# All martial arts are ruined by their hubris



## skribs (Sep 25, 2018)

Apologies for the click-baity title.  From my own training in Taekwondo and Hapkido, and what I've seen in several different videos around the web, one theme I keep seeing in martial arts is that an art typically teaches combat only against the style taught by the art.

In some cases, it makes sense for the sport.  Obviously a wrestler needs to know how to counter wrestlers, boxers don't need to worry about kicks, and a Taekwondoist doesn't need to have a plan to deal with ankle locks.  Just like how I don't expect Tom Brady to go to batting practice, Michael Jordan to work on his bicycle kick, or Tiger Woods to run passing drills.  If someone has 5 years experience boxing, I should destroy them in a Taekwondo match.  I should be no match for them in the boxing ring.

But I'm not looking at sports right now, I'm looking at martial arts.

*One-Step Punch Defense*
The self defense we learn in my Taekwondo classes, and from a lot of the videos I've seen covering more traditional versions (as opposed to "modern" or "practical" versions) of Taekwondo and Karate are one-step punches.  These are trained to defend against a punch that comes in just like a punch from a poomsae or kata:  step forward into front stance and throw your weight into that punch.

Now, the "practical" application of this is that you're defending against a haymaker, instead of a string of punches.  Because most people who are going to sucker punch you are going to use a haymaker (and hopefully those with the mindset to train martial arts won't use them aggressively on the street).  But still, if someone is using boxing style punches, half the techniques will be different when dealing with a right cross than dealing with the right reverse punch.  If someone is using a more symmetrical type of punching, like Wing Chun, then the one-step drills will also fall flat.

*Wing Chun*
While we're on the subject of Wing Chun, most of the drills I've seen for it seem to assume the person you're fighting knows Wing Chun.  I don't know that I've seen another art that has a similar style.  Now, I haven't trained in the art, so this is from an outside perspective, but most of what I've seen in Wing Chun videos are how to progress through that style of fighting.  Most of those drills wouldn't really even apply to another art.

It's not that other arts would beat those drills.  It's that they wouldn't even apply, because the techniques appear to be counters to things I've only ever seen done in Wing Chun.

This is why I mention hubris.  Obviously, the Wing Chun fighters, and especially the masters in the art, believe Wing Chun to be the best art.  Since Wing Chun is the best art, if you can defend yourself against a Wing Chun fighter, you can defend yourself against any fighter.  *(I'm using a bit of hyperbole here, I hope you realize).*  But the end result is you have a martial art where most of the drills are focused on fighting against a style specific to that art.

*Hapkido*
Along the same lines, you have hapkido.  Hapkido's primary method of submitting the enemy is with wristlocks.  What does hapkido generally teach?  Defenses against someone grabbing your wrist.  It's not quite the same as drilling against its own techniques, but it still takes the focus of your wrist needing to be defended and your attacker's wrist being the source of his destruction.

Part of my insight into hapkido may be limited by the fact that Hapkido at my school is basically an elective addition to our Taekwondo curriculum, so we take only that which Hapkido does better than Taekwondo and focus on the grappling and joint locks.  But the theme still seems to be the same.  Hapkido assumes wrists are a weak link that you need to protect in yourself and attack in your enemy.

*Thoughts*

This post may come across as a rant, and it maybe kind of is.  It's partially tongue-in-cheek, but partially serious, too.  
I think the problem with Taekwondo is that so much sparring time is dedicated to the point-sparring kicking game (at least in KKW schools) that you don't get to do much scenario sparring or more freestyle sparring.  So in this case, it may be a case of the sport interfering with the art, than a flaw in the art itself.  
Wing Chun, I obviously don't have enough experience to comment on the entirety of the curriculum, and perhaps I'm off base in my assessment of their drills.  It's just an observation I've made as an outsider.
And as to Hapkido, I did admit that we have a focused version of Hapkido to remove redundancy with our Taekwondo training, and as we advance in Hapkido we do learn more than just wrist locks and wrist grab defenses.
But with all those caveats aside, I do believe that most martial arts do come from the mindset of "this art is the best" (otherwise, why practice it?) and then because "this art is the best" the best defense is defense against that art.
I think this is a big reason why MMA is so popular, and even with its limitations its important - because it provides failure drills by someone outside the art, and forces martial artists to think about their techniques from another perspective.
One reason why martial arts might primarily train against themselves is because that's what the fighters are good at.  It doesn't make sense to train to fight against a boxer if none of your students are boxers.  And you're not going to get good feedback at defeating a wrestling shoot if none of your training partners actually know how to shoot for the leg.

