jkdberlin
20-07-2004, 12:00
Fighting Myths - notes from the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers Conference
One of the myths about personal protection is the old misquoted statistic, "90% of all fights wind up on the ground." This statistic has been used to sell ground fighting systems as the ultimate in self defense. If you have been in the martial arts or personal protection game long enough you have certainly heard this thing tossed around. You may have even heard the source - "according to the LAPD".
That statistic is wrong, AND misused.
The ASLET conference featured training in joint lock takedowns with retired sergeant John L. Sommers, the very man who conducted the use of force study with the LAPD and designed their defensive tactics program. His study looked at 6000 use of force reports from the LAPD and found that 60% of the time the arresting officer was knocked to the ground. One of the major reasons for this is that California has the 3 strikes rule and recidivist criminals are more likely to fight back to try to get away. Here are some of the main problems with the way this statistic is misused:
1. The percentage is 60% not 90% the numbers are frequently inflated to seem more convincing. While 60% is a majority, that means that more than one third of incidents did not result in an officer being knocked down. Also, the statistics did not measure "fights" but officer use of force reports.
2. The actual study was of officer use of force incidents in LA and did not study self defense situations involving civilians. You cannot apply the data from one representative sample to an entirely different population. If 98% of the population of the Philippines eats rice for three meals a day, you cannot also say that people living in Kansas also eat rice for three meals a day. It is a non-representative sample.
3. The use (misuse) of statistics is frequently combined with false but logical-sounding conclusions. A single data point is used to represent conclusions that the data does not indeed support. This makes an argument sound very credible even when it is not. Example = 100% of all people that consumed carrots in 1889 are now dead - therefore carrots kill you, so you better stop eating them.
On top of all this, the statistic is used to make people think that going to the ground is a good idea.
To quote Sergeant Sommers, (who worked with the Gracies, the Machados, Benny Urquidez and several other top martial artists) "I don't ever recommend you go to the ground." The very author of the study and designer of the training program thinks going to the ground is a very bad idea.
It sounds to me like it is a good idea to stay off the ground but know what to do if you do wind up there. This is what I have been saying, and what law enforcement and military folks have told me for years. Notice I did NOT say that you shouldn't study ground fighting. On the contrary, I think it's very important. But you do not want to waste time doing arm bars and figure 4's, you want to do what you must to get back on your feet as fast as possible.
Also keep in mind that the moment you throw somebody to the ground, climb on them, and punch them - you are committing assault and battery in most jurisdictions. The hockey dad case in Massachusetts is an example. Thomas Junta was assaulted in front of his children. He then grounded and punched his assailant who hit his head on the concrete and died. Mr. Junta is now serving time for involuntary manslaughter.
Additional information regarding civilian fights.
Male versus Male - Age 18 and up
In studying real life fights involving this group of civilians, we find that no more than 40% fights ever went to the ground. When the fights did go to the ground, it was typically due to two main reasons:
1. Ineffective technique that led to the combatants becoming fatigued and frustrated and proceeding to a grapple, and then to falling on the ground.
2. One of the combatants actually tripping and falling.
Male versus Female - Age 18 and up
The percentage is much higher with male versus female. Typically 80% or more. This is due to the nature of the attack. Men attack women for the purpose of control and exploitation, such as rape. Going to the ground is typical for these assaults.
Children versus Children
It is not uncommon for the typical schoolyard brawl to end up in a wrestling match on the ground. The assaults are usually not intended to inflict physical harm but rather to control. Hence punches and strikes may not be considered. The outcome of these altercations are typically much less severe than real adult confrontations.
Quelle: http://www.edatkd.com/fighting_myths.htm
Grüsse
One of the myths about personal protection is the old misquoted statistic, "90% of all fights wind up on the ground." This statistic has been used to sell ground fighting systems as the ultimate in self defense. If you have been in the martial arts or personal protection game long enough you have certainly heard this thing tossed around. You may have even heard the source - "according to the LAPD".
That statistic is wrong, AND misused.
The ASLET conference featured training in joint lock takedowns with retired sergeant John L. Sommers, the very man who conducted the use of force study with the LAPD and designed their defensive tactics program. His study looked at 6000 use of force reports from the LAPD and found that 60% of the time the arresting officer was knocked to the ground. One of the major reasons for this is that California has the 3 strikes rule and recidivist criminals are more likely to fight back to try to get away. Here are some of the main problems with the way this statistic is misused:
1. The percentage is 60% not 90% the numbers are frequently inflated to seem more convincing. While 60% is a majority, that means that more than one third of incidents did not result in an officer being knocked down. Also, the statistics did not measure "fights" but officer use of force reports.
2. The actual study was of officer use of force incidents in LA and did not study self defense situations involving civilians. You cannot apply the data from one representative sample to an entirely different population. If 98% of the population of the Philippines eats rice for three meals a day, you cannot also say that people living in Kansas also eat rice for three meals a day. It is a non-representative sample.
3. The use (misuse) of statistics is frequently combined with false but logical-sounding conclusions. A single data point is used to represent conclusions that the data does not indeed support. This makes an argument sound very credible even when it is not. Example = 100% of all people that consumed carrots in 1889 are now dead - therefore carrots kill you, so you better stop eating them.
On top of all this, the statistic is used to make people think that going to the ground is a good idea.
To quote Sergeant Sommers, (who worked with the Gracies, the Machados, Benny Urquidez and several other top martial artists) "I don't ever recommend you go to the ground." The very author of the study and designer of the training program thinks going to the ground is a very bad idea.
It sounds to me like it is a good idea to stay off the ground but know what to do if you do wind up there. This is what I have been saying, and what law enforcement and military folks have told me for years. Notice I did NOT say that you shouldn't study ground fighting. On the contrary, I think it's very important. But you do not want to waste time doing arm bars and figure 4's, you want to do what you must to get back on your feet as fast as possible.
Also keep in mind that the moment you throw somebody to the ground, climb on them, and punch them - you are committing assault and battery in most jurisdictions. The hockey dad case in Massachusetts is an example. Thomas Junta was assaulted in front of his children. He then grounded and punched his assailant who hit his head on the concrete and died. Mr. Junta is now serving time for involuntary manslaughter.
Additional information regarding civilian fights.
Male versus Male - Age 18 and up
In studying real life fights involving this group of civilians, we find that no more than 40% fights ever went to the ground. When the fights did go to the ground, it was typically due to two main reasons:
1. Ineffective technique that led to the combatants becoming fatigued and frustrated and proceeding to a grapple, and then to falling on the ground.
2. One of the combatants actually tripping and falling.
Male versus Female - Age 18 and up
The percentage is much higher with male versus female. Typically 80% or more. This is due to the nature of the attack. Men attack women for the purpose of control and exploitation, such as rape. Going to the ground is typical for these assaults.
Children versus Children
It is not uncommon for the typical schoolyard brawl to end up in a wrestling match on the ground. The assaults are usually not intended to inflict physical harm but rather to control. Hence punches and strikes may not be considered. The outcome of these altercations are typically much less severe than real adult confrontations.
Quelle: http://www.edatkd.com/fighting_myths.htm
Grüsse