Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? (Research I conducted)
Check out my grappling books on Amazon: Grappling Games: BJJ & Submission Wrestlers, Tapmonster: Ideas about Grappling for BJJ and Submission Wrestlers, Grappling for Newbies, 20 Ways to Increase Grappling Skills off the Mat, The Lazy Man’s Guide to Grappling and much more.
You can also check out my writings and research at Psychology Today: Communication Central
By Bakari Akil II, Ph.D.
People who have been following MMA, submission grappling and martial arts since 1994 have been aware of the increasing emphasis placed on ground fighting. Yes, a lot of the push is because ground-fighting experts are trying to convince people to become involved in their martial art or trying to attract more students to their studios. However, there is an extreme seriousness to their claims as well. People can get injured, maimed or killed if they aren’t able to defend themselves.
As a serious MMA or submission grappling fan you’ve probably either heard or read the following claims:
Ninety to Ninety-five percent of fights go to the ground; or
Most fights go to the ground
These claims have become a part of the lexicon of grappling gurus and their participating disciples, including me. However, is it true?
The entire report can be found at Amazon.com.
Jiu-jitsu 365 
March 11, 2008 at 11:17 am
Bakari,
Very cool analysis! Makes a case for Tim Cartmell’s DVD “Ground Proofing”: http://www.shenwu.com/groundProofing.html.
Interesting that in his copy for that video he makes the claim that “over half” of fights will go to the ground.
~FD
March 11, 2008 at 11:29 am
Bakari, outstanding article! Will pass this link on to some interested parties.
March 11, 2008 at 11:38 am
Thanks guys…
I appreciate the comments. I will also check out Cartmell’s site…
March 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Outstanding article! Very interesting.
March 11, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Bakari, nice analysis and writeup. Stats like “57% of the fighters who ended up on the ground were taken down by a throw, a trip or being pulled to the ground.” conclusions like “So learning how to grapple and more specifically; how to apply and stop takedowns is vital to fighting.” and general admonitions like “Do not be the first person to hit the ground!” are some reasons that give me more of a preference for arts that specialize in throws and takedowns (and hence defences and control of the clinch range). Imho, I think your study’s data and conclusions support this preference and need more so than for your current favorite art (but I do like bjj a lot!).
March 12, 2008 at 8:49 am
I’m new to BJJ, but I thought BJJ was about takedowns. Based on the above comment from Neijia it is not. What is the focus of BJJ? Is it mainly a defensive martial art or can it be used for an offensive attack?
March 12, 2008 at 8:56 am
Thanks Neija,
I can understand your preference for arts that specialize in “throws and takedowns.” I wish more BJJ and submission grappling academies would make takedowns and takedown defense an integral part of training. Even with my limited Judo experience I am able to take down many of my fellow BJJ practictioners without any problems, some who have been training for years.
March 12, 2008 at 9:11 am
Kitwana,
BJJ is derived from Japanese Jujitsu which was used by the Samurai as a last ditch effort in battle. It was composed of throws, chokes and bone breaking submissions. Jigoro Kano altered the usage of JuJitsu in the early 20th century and popularized it for the masses in the form of Judo. Judo concentrates mainly on throws and pinning your opponent for 30 seconds. It also has most of the submission grappling techniques that you will find in BJJ. However, most of the submission techniques are offered at the later stages of training (e.g., brown or black belt). This is because competitions are won easily by throwing someone on their back or keeping them on their back for thirty seconds or making them tap out with a gi choke. It usually takes a while to get someone to submit in an armbar, etc.
Jujitsu, the form which was considered too brutal for modern civilization, lost favor in Japan. Count Maeda taught the Gracies Jujitsu when he migrated to Brazil in the early 20th century as a way of saying thank you to a Gracie patriarch who assisted Japanese with migration to Brazil. The Gracies transformed it into Gracie Jiu-jitsu and it has evolved to Brazilian Jiu-jitsu because so many others in Brazil are involved and have helped to further the art.