*Questions*

Does this make sense?  Or is it just insane ramblings on my part?
How does an art "get over itself" and train to fight against other arts?  Or is that up to the individual fighter to look at what he needs to learn to defeat another art?
Where am I wrong in my understanding of these arts and the defense drills they provide?
What are some other examples of a martial art primarily fighting against itself in its drills?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2018)

skribs said:


> One-Step Punch Defense



I have personally only done that with a kick in a free sparring session which was more of a step sparring given the belt difference.

Apart from the fact i was unsure if i could damage the persons ankle/foot it hurt myself as it was a knife hand. (only pain, no lasting injury to my knowledge)

I personally dislike it, the school in question is sport based so thats more of a tool to get your co ordination up/to be able to throw walking punches etc.    The guard is enpthisied in everything  but Patterns from my observations or at my level.

I will most likely never use it in  actual fight and in the play fight i did tradtional blocking my hand got punched and i nearly threw my fist into a wall/cabinet.*    The sessions of just practicing blocking against another person seems much better than patterns in learning it plus i belive in the conditioning aspect of getting used to taking a lot of force in your blocking surfaces so your arm isnt done after two blocks or something like that or at least so you are used to the pain which is inflicted to yourself.

90% sure you know my views on patterns anyway. 

*I didnt do it properly nor did i have a guard up etc no reason to.


Edit:  I can almost guarantee most traditional styles wont let me fight how i want to fight, eg if i say i want to do vertical punches (which we all know i am fond of now) they will provably be non comprising given it might not be taught to low belts and isnt in Patterns. 
Covertly and with pad/sparring i might have more luck as i have done a pad session with vertical punches with little complaint, Instructor either didnt know (more likely) or care. 

I will get back to you when i start going again and see how well it goes wanting to the type of punch i want to do. Overtly say i want to do X punch and not Y.  Perfectly fine if they complain about my technique though.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 25, 2018)

Its time to connect the dots. Here is what you said in another thread you started:


skribs said:


> *Learn the rules first, and the exceptions later*. This also applies to learning the "primary" application of a motion, and then learning other applications for similar motions; and also applies to learning the "primary" way of doing a technique, and then learning variations of that technique.
> 
> For example, always keep your hands up! That is a rule. Of course, at high levels of Taekwondo sparring, many of the Olympic fighters keep their hands down, because they're going to use footwork to avoid being hit. But you don't teach a new fighter to fight with their guard down. You teach them to keep their guard up and later teach them when to keep it down, if they'll need to use that exception.
> 
> ...


You make a good case for giving people a "primary" application for the movement that they are working on, even though that movement could be many things. This is what one steps are... you told them this could block a punch, now they get to block a punch. It is just as set up as it was when doing it solo, in the form or kata. It is just more visible. And it allows you to see how effective your movements are... are you off the line, do you have structure in your "block," are you at the proper distance to counter...? When its time to look at the secondary and or other applications, these become great ways to set up that application to learn the application. As you said, this is step 1 in learning, not the final step.

Once these ideas, proper movement, getting off line, proper distance, proper timing, proper structure... are learned, they can be applied in many different ways. In fact, I would say that if you can not apply these things in other ways and in other situations, you haven't really learned anything from that movement, kata, form yet. This is what sparring / randori are supposed to be for. You are supposed to evaluate not so much whether you won or lost, but what were you able to translate and use from your kata / form. Were you able to find a new application for a movement you already know. This idea of randori or sparring should include people of different styles, so you can see and learn how your style interacts with other styles. You are correct, MMA forces that a bit. But there is no reason you can't go out and play with other arts and learn similar things on your own.

Go back and do more reading on that Shu-Ha-Ri bit I mentioned in the other thread. What you will see, the more you understand that method, is that most people are working on the Shu part. This is the copying step. They get really good at copying the form or kata. Then they get their shiny new black belt, and think they have learned and or mastered a thing... when really all they are doing is copying. And half the time they don't even know what they are copying or why... except that it is kata or form. This is why black belt is considered the beginning... you have now learned the alphabet (the forms or kata) and even how to make words... but now you can start to learn the grammar, paragraph construction... all the rest of the things. Not too many people really get to the Ha part, and many who do, get shunned by others in their own art for diverging. The others in their art are still stuck in the Shu part, copying because thats all they know. How dare someone modify or diverge? Well, thats by design... Ha! (see what I did their? ) Very few people make it to the Ri stage. Although this method is very Japanese, many arts follow this pattern, or are supposed to. (TKD and Hapkido are so influenced by Japanese arts, that they should be following this method as well... though in Korean terms)



skribs said:


> Along the same lines, you have hapkido. Hapkido's primary method of submitting the enemy is with wristlocks. What does hapkido generally teach? Defenses against someone grabbing your wrist. It's not quite the same as drilling against its own techniques, but it still takes the focus of your wrist needing to be defended and your attacker's wrist being the source of his destruction.


