Читать книгу When the Fight Goes to the Ground - Lori O'Connell - Страница 11

CHAPTER 1

Understanding the Ground

It is important to recognize the nature of ground defense in a street context to be able to fully understand the logic behind the techniques featured in this book. More than that, knowing the nature of ground defense helps anyone interested in self-protection to realize its place in an overall defensive strategy.

Statistics on Ground Fighting

If you have any interest in the martial arts or self-defense, you have probably heard the often quoted “statistic” that 80-90 percent of physical altercations end up on the ground. I, myself, heard this statistic quoted often enough throughout the entirety of my 20+ year career in the martial arts. Not once did I ever hear the source of said statistic. It was simply “common knowledge” that everyone accepted as fact.

There are two legitimate sources that I am aware of that have presented statistics on this topic. One of them is the ASLET (American Society of Law Enforcement Training) pamphlet used from their July 1997 Use of Force Training Seminar. The seminar was presented in Los Angeles by Sergeant Greg Dossey, Sergeant John Sommers, and Officer Steve Uhrig of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). This document included a description of the study and methodology used in examining Use of Force incidents by the LAPD. In 1991, Sergeant Dossey completed a comparative study of use of force incidents reported by the LAPD for the year of 1988. He looked at all 5,617 use of force incident narratives written by officers for that year, and devised a method for codifying the information contained and analyzing it for what they identified as dominant altercation patterns. The study was replicated in 1992 by the LAPD’s Training Review committee.

One of the main conclusions of the report was that “Nearly two thirds of the 1988 altercations (62%) ended with the officer and subject on the ground with the officer applying a joint lock and handcuffing the subject.” After this report was published, the LAPD instituted a program that included training in ground control skills, which were based on modern judo and jiu-jitsu grappling skills specially adapted for law enforcement.

The other source of credible ground fighting statistics comes from Calibre Press’s April 2003 newsletter. They published the results of a research project completed in conjunction with PPCT Management Systems. This project measured the frequency in which police officers were forced to the ground by attackers, based on 1,400 cases reported by officers attending Calibre Press’s annual Street Survival Seminar.*

Respondents were asked whether an attacker had ever attempted to take them to the ground by force. Fifty percent reported this had occurred to them. Of that number, 60% reported that their attackers had been successful in doing so. Most of the attackers were reported as having been under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

There were other statistics of note in this same study with regard to assault patterns. In 33% of these cases, the attacker pulled the officer to the ground. In 28% of the cases the attacker pushed them to the ground. In 24% of them, the attacker tackled them. And in 15% of cases, the officer was kicked and punched to the ground.

Once the officer was down, 64% of the time the attacker continued to assault the officer that was taken down. In 31% of cases, the subject fled. And in 5% of cases the subject waited for the officer to get back to their feet to continue the fight. When it came to the ground fights, 77% of subjects that continued to fight used grappling and pinning techniques, 66% used strikes, and 21% of them attempted to disarm the officer, with 5% being successful.

As with any statistical information, this must all be kept in context. We must remember that in both of the reports from which the above statistics came, the primary subjects being examined were police officers. In the case of the LAPD report, we must remember that police officers are more likely to willingly go to the ground in order to gain control over their suspect so they could make an arrest. In many of these cases, the officer is likely to have had a partner on scene for back-up, making it safer to do so. The results from the Calibre Press/PPCT Management Systems research project are a little more telling in that they reveal assault patterns for scenarios in which police officers were under attack. These statistics are likely more indicative of the assault patterns a civilian would experience, but of course there is no way to know for sure.

What we can take away from these statistics is that a significant proportion of fights do indeed end up on the ground, even if it is not likely as high as 80-90%. This, however, does not mean that you would want to willingly go to the ground when you have the choice not to, even if you do have a strong base of ground fighting skills. In most street defense situations, the ground is a dangerous place and the last place you want to be if your goal is self-protection and preservation. Unfortunately, you don’t necessarily have the option of picking and choosing the type of physical conflict that you get to deal with. You may be forcefully taken down or knocked down with a strike. You might be attacked when you are already on the ground. Or you may trip and fall in the middle of a standing altercation.