Takedowns and throws are a part of this tradition as well, but it is not concentrated on as much as in Judo or wrestling. At this stage in the development of martial arts and MMA most people know that they should master some system of takedowns and integrate it into their BJJ or grappling on a consistent basis. Those who concentrate on takedowns and throws should also make sure they can grapple and submit their opponents as well.
In reference to the question of is it a defensive or offensive art, it can be both and a lot of it depends upon the person and their style. Everyone brings a personality to grappling.
March 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Thanks for the clarification and history. Very interesting stuff indeed!
March 13, 2008 at 7:34 am
Intriguing bit of research: out of interest, what criteria did you use for picking the videos? Just typing in ‘streetfight’ to YouTube and looking over a selection, or were you searching for a more specific type of fight (e.g., must be two people, mustn’t look prearranged, must be from a certain time period etc)?
I’ve wondered about the ‘90%’ statistic, which has been around for a while. The earliest documented mention I’ve seen so far is from the well-known Playboy article by Pat Jordan , where he states “Rorion believes that since most real fights end up on the ground 90 percent of the time, Gracie jujitsu is the most devastating of all martial arts” (‘BAD’, Playboy, Vol. 36, No. 9, September 1989).
That goes up by 5% in the UFC 1 broadcast, on 12th November 1993. About 35 minutes in, Rod Machado (no relation to the more famous bearers of that name – he was one of Royce Gracie’s students, a flight instructor rather than a professional commentator) claimed that “95% of the fights, according to PD (police department) studies, end up on the ground”.
On the BJJ history post above, not sure you could say it came from jujitsu. If you’ve ever had a look over the JudoForum, they often get irritated by that: their argument would be that it wasn’t jujitsu, it was judo (there are plenty of threads where judokas complain BJJ history doesn’t give enough credit to judo, though I think that’s less the case these days).
Of course, that gets complicated by the fact that ‘judo’ wasn’t a hard and fast term when the judoka Mitsuyo Maeda came over to Brazil, ‘Kano ju jitsu’ also being in use (hence why it was called ‘jiu jitsu’ in Brazil in the early 20th century, an unusual variant of the spelling which has since stuck). So, it would have been normal to refer to what became judo as jujitsu at the time, which confuses the issue, on top of judo’s own origins in Kano’s understanding of various jujitsu styles.
March 13, 2008 at 10:00 am
Slidey,
Thanks..
I don’t have my notes in front of me but here’s the simple overview of my process:
Since I was using content analysis as the methodology, I had to create a coding scheme first to make sure I could categorize and analyze each variable according to a set standard. I had to define what every term stood for even if I already knew what it meant. So terms like trip, throw, push, pull, punch, kick, what actually constitutes hitting the ground, etc. all had to be thoroughly defined.
Without having the benefit of the criteria (algorithms) that Youtube uses to present videos I had to come up with a method that would allow the opportunity for many different types of fights between private citizens to have a good chance of being chosen. I researched as many synonyms, colloquialisms, etc., for the term ‘fight’ and then selected a number of terms that would allow for successful searches on Youtube.
‘Fist fight(s), ‘scraps,’ ‘one on one,’ ‘cat fight(s),’ ‘knockout(s),’ along with a number of other terms were chosen as terms. From those terms a maximum of 50 fights from each category were chosen to analyze from the list presented. Since fifty fights were not always possible from all of the terms, I would also copy down the list of fights provided on the side in conjunction with the videos selected from the initial search. This allowed me to reach 300 fights.
Each fight was recorded and indexed according to the coding scheme and the excel spreadsheet I created to catalogue the fights.
No professional fights were allowed, no “Felony Fight” type material where people were paid to fight, the fights had to have an ending and fights where more than two people were involved were not counted. It had to be a ‘real’ fight.
As far as the time period, I only analyzed a few fights that were from the 80s and early 90s. I think the age of the personal cameras and cell phone video cams dominates this study. I didn’t put a ban on when it happened if it met the criteria set forth at the beginning.
Even though 300 fights were analyzed and met the criteria set before coding I probably observed just as many that didn’t meet the qualifications due to compilations, abrupt endings of video footage, people jumping in to help fighters, etc. I also have to admit that after a while it became taxing to watch as the language, violence and behavior was often deplorable.