If that is your take on what you are learning in Hapkido, you need to go back and really look at what is going on. The wrist lock drills should be teaching you a lot more than just hold here and bend there. There should be a connection made, a blend, an off balance, and redirection made. That they are tapping to the wrist being bent is almost irrelevant, if you are doing it correctly. If done correctly, you should have a good structure and their structure should be compromised such that they cannot attack you. You should have their balance such that you could shove them away, throw them, punch them, use your TKD kicks on an unprotected target or damage the joint you are locking. (or all of the above, which is my favorite...) You should be learning how the joints and body connect, how they effect one another and how to manipulate the other guys body. There is a lot hidden behind those wrist locks.


----------



## now disabled (Sep 25, 2018)

Rat said:


> I have personally only done that with a kick in a free sparring session which was more of a step sparring given the belt difference.
> 
> Apart from the fact i was unsure if i could damage the persons ankle/foot it hurt myself as it was a knife hand. (only pain, no lasting injury to my knowledge)
> 
> ...



Where did you do all this blocking may I ask? 

I'd suggest that if you go and train in a specific art then you by dint of being there, you are thereby saying you will practice and train the way the school teaches, or am I wrong there ?

If you go to a school and you try and pull out all the things you think you know, then ether you will get shown the door, or if your up against a high rank and you try to pull something you might not like the response. Please don't say that  if you get knocked down or the like your learning as that mind set kinda went out with the gladiators in the arena.

You really need to start actually training as opposed to jumping around like you do. Sorry harsh but imo true and logical


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Its time to connect the dots. Here is what you said in another thread you started:
> 
> You make a good case for giving people a "primary" application for the movement that they are working on, even though that movement could be many things. This is what one steps are... you told them this could block a punch, now they get to block a punch. It is just as set up as it was when doing it solo, in the form or kata. It is just more visible. And it allows you to see how effective your movements are... are you off the line, do you have structure in your "block," are you at the proper distance to counter...? When its time to look at the secondary and or other applications, these become great ways to set up that application to learn the application. As you said, this is step 1 in learning, not the final step.
> 
> ...



My point is, for the most part in a one-step drill, you're training AGAINST a single punch with a step.  If that's the type of punch you always train against, what are you going to do against a boxer who throws a jab (the other hand than you've trained to defend), pulls back his cross after it lands/misses, or throws an uppercut?  What are you going to do if you go against a Wing Chun fighter who uses inside leverage on his strikes?

It's not about YOUR technique.  It's about the technique the other person is using.  There's a big difference between a haymaker, a 1-2-hook-uppercut combo, and a fast combo of centerline straight punches.  If all you ever train against is a haymaker, are you going to be prepared to deal with left hand or deal with combos?

Like I expanded on in my thoughts, I think in another art, like kickboxing or karate, there will probably be more sparring that allows you to explore these concepts in full and expand on the drills.  But because KKW schools tend to teach WT sparring, 95-100% of your sparring in a KKW school is going to be towards the kick game.  So maybe the issue here is that the teaching on punch defense ends at the drill stage instead of being allowed to move into sparring (especially since punches are restricted and generally of little use to the point game).

But from my experience, we generally practice against a haymaker, and don't get to deal much with other styles of punching coming at us.  So is that because a haymaker is the most likely punch you'll see in a street fight?  Is it because the training stops before sparring?  Is it because the Taekwondo fighters generally don't throw punching combos, so we don't train against it?



> If that is your take on what you are learning in Hapkido, you need to go back and really look at what is going on. The wrist lock drills should be teaching you a lot more than just hold here and bend there. There should be a connection made, a blend, an off balance, and redirection made. That they are tapping to the wrist being bent is almost irrelevant, if you are doing it correctly. If done correctly, you should have a good structure and their structure should be compromised such that they cannot attack you. You should have their balance such that you could shove them away, throw them, punch them, use your TKD kicks on an unprotected target or damage the joint you are locking. (or all of the above, which is my favorite...) You should be learning how the joints and body connect, how they effect one another and how to manipulate the other guys body. There is a lot hidden behind those wrist locks.



