Depends what you consider a "real fight". E.g. I remember a Taekwando instructor saying that BJJ would always beat Taekwando in a UFC match, but he'd never want to rely on their techniques in a bar fight where there might be broken glass on the floor.

I think they mean a more traditional "real fight" - in ancient/prehistoric times, on soil or sand rather than concrete with broken glass.

> The reason to include wrestling is that it makes the contest more closely approximate a real fight. In a real fight your opponent does have the option to go to the ground.

And be immediately killed by anyone nearby, who need merely step on their windpipe or something. Going to the ground gets you killed in a “real fight.”

How likely is a real fight to be one-on-one, just you and the guy you're trying to kill?

Probably more likely than that it's a one on one fight where you both agree not to wrestle.

By definition, an unrestricted one-on-one fight is more likely than a specific subset of one-on-one fights, since the first possibility includes the second.

But neither is likely at all.

Also unlikely: picking a fight with someone who weighs about the same amount you do.

I don't think your logic follows. Unrestricted fights and restricted fights are both subsets of the set of fights, but restricted fights aren't a subset of unrestricted fights. By definition, unrestricted fights are distinct from restricted fights.

Either way, I regret pursuing this topic and won't comment on it further since I feel this is a discussion not worth having, reading, or writing. I don't write that to be rude, just as an attempt to hold myself to some standard for discourse.

I expressed myself poorly. The unrestricted class "one-on-one fights" includes the restricted class "one-on-one fights where both parties agree not to wrestle".

For some martial-arts, it may be necessary to account for the likelihood that bystanders will actually be close enough to be able to intervene before the fight has concluded.