March 13, 2008 at 10:43 am
Slidey,
On the BJJ from Judo or Jujitsu debate, I guess it would boil down to Maeda if I read your argument correctly. I would have to revisit my books on the subject.
My history of the split comes from readings from Judo texts I have collected over the years. The BJJ history comes from the multiple Gracie and other books that have been printed in the last 3 or 4 years on the subject. Each one has a ‘canned’ historical account but sometimes they diverge.
The use of English to define the terms also inhibits the debate. Having knowledge of Japanese would probably help…But I will not go that far…
March 14, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Great post.
I had a similar experience a little while back. At the campus near my house, a BJJ club started. Their posters said:
” ‘95% of street fights go to the ground’ – LAPD study
Real self defense means being on the ground. Will you know what to do when you get there? ”
That second part may not be an exact quote, but its close. It was the ‘95%’, however, that got my attention and, I suspect, the attention of other people.
(For the record, I have no problem with the club’s existence and I do believe that ground fighting is an important *part* of self-defense training. However, I hate it when any group makes it sound like they have a monopoly on self-defense.)
I wanted to get to the bottom of that ‘95%’. So I went looking for the LAPD study. I couldn’t find the study itself, but I found enough information about it, including this article from Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986940,00.html).
The study was made by a Sgt. Greg Dossey of the LAPD in 1997. The correct statistic is around 67%. And it isn’t ‘streetfights’. The study was made on officer arrests and the statistic refers to “altercations” where “the officer and the suspect ended up wrestling on the ground.” (in TIME’s words.) (Presumably this excludes arrests where the suspect did not resist.)
So, not only was the number inflated, but the context was skewed. An officer trying to arrest a resisting suspect is a different situation than two civilians in a street fight. For an officer to control a resisting suspect, it is likely that the officer will try to pin the suspect against something solid: a wall, a car, or the ever-available ground.
Anyway, I appreciate the effort to combat some of the BS in martial arts. Thanks!
March 15, 2008 at 9:28 am
Hmm – if thats the case, then what study was Rod Machado referring to back in 1993? As he also mentions a police department study (doesn’t specify LAPD), at least four years previous to the one you mentioned (could well be older, as given he was a Gracie student, he may have just be repeating what his instructors had told him).
If they in fact are both LAPD, I can’t imagine there would be such a big difference (95% versus 67%) over a mere four years, so that would lend credence to the idea the stats were beefed up by certain BJJ/GJJ schools advertising. Perhaps this is a regular study run by the police, so there might be more up to date statistics?
March 15, 2008 at 10:12 pm
The Time magazine article made it sound like that was a one-time study for the LAPD, not a regular thing. In my searching, I was looking specifically studies by the LAPD and didn’t notice multiple studies by them.
However, LAPD can’t be the only department who has looked into this sort of thing.
March 17, 2008 at 8:44 am
Thanks Pienso!
March 19, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Hey… I just found this in my notes. Its an article about the LAPD’s study and it mentions that
– Sgt. Dossey began his work in 1991, and
– it cites the “going to the ground” number as 62%
http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html
March 22, 2008 at 4:11 am
Interesting find: the guy commenting on the research states that “The LAPD study does not show that ‘90% of fights go to the ground.’ Instead, the LAPD study shows that 95% of altercations took on one of five familiar patterns (with which any street cop will be intimately familiar). It also shows that of that 95%, 62% ended up with both the officer and the suspect grappling on the ground.” If he’s accurate, then that’s pretty damning to the popular stats.
I can’t imagine that – again if the above is accurate – applying the 95% figure to just the ground instead of all patterns was an honest mistake by GJJ marketing, but I suppose its possible.
April 1, 2008 at 9:06 am
[…] john55 Does anyone have an actual source to say where fights go and in what scenarios? Yes… Do Must Fights Go to The Ground Also see Fighting Myths […]
August 6, 2008 at 4:32 pm
[…] Posts Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? (Research I conducted)Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: More on Belt RankingPodcasts I Listen to: A Jiu-Jitsu LifestyleBJJ: It’s a […]
September 6, 2008 at 6:16 am
This is a good start to a more rigid and logical approach to this problem. Surely as you know, were there enough funding, then a much bigger series with longitudinal and traverse approach would be even better. But other than the army and police who would invest such an amount? May be the big martial art unions of MMA or those of China or Japan , who has multiple approaches in a single country.