The structure not being compromised is what allows us to get the tap.  And the structure is usually not compromised as a combination of footwork and a wristlock.

Like I said, I am just an orange belt in Hapkido.  I've been doing Taekwondo 6 days a week for 4 years, plus another 5 years before that of 3 days a week.  I've done Hapkido once a week for 2 years.  So my knowledge of Taekwondo and my position in the curriculum is much more advanced.  So some of this may come with time (and having been the partner for blue, red, and black belts, I know some of it will come).  But even as other things are added in, it still seems to be about 50% wrist grabs and 60% wrist locks. 

There are other ways to accomplish what you say with the wrist locks.  Muay Thai does this with the clinch.  Wrestling to some degree with overhooks and underhooks.  Judo with shoulder grabs, hip throws, and armbars.  BJJ with chokes.  All of these clinching or grappling techniques seek to gain leverage on your attacker.  But different arts focus on different targets, and Hapkido seems to focus on the wrist.[/quote][/QUOTE]


----------



## pdg (Sep 25, 2018)

skribs said:


> Like I expanded on in my thoughts, I think in another art, like kickboxing or karate, there will probably be more sparring that allows you to explore these concepts in full and expand on the drills.



Obviously I can't speak for every school, but maybe try taekwon-do instead of taekwondo...

All of our step/set sparring drills use attacks and defences on both sides, with different attacks.

Kicks of various types, punches, hammerfists (to use a generic term), knifehand, spearhand, thrusts, etc.

Random in class free sparring is way more open on technique than the wt/kkw ruleset, and once a month or so the kickboxers and taekwondoin mix in.

Oh, and even when scoring is done, we don't stop for each point...


----------



## wab25 (Sep 25, 2018)

skribs said:


> It's not about YOUR technique. It's about the technique the other person is using.


Yes and no. First, you have to have your own technique. This is what the one steps are, they are about you developing your technique. Once you have developed your technique to a point, you need to learn to apply it. One steps are not about applying the technique in a real situation. They are about teaching you a technique. In TKD when you teach a newbie to kick, you don't have him spar full contact. You teach him the parts, then the whole of the kick... in the air. Then you may move to using pads. Then a heavy bag. Then you may have some drills to kick at the proper time and distance. Then you start the sparring thing. Even MMA, BJJ and wrestling follow this pattern: show the technique, try the technique, drill the technique, increase the resistance, then free spar and try to apply.



skribs said:


> My point is, for the most part in a one-step drill, you're training AGAINST a single punch with a step. *If that's the type of punch you always train against*, what are you going to do against


 You are answering your own question here. Train against different types of punches, after you have developed your technique.

If you always train against the one step punch, you are stuck in the Shu stage. You are just copying and don't know what it is that you are copying. You need to take it out of the box and play with it. Read that again: *You *need to take it out of the box. That is, this is an exercise for the student to do, regardless of what your instructor does or does not do.



skribs said:


> The structure not being compromised is what allows us to get the tap. And the structure is usually not compromised as a combination of footwork and a wristlock.


Are you saying that if you applied a wrist lock to me that my structure would not be compromised? If you are applying a wrist lock to me, my structure had better be compromised, or you will be the one to tap or hit the floor. When you apply a wrist lock to me, your structure needs to be intact and correct, mine needs to be compromised.



skribs said:


> There are other ways to accomplish what you say with the wrist locks. Muay Thai does this with the clinch. Wrestling to some degree with overhooks and underhooks. Judo with shoulder grabs, hip throws, and armbars. BJJ with chokes. All of these clinching or grappling techniques seek to gain leverage on your attacker. But different arts focus on different targets, and Hapkido seems to focus on the wrist.


Okay. I agree. Figure out how to get these same things from your wrist locks. These are the things you should be getting from all those wrist locks. (they will also make your lock more effective)


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 25, 2018)

Unfortunately most martial arts students don't have the opportunity to practice their techniques regularly against skilled practitioners of other martial arts. Still, there are things an instructor can do to maximize the chance that their students can generalize their skills for application against a wide range of opponents.

One very important component is of this process is regular sparring/free-form exercises where participants are not forced to limit themselves to a particular style of movement. Every drill has rules imposed for the sake of safety or focusing on a particular skillset (grappling only, striking only, striking and takedowns with no groundwork, groundwork only, no gouging the eyes, whatever). Within those boundaries, participants should be able to try whatever works for them. If your sparring partner throws a boxing punch or a karate punch or a wing chun punch or an untrained brawlers punch, it's your job to deal with it.  "He didn't throw the right kind of punch" is not an excuse for being hit.