Whatever way you end up there, the ground is a very different type of defensive situation than a stand-up conflict. The skills you have developed for stand-up defense do not necessarily translate to the ground. If your goal in martial arts training is self-protection, it is important to learn skills for defending yourself specifically for this context.

Ground Fighting: Competition vs. Self-Protection

These days when people talk about ground fighting, most often they think of Brazilian Jiu-jitsu (BJJ), as created by the Gracie family. There is no doubt that modern BJJ is one of the most proficient ground grappling systems in the sporting arena. It has become synonymous with the “ground game” of mixed martial arts (MMA). The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) itself was created by the Gracies with the goal of making it a proving ground for their style. In the early days, before people knew what to expect from BJJ, it reigned supreme in these competitions in which different martial arts styles were pitted against each other. Because of this, many people believe that learning to defend one’s self on the ground means learning BJJ. It is not as simple as that, however.

In any form of competition, there are rules. This is true even for competitions that try to simulate a real fight like the early UFC contests. Rules are put in place for a variety of reasons; for the competitors’ safety, to keep the competition true to a particular style of martial art, to make the fight more exciting for spectators, etc. On the street, in a real attack scenario, there are no rules or referees limiting your attacker’s or your actions. There is no control over the size or gender of the opponent you must face. There are no special rewards for achieving certain positions or using fancy moves, and people are not likely to let you go if you “tap out.” An attacker can and will fight “dirty,” and can do anything to get the advantage, whether it means biting, eye gouging, groin attacks, scratching, hair pulling, pinching, or using some sort of weapon.

“There are no rules, only results.”

—Professor Georges Sylvain, Founder of Can-ryu Jiu-jitsu

While BJJ may have started out as a self-protection oriented martial art back in the 1920s, it has proliferated in North America as a sport. As a result, the vast majority of BJJ dojos are teaching the style in the context of the submission grappling and MMA as sports. When students train, they usually do so under the confines of the same rules that govern the competitions associated with the style. This means that they don’t necessarily learn tactics and skills that are outside of the rules; ones that can help them get the advantage in a street context. Nor do they necessarily learn to protect against someone using such tactics and skills.

Moreover, the goals are quite different in a competitive context as compared to a street context. In competition oriented training, you apply your skills with the goal of earning points, knocking the other person out, or submitting them. In a street context, if your goal is self-protection and self-preservation, you use your skills to stop an attacker by disabling them or hurting them badly enough to make them stop, creating an opportunity for you to escape. Competition rewards engagement. In a street context, however, disengagement, when it can be safely accomplished, is the goal.

That is not to say that sport BJJ or any other form of sport grappling has no place in self-protection. Quite the contrary, the principles of body shifting, weight transference and limb control developed so keenly for sport BJJ, Judo, wrestling, etc, have very practical applications on the street. These skills, in combination with street-oriented tactics and considerations, provide a strong base for self-protection.

The Disadvantages and Dangers of Ground Fighting on the Street

There are a number of potential disadvantages and inherent dangers when it comes to ground fighting in a street context. Anyone interested in self-protection should be aware of them, and they should all be taken into consideration when developing a personal ground defense strategy. Of course, every situation is different and some of these may be more relevant than others depending on the specific situation you find yourself facing.

1. Size Advantage. If your attacker is stronger than you and/or outweighs you (which is often the case in a street defense context), he can use his extra strength and weight to a greater advantage when on the ground. It is generally easier for a stronger or larger person to strike, choke, or control their victim. Given two people of equal technique, the person who is bigger and stronger usually dominates. Moreover, size/strength difference by a large margin diminishes the effectiveness of good technique even more so on the ground than it does in a standing position.

2. Environmental Dangers. Debris may be strewn about on the ground or floor from which you have to defend yourself. Whether it’s broken glass, rocks, a board with a nailing sticking out, or the concrete itself, these things can easily cause injury to you as you fight.

3. Exposure to Disease. When you fight from the ground, you are in very close quarters, making you vulnerable to bites and scratches. It can also potentially put you in contact with any open wounds your attacker may have. These factors increase your risk of exposure to communicable diseases.