Your approach strongly remind me of the book Freakonomics. It is nice but if we are going to take it really seriously then lots of weakness in the methodology and analysis can be done.
Before this being done, your article is probably the only one of this kind to be referred to and be revered for all the martial world.
Your statistics aside, I have some personal observations to add. In the recent Discovery Fight Quest Program, around ten plus countries with their famous martial art were videoed, and of these, two were really mainly involved with street fights against a more real life situation. In such cases, the result of landing on the ground, in a non-ground fighting art, like BJJ, is usually big trouble. This is seen in the series in Israel, Hawaii, when street fight is more real and involved more than one person.
In many martial arts, there is not ground technique. eg in china martial art with its so many dozens of styles, including the wu style taichi with its founder a royal wrestler and with lots of throw techniques, ground skill were minimal. There are also the monkey style and the fukien ground dog style, the northshaolin ground style. But if we add also the manchu, mongol and han chinese wrestling. Then that is about all. Not more than ten amongst the hundred of styles. There got to be some reason behind this.
This by itself is also another kind of practical statistics. They do not both to research on ground techniques. One of the reason being impractical. The usual quote concept is , once down you are finished.
Their concept is that in real street fights, and in battle field, where multiple assailants are involved.
Anyway for one to one fight and for completeness of training for self interest and academic reasons, then surely ground skills from wrestling , BJJ or traditional art from China, Japan or whatever else should be welcomed.
IMHO
September 19, 2008 at 10:23 am
Great research and a great article. Those that know, know. Stay off the ground in the street and if you have to go there land on the other guy, do violence as fast as you can and get back up.
I would be interested to know how many weapons were introduced during the altercations and when.
http://mail.myptsmail.com/mercop/blog/?p=90
September 23, 2008 at 6:40 am
Thanks George,
Fights with weapons were not included in the study. As you know it changes the entire dynamic of an altercation and would have tainted much of the data collected.
November 12, 2008 at 10:18 am
[…] Street Clothes & SneakersBrazilian Jiu-Jitsu: More on Belt Ranking”Heel Twist Mount Escape”Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? (Research I conducted)Solo Exercises – Over the Holidays and BeyondMore on the Kettlebell and Jiu-jitsuGinastica Natural: […]
February 18, 2009 at 2:40 am
Wow, that’s an impressive study, way to use the resources at hand.
February 18, 2009 at 10:33 am
Thanks Byron,
Your comments are appreciated.
April 6, 2009 at 12:23 am
[…] BJJ Study Continues – More participants needed! Posted on April 6, 2009 by jiujitsu365 As many of you know, I serve in a professional capacity as a professor. I am also an avid BJJ practicioner so my interests in academics and BJJ often merge. My first project was an exploratory study on Ground Fighting where I tried to get a sense of how many “real fights” actually go to the ground. My findings were published in Black Belt Magazine’s 2008 issue (September). You can review some of my findings here: Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? […]
May 21, 2009 at 3:00 am
[…] up on the ground while 42% of the time both fighters ended on the ground. Was that the same as this, by any chance? The earliest example I know of the statistic being used in relation to the Gracies […]
January 28, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Im not sure this does clarify what “going to the ground” is portrayed as. To me that means a grappling of both fighters or one fighter on their back or stomach and the other fighter over them. To mean “going to the ground” just as one person getting thrown down or knocked down and getting back up doesnt really sound like that to me. Interesting analysis though.
January 28, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Thanks Daniel,
In the explanation of the methodology and operational definitions for the study a more detailed analysis was provided explaining what “going to the ground” means. Some of the definitions included descriptions such as:
fighter landing on buttocks
both knees touching the ground at once
fighter’s back touches ground
fighter on stomach (and thighs)
both hands and knees touch ground at once
In the study it didn’t matter how quickly the person rebounded from hitting the ground according to the operational definitions. If they hit the ground according to the parameters outlined then it was coded as such in order to maintain consistency.
