Two views of the Ground Phase - Wrestling in Schaumburg, Aurora, Naperville, Merrillville - Hobart, IN

When MMA competition first revealed the importance of the ground phase of combat, there were two types of reaction. Grapplers received it with delight, a vindication of their styles's effectiveness. Traditional strikers, however, were generally horrified, since ground combat largely negated their game. Over the last decade, this dichotomy in viewpoints has persisted, even with the evolution of MMA. In fact, most fighters still have a definite preference for either the ground game or the standing game; only a small percentage are equally comfortable in both. This loyalty to style is due to the fact that most fighters come from a background in one fighting style that puts an emphasis on one phase of combat. Boxers and kick boxers tend to prefer the standing game; grapplers, the ground game. Depending on their background, fighters still have a definite tendency to consider the ground phase of combat as either heaven or hell, which leaves us with two fundamental outlooks.

1. The first outlook is that the ground phase is the place to take a single-combat, weaponless fight, since this is where the greatest degree of positional control is possible. This is the means by which a fighter can negate an opponent's striking offense and by which he can set up submission holds to allow the fight to be won efficiently. Obviously, this attitude is the trademark of grappling styles of jujitsu have been the prime examples of this outlook. Mataemon Tanabe, Yukio Tani, Maeda and more than anyone else, the Gracie family, have all extolled the ground phase as the way to dominate and control a fight.

2. The second outlook is that the ground phase is an inevitable, but undesirable, phase of combat. A fighter needs to know how to get out of the ground phase and back into the standing position as quickly and efficiently as possible. Failing this, needs to know enough grappling skills to survive on the ground- such a as how to avoid submission holds and dangerous pins-until the round ends or the referee intervenes. This outlook tends to be that of fighters who come from a strong background in striking. Their real interest is in keeping the fight in their favored phase of combat, free motion. They recognize, however, the likelihood of being taken out of the phase and into a ground fight - hence, the need to address the question of ground grappling.

A third outlook that does not merit serious attention is often voiced by many in the traditional marital arts community. This is the claim that the ground is the worst place to be in a real fight and that, consequently, they would simply never go there. This attitude was common in the early days of MMA, but it has since been rejected by virtually all rational martial artists. Experience has proven time and time again the inevitability of ground combat in a real fight. To claim that you simply would not go down is to turn your eyes from the massive store of empirical evidence that demonstrated the contrary. Even those who do not favor ground combat almost always concede the need to address this phase of combat seriously, at least for the purpose of avoiding it as much as possible. As such, we need not consider this third attitude as being relevant.

For more on ground phase and wrestling in these areas check out: Aurora, Naperville, Minooka, Schaumburg, Chicago MMA Training