Fight statistics

I hear all the time that most fights end up on the ground. Yet there's no way to prove it. I also hear that most fights last only a few seconds,no way to prove that either. Anyone have some statistics to prove or disprove these? Or thoughts?

Statistics show that 3 out of 4 people make up %75 of the population. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

[This message has been edited by SANCHIN31 (edited 04-28-2005).]

Yes, and statisticts also prove that 35% of people dont believe the statisticts.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SANCHIN31:
I hear all the time that most fights end up on the ground. Yet there's no way to prove it. I also hear that most fights last only a few seconds,no way to prove that either. Anyone have some statistics to prove or disprove these? Or thoughts?
[/QUOTE]

I can only say from personal experience from seeing fights break out (usually in pubs, bars and clubs or in the street, usually drink related) that they have only lasted between 10-30 secs. It's usually a shove, wild punches lashing out or bottles being thrown. I've seen it go to the ground once but that was only because they were so leathered, and even then they rolled off one another and staggered back to their feet being pulled away by their mates.

I don't think statistics really prove anything and I've only heard the statement that 90% (or whatever) of fights end up on the ground by word of mouth and usually from grapplers.

Hi

Well if you start Martial Arts training under an experienced teacher he will know the truth from experience not the net or books.

This 90% of fights go to the ground is rubbish.

I've never ended up on the ground and as far as I can remember none of the fights I've seen in pubs etc have.

It is a marketing ploy by the Gracie boys.

MF

The problem with statistics is that they are STATISTICS.
What if 99.999999999% of the time people throw a right hook as their first punch, and so you train to counter that, but when you get in that fight he throws a left, because he happened to be a southpaw!

You can generalise as much as you want, but there are always exceptions, and you can never assume that the generalisation wil hold for your case.

But the fact that fights always last only a few seconds (between two people) is generaly true. Because you get really tired when you are fighting, if you are not trained, and its not like the movies were they throw 50 full punches and kicks, and they are still standing.

We all know that that poop hurts!

I was curious about the chances of fighting another MA, have any of you ever gotten into a fight with another MA without knowing obviously?

(language edit)

[This message has been edited by SANCHIN31 (edited 04-28-2005).]

If I were to go by my fights alone since gradeschool I'd say %90 never went to the ground. At least I didn't. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]

I did a lot of statistical modeling when studying epidemiology in school. Couple that with the fact that I also spend alot of time in conflicted parts of the world where, like it or not, fighting is a daily routine, and you'll get this opinion.

I would say that roughly 75% of fights I have seen or participated in, end up on the ground at some stage, but don't always finish there. They usually start with a push, or a grab or someone slips, etc.

Sometimes everybody gets back to their feet, sometimes they just get stomped. Often somebody gets hit with an impromptu weapon (board, shovel, once with a goat, but thats a whole different story [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG] ).

Remember when analyzing statistics to take into account who is doing the reporting.

If it is reported law enforcement officials, the number is going to be high. Their fights always end up on the ground, because thats where they want to get you to pummel and then handcuff you (In South America, not necessarily in that order)!

If it is reported by Chanters or MadFrank, the percentages are going to be very low. No less a valid analyses, just a different focus group.

Statistics are a nice tool, but they are just one of many tools. You have to use your head. 80% of the worlds population is Right handed. If I go to the Convention of Left Handed Bad-Ass Outlaw Bikers with that little piece of info and start shooting my mouth off because my left arm is super quick at blocking, there is 100% chance of me going to ground, and them practicing the kick start stomp!!

Page

[This message has been edited by BuDoc (edited 04-28-2005).]

The only evidence to support the 90% thing was done by the LAPD, which found that 90% of altercations involving LAPD officers went to the ground.

However, officers are trained to restrain suspects (cuff 'em and stuff 'em) so it is only logical that 90% of altercations ended up on the ground. The suspect resists, leading to an altercation. In order to regain control, the officer (or officers) take the suspect down to gain better control.

That is the problem with statistics. Unless you understand the study behind them, people take the number at face value. Same is true of the "50% of marriages end in divorce" statistic. The stat is true, but unless you understand how the data was collected you don't realize that it is misleading.

In my personal conflicts off duty or as civil
only a couple of my fights ended with us on the ground most ended with them/him doubled over or on the ground and me escaping or running out of harms way, to my car or home.

I'd say 91% end with somebody standing over the other and only 9% with both guys rolling on the ground. Unless you fight like a Gracie, they also say that its impossible to
fight more then one person. I see their point if you fight like them, like Boas.

But hereand everywhere else you hear of people fighting multiples all the times, some do well others survive to write their story, which is a Win.

Kenposan - I agree with your LAPD statistic, but what does that have to do with John Q public/us. Arresting is not quite fighting.

Here I risk the rath of my ex-fellow officers, but its not. Most officers are injuried off duty then when their in full gear. But let the truth be told.

Depends on your definition of a fight. The people that use this quote do not apparently feel that a 10-15 second skirmish is a fight to the extent that it will end up on the ground.