Also to borrow from another one of my comments to questions:
“Since I was using content analysis as the methodology, I had to create a coding scheme first to make sure I could categorize and analyze each variable according to a set standard. I had to define what every term stood for even if I already knew what it meant. So terms like trip, throw, push, pull, punch, kick, what actually constitutes hitting the ground, etc. all had to be thoroughly defined.”
But in the overwhelming majority of fights where fighters ‘hit the ground’ there was no question that they were on the ground as opposed to standing up on two feet. They rolled around, were knocked unconscious, struggled to get up, etc. There weren’t many instances of people touching for a second and getting right back up. If they ended up there it was usually for a good amount of time.
At the time, I was also offering to send further data for the study to anyone who requested it in case they wanted to know more.
February 14, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Found this post from a forum post on DamageControlMMA.com.
Love the academic approach to studying this. Love when people bring intelligence to the subject of MMA and grappling.
February 14, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Thanks Sterling,
I appreciate the compliment!
February 23, 2010 at 5:39 am
Like sterling I saw the link to this page from damage control. Very Interesting column. I had wondered this myself, I used to think that the Gracies had came up with this conclusion from analysing street fights involving their own family members and training partners and may somehow be inaccurate due to the fact they are incredible ground fighters.
Thank you for giving us some cold hard facts. Anyone interested in self-defence should read this. I’ll be forwarding this page on to some other martial arts communities to spread the word. Thanks for the insight!
February 23, 2010 at 12:18 pm
I appreciate it Naturalbornfighter1,
I am still shocked by the response to the research and I am glad that people value it.
May 19, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Great article… very useful to counter some of the “if you’re not a BJJ expert then you can’t defend yourself” nonsense that the popularity of the controlled (albeit entertaining) environment of UFC has produced.
While your study is necessarily limited to only being able to sample the population of fights that were recorded AND pulished on a single video sharing site (even if it is the biggest), the conclusions mix well with what I have personally observed in thankfully few fights. It also reinforces why my Karate sensei for 5 years, who is a 4th dan in Chito-Ryu, and the school Shihan both emphasized deflection/avoidance of attacks and resisting/reversing attempted takedowns.
As a green belt that was frustrating not learning “cool” throws yet, but like so many things perspective of much more training revealed, to me at least, that it’s far more important to be able to defend yourself on your feet and *stay* there, then drop to the ground and start grappling.
There are so many effective ways that fighters can flip the tables on an attempted grapple takedown in a no-rules situation that the recent craze of ground-fighting schools seems silly. Such one-sided techniques work within frameworks of sparring rules, but in a streetfight a guy who’s first instict is to wrestle can get in serious trouble. As one of my sensei (who was an awesome grappler) used to say, “If you take the fight to the ground when you could be on your feet what are you supposed to do when the guy you’re fighting’s buddy in the crowd decides to join in?” I’ve never forgotten that one.
As someone mentioned above, Krav Maga (from Israel) places very strong emphasis on staying on your feet, and teaches that wrestling on the ground is something bad that can happen in a fight and is to be avoided, not something that you should try to make happen from the get-go.
Here’s hoping more research on this topic can be conducted sometime in the near future!
July 6, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Hi,
Not buying it! Youtube, a very slanted source for this type of analysis. There is no way we can judge any or all of the fights you viewed as “street violent altercations” as most of the fights I have viewed over the years on Youtube were either tournament in nature of dojo oriented where the few fights that claimed to be street were actually those school yard scuffles you see sometimes where the contestants were trying to get up in the eyes of the MMA folks, etc.
The only way I would accept this type of analysis is if it were controlled properly and that the studies involved verifiable violent street fights through the DOJ, etc.
In my opinion your analysis is faulted to slant toward those who are propagating the misinformation to begin with as there are seldom that many verifiable violent street fights to analyze on Youtube, so it would seem to me anyway.
I am not saying that actual violent street fights do or do not go to ground but the analysis is hugely flawed simply because you used Youtube.