One side effect of engaging in this type of training regularly is that practitioners learn to instinctively apply principles rather than just executing memorized techniques that depend on an opponent moving in a particular stylized way.

Another is that instructors will be familiar with the most common movement patterns of untrained individuals as well as those typical of more skilled fighters.

I've been fortunate enough to have the experience of grappling and/or sparring with wrestlers, judoka, jiu-jiteiros, capoeristas, karateka, wing chunners, boxers, samboists, MMA fighters, nak muay, aikidoka, power lifters, football players, completely untrained people, and many more. When teach new students, I don't start them out with "this is a counter to such-and-such a specialized BJJ technique." Instead I start them out with common situations and attacks that they might encounter from an untrained fighter and I show them highly generalizable moves which will work not only against these untrained attacks but also more sophisticated , trained versions. I emphasize the principles that make the techniques work so that when they have to modify the defense for a different attack it makes sense and isn't just memorization.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 25, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Are you saying that if you applied a wrist lock to me that my structure would not be compromised? If you are applying a wrist lock to me, my structure had better be compromised, or you will be the one to tap or hit the floor. When you apply a wrist lock to me, your structure needs to be intact and correct, mine needs to be compromised.


I tell my students over and over again. The fundamental requirement for any throw is that you compromise your opponent's structure without compromising your own in the process. The same applies to sweeps, joint locks, and just about everything else in jiu-jitsu.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Where did you do all this blocking may I ask?
> 
> I'd suggest that if you go and train in a specific art then you by dint of being there, you are thereby saying you will practice and train the way the school teaches, or am I wrong there ?
> 
> ...



I dont overly want to derail this so a quick a response

I have done two TKD styles.  This was at the first bloc of attending i did with my first martial art style. 

As for the second/third part:   Im under the impression martial arts are there to help you find your way of fighting more than not.  Obviously if its my first style it influences how i do anything etc.  Generally speaking (*in princple) i will concede if its provable to be better than what i do, like i will do what the school teachers until i find something that i like better/works better for me.

It was a friendly sparring match, i did hand strikes mainly and did open palm strikes to avoid any accidental proper punches.  They were also to the body and it was without armour.   So i sparred how i was comfortable with sparring at that moment. 

As for knocked down, if its avoidable you will learn from it.  These places exist to give you a safe environment to make mistakes as opposed to making them with your life on the line.

*Dont know which works better in that line. 




Also tying into the above post by @Tony Dismukes    I will gladly step in as a "untrained" brawler for practice when i am confident in not maiming someone by accident in sparing and wont cause offence to be maimed if i hit harder by accident etc etc.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 25, 2018)

skribs said:


> There are other ways to accomplish what you say with the wrist locks. Muay Thai does this with the clinch. Wrestling to some degree with overhooks and underhooks. Judo with shoulder grabs, hip throws, and armbars. BJJ with chokes. All of these clinching or grappling techniques seek to gain leverage on your attacker. But different arts focus on different targets, and Hapkido seems to focus on the wrist


Just to be picky, BJJ applies those concepts with clinching, overhooks, underhooks, shoulder grabs, hip throws, armbars, chokes, _and_ wristlocks. (Also sweeps, trips, leglocks, and more.)


----------



## Buka (Sep 25, 2018)

Without hubris in Martial Arts there would be no Master Ken.

Oh, the humanity.


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Yes and no. First, you have to have your own technique. This is what the one steps are, they are about you developing your technique. Once you have developed your technique to a point, you need to learn to apply it. One steps are not about applying the technique in a real situation. They are about teaching you a technique. In TKD when you teach a newbie to kick, you don't have him spar full contact. You teach him the parts, then the whole of the kick... in the air. Then you may move to using pads. Then a heavy bag. Then you may have some drills to kick at the proper time and distance. Then you start the sparring thing. Even MMA, BJJ and wrestling follow this pattern: show the technique, try the technique, drill the technique, increase the resistance, then free spar and try to apply.



I understand that the drills are to teach my technique.  But the drills also train other things - such as timing, distance, and reactions.  Doing the drill for a one-step punch I learn to see the haymaker, and my eyes get practice tracking the punch on the way in.