4. Multiple Attackers. If your attacker has any cohorts nearby, they can easily deliver potentially fatal kicks to the most vulnerable parts of your body, particularly your head, while you are tied up fighting on the ground with their buddy. This is a common cause of death in street fights.

5. Edged Weapons. When you’re on the ground, you are more vulnerable to attacks with edged weapons, like knives, which may be concealed on your attacker’s person. It is more difficult to defend against such attacks from the ground as it is harder to move quickly, create space, and control the weapon arm.

6. Inability to use physical barriers. In most ground defense situations, you lose the ability to take advantage of any physical barriers the environment may offer. When standing, you’re more likely to be able to put things between you and your attacker, like chairs, cars, trash cans, trees, etc., to help you get away.

Legalities Regarding Use of Force

(*Note: The following is not legal advice and should not be treated as such. These are only broad guidelines to help you determine how much force might be considered acceptable for you to use to defend yourself in the case of a physical confrontation. Consult your local laws and/or talk to a lawyer to be sure.)

Most countries have a section in their criminal code of sorts intended to present the circumstances under which you are legally justified to defend yourself from a physical assault. The laws are intended to provide the victim legal grounds with which to defend themselves. They also prevent a person who perceives themselves as a victim from using excessive force against an attacker that could have been subdued more humanely. In Canada, this information is presented in Section 34 of the Canadian Criminal Code. In England and Wales, it is presented in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act of 1967 with a further provision about when force is «reasonable» contained in section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. In the United States, the laws can vary from state to state. No matter where you live, it is a good idea to look into what your area’s laws are regarding self-defense and use of force, especially if you are training in self-protection skills.

Determining if You are in Imminent Danger of Being Assaulted

Below are a set of questions that you should be prepared to answer for any situation in which you physically defend yourself from an assault. If you can answer “yes” to all these questions, and be able justify these answers, you will be in a better position in which to defend yourself legally if the case ever goes to court:

Did the assailant have or appear to have the ability to physically assault you in the way you perceived?

Did the assailant demonstrate intent? Did his or her words, actions or body language lead you to believe the assailant had the intent of attacking you?

Did the assailant have the means to attack you?

Assailant Factors

In addition to being able to prove that you were in imminent danger of being assaulted when you defended yourself using physical force, the courts are likely to examine additional factors surrounding the assailant when determining the appropriateness of the level of force used. These may include the following:

1. Age. Age can play a factor in a number of ways. For example, an elderly person who is confronted with a much younger assailant in the prime of adulthood may need to use a much greater level of force to defend themselves. Conversely, it would be expected that if it were the reverse situation, the able bodied adult should not have to use as much force to defend themselves. Children would also be likely to receive more lenience should they use more force against an adult in an assault.

2. Size. This is one of the clearest assailant factors to determine in that all a person needs to do is look at the attacker and defender side by side. Naturally, a relatively small person who encounters a larger assailant may need to use greater levels of force in order to defend themselves successfully.

3. Gender. In general, women tend to be both smaller and weaker than men. There are, of course, exceptions, so keep that in mind if you are a six-foot-three female body builder. As a result, a female defender who is assaulted by a male assailant may need to use a greater level of force in order to successfully defend herself.

4. Skill. The skill level of the defender and the assailant also enters into determination of acceptable use of force. The defender facing an assailant whose skill level is clearly higher than that of the defender may need to use a higher level of force to defend themselves, and vice versa a defender with decades of martial arts experience may be expected to use exercise greater control and restraint.

5. Disability. People with physical disabilities are much more likely to be injured during a physical assault and would likely need to use any means at their disposal in order to successfully defend themselves.

Explanation of the Totality of the Circumstances

In addition to the assailant factors, the courts will look at the big picture of an assault scenario to determine whether the level of force used in response was acceptable.

Imminent Danger: The assailant is known to be armed or has shown themselves to be dangerous in some other intentional way.

Special Knowledge: The assailant is known to have special skills that pose a greater threat.

Injury/Exhaustion. The defender is injured or exhausted.

Multiple Assailants: The defender must face more than one attacker.

Ground Fighting: The defender faces multiple tactical disadvantages (i.e. body weight, debris, communicable disease, weapons, multiple assailants, decreased environmental opportunities.