After all I can put something on Youtube and say it is this or that but who really knows. If you said the DOJ validates and verified that the facts depicted by youtube video’s is accurate and true then maybe I would go along with it.
August 7, 2010 at 9:42 pm
No one asked you to go along with it. It is an exploratory study and it calls for further study. A content analysis was used and it was also an availability sample. If you want something more realistic then you are welcome to conduct your own study.
July 7, 2010 at 12:47 am
Hello Professor, thanks! I was wondering, if two people exchange strikes and one collapses unconscious (loses the fight), does that fit into the “one fighter went to the ground” category that accounted for 72%? In such a case the fighter went to the ground but the fight really didn’t. Thanks!
August 31, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I really liked your blog! Thanks
September 15, 2010 at 8:26 am
[…] […]
September 20, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Thanks Kravmaga!
September 22, 2010 at 12:38 pm
[…] […]
February 20, 2011 at 9:34 am
Really interesting article and it’s nice to see some good research into a stat that has bothered me for many years as my article on the subject states. Thanks very much!
http://londonjujitsu.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/the-dangers-of-promoting-cage-fighting-as-the-ultimate-test/
March 3, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Thanks Chris,
It was a claim that made me wonder as well.
I am headed to check out your article right now.
March 23, 2011 at 9:33 am
[…] and in case you’re interested, a study was once made from 300 streetfights (on YouTube!), and the result was that in 42% of the fights […]
April 12, 2011 at 5:12 am
His idiotic comment was removed.
April 15, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Minton,
The only thing ridiculous is your approach. You absolutely have no grounding in anything remotely academic. You do have a background in internet trolling though.
Crawl back under the rock you emerged from!
May 12, 2011 at 7:39 pm
The author could be viewed as biased because he studies a grappling, throwing, ground art(s).
That said, from my personal observations, the ground game is upon the era, the situation, and the environment.
I come from a area (and era) of many bars and my father and his brothers, my uncles had bars.
In academics, per schoolyards, most fighting did end on the ground. In my later teens and towards alcoholic parties, most fights did not end on the ground. Continuing in my young adult, most did not end on the ground.
Upon present era, many people have viewed or know about MMA, BJJ, or grappling. Chances are that they would mimic a tactic or two even without formal study.
Recently, I had witnessed a altercation to that of the contenders, each had tried to grapple or get each other to the ground. When they got there, each were trying to get upon their feet before the other. However, like in most of the fights I had seen, the action was halted by something or someone.
My conclusion isn’t that “most fights end upon the ground”, as more my conclusion would be;
“Learn every aspect of fighting/defense”
In likeness of driving a auto, you would not have a single-primary concern with the steering wheel. There is the accelerator, brakes, signals, etc.
July 2, 2011 at 8:44 am
[…] 300 youtube "street fights" and came up with stats of his own..very enlightening. Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? (Research I conducted) Jiu-jitsu 365 Out of over 300 fights roughly 70 ended up with both fighters on the ground due to a takedown or […]
July 9, 2011 at 9:39 am
I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own blog and was wondering what all is required to get setup? I’m assuming having a blog like yours https://jiujitsu365.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/do-most-fights-go-to-the-ground-research-i-conducted would cost a pretty penny? I’m not very web smart so I’m not 100% positive. Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks
September 11, 2011 at 9:03 am
[…] Georgia College and a no-gi Brazilian Jiu Jitsu martial artist, conducted a study to find out what percentage of fights go to the ground. He viewed hours of CCTV footage examining a variety of street fights looking for patterns in the […]
November 8, 2011 at 11:46 pm
I prefer to take the advice of Krav Maga experts: Most street fights aren’t one on one fights. Going to the ground in such a situation is suicide, since multiple opponents guarantees you a good curb stomp on the head while you’re administering a triangle choke. Best to learn how to avoid going to the ground and ending the fight asap on your feet as the Israeli Commandos do it. Good article, but otherwise I’d personally tell people to focus on winning the fight standing up. As a fellow martial artist, I can say I rarely go to the ground unless it’s on my terms. But I still prefer standing up, and it hasn’t let me down yet. (Besides, ground fighting is risky. You take someone to the ground, what happens if they pull a knife at that distance? I’ve heard of it happening, guy pulls a knife on the ground. You’ll be dead, that’s what’ll happen.)
