Case in point, Joe’s hero… the Watermelon Man:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/dragon2/powerpuncher/index.html

 

Judging by the videos, this dude has never had a single second of basic boxing instruction.  Yet, he’s big enough, (and has watched enough ESPN), to sling his arm like a wrecking ball.  Sure, you could argue that a standup fighter with minimal footwork, timing and distance would feed the Watermelon Man his own watermelon.  But there’s that 1 in 10 chance you have to worry about; that freakish but plausible alignment of factors that allows this guy to land.

 

If Watermelon Man nailed me on the chin with is patented “fruit destroying” overhand right, I would probably go down, (perhaps cry).  Contrastingly, if I shot in and took him down, the chance of him laying me low is almost nil.  Why?  Because all that slow, ugly punching power is inaccessible when he’s on his back.

 

If a trained ground fighter, (and by “trained”, I mean having a secure command of the basics, which can be attained in a relatively short amount of time given a marginal amount of physical prowess), gets an untrained opponent “down”, said opponent is going to STAY down.

 

Granted, in the UFC and Pride and King of the Cage, etc., we see fighters engaged in “chess match” struggles that last for twenty freaking minutes.  But, why do they last so long?  The answer lies in mutual skill, and this certainty is readily observable when a new guy comes to a school that teaches such things.  The “fresh fish” finds himself tapping in seconds, literally, and- in my opinion- the same thing happens on the street. 

 

Put two grapplers together, and they’re gonna wrestle, thus attacking and countering and attacking again WITH THE KNOWLEDGE that their similarly trained opponent is going to follow a certain set of logical strategies designed to elicit a certain response.  Ah, but put a grappler against a guy that knows nothing, and that set of logical strategies blooms to fruition almost instantly.  

 

Think about it, combat grapplers work techniques designed to capitalize on basic “feeds”… those actions/responses that an UNtrained opponent has a statistically higher probability of offering.  

 

For example, if you take a guy down and get on top of him, he usually tries to push you off.  The extended arms that result, open him up for an easy armbar.  Or, the guy panics or gets frustrated, and rolls over, thus exposing himself to a choke.  Or, the guy freezes/goes apeshit, and thus opens himself up for a barrage of punches/elbows/headbutts, (as long as the grappler on top has the skill to maintain his position).  In any case, the fight is over rather quickly.

 

Ah, but most grapplers train against other grapplers, so their core techniques have to be refined and refined and refined until they can pull off basic stuff against training partners that KNOW what they’re trying to do.

 

Kind of a catch 22, isn’t it?

 

The point is, (given the difference in relative skill), a trained grappler can end a confrontation on the ground just as quickly as a trained striker can on his feet.  PLUS, there’s little chance that his redneck opponent is going to get in a lucky knockout punch.

 

As such, I think taking an opponent down is safer than duking it out.  Moreover, (like I’ve said before), I think training “anti-grappling” is contrary to the basic Jeet Kune Do philosophy.  Use what works, yeah?  Train realistically, yeah?  Okay, so, who’s harder to take down… an “anti-grappler”?  Or a regular grappler? 

 

A regular grappler has honed his skills against opponents who KNOW how to take a guy down, and thus possess the knowledge, (and repeated full-speed experience), to resist a takedown.  An anti-grappler, by contrast, trains against other anti-grapplers, (for the most part), whose takedown skills are probably not as developed because of the mindset objective in which they’ve practiced.

 

To sum up, I think that training general grappling, (as opposed to anti-grappling), is far more applicable to a far larger range of opponents.  After all, high school and collegiate wrestling is a sport that grows daily in our public/private school systems, (a few years ago, I worked out with a FIFTEEN YEAR OLD letterman that caught me with a double leg scoop and slammed my 200+ ass to the mat).  Your objective can still be to “get back up”, but, you’ll have a much better chance of doing that if you’ve covered all the contingencies… as opposed to only a single aspect of them.

 

I don’t mean this to be an accusation as much as a subject for debate, so please respond with counterpoints… as opposed to insults, which I usually do.  ;)

 

RESPECTFULLY submitted,

-Mike