The definition is drawn from the idea that if two people fighting, fight for long enough, the chance of it going horizontal at some point is great. This is reinforced with the resisting arrest statistic reported by the LAPD.

While I don't necessary believe the 95-99-whatever % stat, I do believe that any slugfest that goes past the initial flurry usually ends up in a clinch. From the clinch it is very easy for it to hit the dirt.

Don't be a statistic -- learn your ground fighting [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG].

Any fight that lasts more than 2-5 seconds will likely hit the clinch. When people fight in the clinch, they usually (unless they're highly trained, particularly in wrestling) lack the footwork necessary to keep standing. All you need to do is the pummel/swim drill at a decent enough level of intensity to see this for yourselves (that drill by the way, is a GREAT method of developing your footwork for the clinch).

Real fights will almost always hit the clinch. I've seen that happen continuously over the years. After a few seconds in the clinch, one or both will usually fall to the ground, intended or not.

-John

I find that most fights that last more 10-15 seconds either both fighters are skilled or hit like sissys unskilled. Usually after a few exchanges they just quit the unskilled.

The times when I fought a skilled person the fight can last for minutes, after a few unsuccessful or trading of blows you realize what you got and you have to put it together right. Sometimes you walk away with your wounds and acknowledgement that if it contiunes somebodies going get hurt bad. Some
times one us do.

The last time I grappled with a guy was a drunk assoicated that was just released from prison all muscled up, he knew I was an ex-cop and wanted to fight (I didn't send him to jail, but he built up some hatered for authority), he charged me cursing and swing saying how he hate cops. I weaved and countered with stuning hands strikes ending with elbow and knee. Then took him down (he was done for after the strikes, I didn't want to hurt him anymore) so I rolled him into and armbar. After I let him up he acted sobber hold his elbow, saying "Man damn you almost broke my arm". I said yeah aren't you lucky.

My other assoicate got in between us and told him man "You should have knew better then that".

I didn't have to go to the ground I could have just let him fall.

Part of the problem here is that people's personal experiences tend to be very different.

Some guys have had almost every fight they have seen go the ground--some guys have seen multiple fights that only lasted a few sec's--and no-one went to the ground.

So people's individual perspectives start off very different.

The other problem is that when people talk about what that have "seen" is the MOST fights they have "seen" were not trained fighters vs trained fighters.
They are usually seeing "joe average"
(or a tough guy looking to beat up "joe average")
And "joe" is seldom a good model to base what would happen if guys with training "would/would not do" around.

("joe" has no training---thus using him as a example will give a false or less than correct impression.)

Many fights break out in bars/places like that--and people in bars are often drinking--which also jacks with your fighting abilty.

You also have to take into account the actual INTENT of most fights.
One of my favorite quotes--I DO NOT RECALL WHERE I HEARD IT--SORRY.
is:

"Criminals are not looking for "fights" they are looking for "victems."

So I draw a distinction between a "fight" and an "attack."
May be wrong with that--but I do think there is a real distinction between them.

Just some long winded stuff to keep in mind--not that anyone wasn't.



[This message has been edited by cxt (edited 04-28-2005).]

CXT wrote - "Criminals are not looking for "fights" they are looking for "victems."

So I draw a distinction between a "fight" and an "attack."
May be wrong with that--but I do think there is a real distinction between them.


My reply - I'd have to agree with you here a fight and a attack are different, and attack is what happens in an fight.

After I'm assaulted though I call it counter, (being Politically correct) but I will attack to finish a guy, all alone telling him I don't or didn't want to fight, while kicking him in the balls after a solid right hand. An attack is an offensive movement, as you well know.

But I think we are splitting hairs here, having to defend yourself is a fight weather its an unskilled guy or a skilled fighter?
If he attacks us he gets full barrels until, he no longer a threat.

If he orders sh%$, he eats sh%$.

U don't know hows a real threat he is until you in the middle of conflict.

A skilled fighter doesn't have to be trained in a school he could be from the street/school of hard knocks, he knows how to cheat and win.

We shouldn't even try to ask why it happened? Until we are writing our memoirs and philosophies, human nature breeds violence its been that way enos, when it happens we should just respond to it.

Defining each step/method, ask why and quailfying it should be done later, like we are doing now.

I don't think that was the point you were making but I took it for what I thought you meant. There some truth in your each person view of what a fight is diffferent, based on experience. I think even the (sissy in technique gotta be PC) guys I spoke of thought they were fighting and were to the best of their ability.

It's been calculated that 50% of all statistics are only 25% accurate...the other half is full of crap but eisier to understand and so is 75% more likely to be believed by the general public.

Like stated, it's easy to skew numbers, so you can't always take them at face value.

If we assume that half the population of the world is male, and half the population is female, then it can be said that the average human has one testicle...:P

[This message has been edited by traz (edited 04-28-2005).]

4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest.

What happened to the 5th dentist?

My fighting experience does support the fights only last a few seconds,mostly.

8 out of 10 cat owneres say their cats prefer whiskas.