February 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm
[…] written report afterward. However, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioner (and communications professor) Bakari Akil took an interesting approach to quantifying this. He established search criteria and used content […]
March 5, 2012 at 1:04 am
Great site, keep up the good work!
March 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Look people it doesnt matter what martial art you learn it all depends on the fighter. Any martial art is good as long as you learn how to use correctly. I figured out by experience because ive learned about seven different types of martial art forms. They all had their flaws but i pick out the useful concepts for each of them and put them together where I’am comfortable with them and adapted them to real life situaions. These are the martial arts you need to learn if you want to be successful in fighting; Judo, boxing, taekwondo, brizilian ju jitsu, any traditional arts that invole of taking away weapons that are pulled apon you or controlling weapons like krav maga, or aki ju jitsu which teaches you to defend yourself against mutilple opponents. If you are able to obtain all the knowlegde neccessary for all aspects of fighting you are garunteed for success in winning every time.
March 19, 2012 at 2:33 pm
I almost never create comments, however i did a few searching and wound up here Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? (Research I conducted) Jiu-jitsu 365. And I do have 2 questions for you if it’s allright. Is it simply me or does it look like a few of these remarks appear like they are coming from brain dead people? 😛 And, if you are writing on other online social sites, I would like to follow anything new you have to post. Could you make a list of all of your public pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?
March 19, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Thanks Logan,
Unless they are rude, I don’t remove comments and let people have their say.
You can check me out at twitter.com/jiujitsu365 and at Psychology Today at: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-central
March 28, 2012 at 6:41 pm
I rarely leave a response, but I read through some comments on this page Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? (Research I conducted) Jiu-jitsu 365. I do have 2 questions for you if you do not mind. Is it only me or does it look as if like some of the comments come across like they are coming from brain dead individuals? 😛 And, if you are posting on other sites, I’d like to keep up with everything fresh you have to post. Could you list of every one of your social sites like your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
September 28, 2012 at 4:28 pm
May I simply say what a comfort to uncover someone who actually understands what they’re discussing on the web. You actually know how to bring an issue to light and make it important. More people should check this out and understand this side of your story. I can’t believe you are not more popular because you certainly possess the gift.
September 28, 2012 at 4:30 pm
A motivating discussion is definitely worth comment. I do think that you need to publish more about this topic, it might not be a taboo matter but usually people don’t speak about such topics. To the next! Kind regards!!
September 28, 2012 at 4:31 pm
great place to train.. Cheers!
October 12, 2012 at 3:00 am
There’s certainly a lot to learn about this subject. I love all the points you made.
January 11, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Just where did u actually end up getting the points to post ““Do Most Fights Go to the Ground?
(Research I conducted) Jiu-jitsu 365”?
Thanks for your time ,Travis
February 5, 2013 at 7:13 pm
You need to be a part of a contest for one of the most useful websites on the web. I will recommend this web site!
February 28, 2013 at 7:50 pm
You ought to be a part of a contest for one of the highest quality sites on the web. I will highly recommend this site!
March 2, 2013 at 9:11 am
“Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? (Research I conducted) | Jiu-jitsu 365” garson actually got myself simply addicted with
ur site! I personallydefinitely will wind up being back way more regularly.
Thanks ,Theresa
April 9, 2013 at 11:05 pm
An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a co-worker who had been conducting a little research on this. And he in fact ordered me breakfast because I discovered it for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending the time to discuss this matter here on your web page.
April 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm
There is definately a lot to learn about this subject. I love all the points you’ve made.
July 26, 2013 at 4:46 am
You’re so awesome! I don’t believe I’ve read through something like this before. So nice to find another person with some unique thoughts on this issue. Really.. thank you for starting this up. This web site is something that’s needed on the internet, someone with a
little originality!
December 24, 2014 at 6:00 am
[…] Self-defence blog reviews a study (available in e-book): […]
March 26, 2017 at 11:26 pm
[…] See also: Do Most Fights Go to the Ground? (Research I conducted) […]