What I'm not getting out of these drills is how to track and time punches coming from the other side, or how to track different punches.  And if I start learning to track that when I need it, then I'm going to get hit in the face.  It's a lot better if that experience comes from drills or sparring than from a real fight or a match.



wab25 said:


> If you always train against the one step punch, you are stuck in the Shu stage. You are just copying and don't know what it is that you are copying. You need to take it out of the box and play with it. Read that again: *You *need to take it out of the box. That is, this is an exercise for the student to do, regardless of what your instructor does or does not do.



Unfortunately there's not a lot of time to do that while I'm in class.  That's the issue I have.



wab25 said:


> Are you saying that if you applied a wrist lock to me that my structure would not be compromised? If you are applying a wrist lock to me, my structure had better be compromised, or you will be the one to tap or hit the floor. When you apply a wrist lock to me, your structure needs to be intact and correct, mine needs to be compromised.



I'm saying that if I don't do the technique right and my partner has an opening, they will capitalize on it.  So I am learning to correctly compromise your structure, because if I don't, I will lose.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2018)

Buka said:


> Without hubris in Martial Arts there would be no Master Ken.
> 
> Oh, the humanity.



Hes my role model. 




skribs said:


> One reason why martial arts might primarily train against themselves is because that's what the fighters are good at. It doesn't make sense to train to fight against a boxer if none of your students are boxers. And you're not going to get good feedback at defeating a wrestling shoot if none of your training partners actually know how to shoot for the leg.



Skimmed over this orginally but:   I was reading up on Bartitsu,and the main justification of him teaching kicking* (at the time was throwned upon by who he was aiming to teach mainly)  is so, you are a good partner to teach kick defences and counters with (and secondly and lesser point, so you can kick if you need to as they might not play by your rules )  

Just a tidbit i know and ,might explain some things in martial arts also. ( i granted look over this and forget that as a possible reason for anything in any martial art)

* Apparantly


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Unfortunately most martial arts students don't have the opportunity to practice their techniques regularly against skilled practitioners of other martial arts. Still, there are things an instructor can do to maximize the chance that their students can generalize their skills for application against a wide range of opponents.
> 
> One very important component is of this process is regular sparring/free-form exercises where participants are not forced to limit themselves to a particular style of movement. Every drill has rules imposed for the sake of safety or focusing on a particular skillset (grappling only, striking only, striking and takedowns with no groundwork, groundwork only, no gouging the eyes, whatever). Within those boundaries, participants should be able to try whatever works for them. If your sparring partner throws a boxing punch or a karate punch or a wing chun punch or an untrained brawlers punch, it's your job to deal with it.  "He didn't throw the right kind of punch" is not an excuse for being hit.
> 
> ...



As I mentioned in my reply to @wab25 I feel this is one thing I wish we could do more in TKD.  But as I said, our free sparring is usually focused on WT rules.  We do this type of sparring in our Hapkido class, and I wish we could bring it over to TKD.  Either freestyle sparring, or freestyle games.

I will often take drills we do and modify them and come up with variations, but most people don't (because they still need to master the drill itself).  But I don't have a lot of opportunity to get creative, and I do wish I did.


----------



## now disabled (Sep 25, 2018)

Rat said:


> I dont overly want to derail this so a quick a response
> 
> I have done two TKD styles.  This was at the first bloc of attending i did with my first martial art style.
> 
> ...


Go actually train in an art as opposed to talking bout every art .........that will stand you better than anything


----------



## pdg (Sep 25, 2018)

Rat said:


> I have done two TKD styles



Wasn't it extremely short term though?


----------



## Steve (Sep 25, 2018)

*Questions*

Does this make sense?  Or is it just insane ramblings on my part?
Makes a lot of sense.  Other than that hubris is terrific on a cracker, with lot's of garlic, olive oil, and some nice Kalamatas.  Or is that hummus?  I can never keep them straight.  Point is, sure, there are plenty of things we could unpack and dig into, but for the most part, I think you provide the answer in the preamble. 

How does an art "get over itself" and train to fight against other arts?  Or is that up to the individual fighter to look at what he needs to learn to defeat another art? 
Compete against other styles?  If the competition doesn't suit your needs, create a new rule set.  Dog Brothers, HEMA, MMA, that Chuck Norris team MMA thing, chess-boxing.  And you can get a job that relies on the skills you're looking to develop.  Cop, prison guard, bouncer, mob enforcer, ER nurse in Denver.

The more you do, the more well rounded you will become.  If it's important for you to do X against Y, create a situation where you are routinely doing X against Y.  You'll get better at it.    

Where am I wrong in my understanding of these arts and the defense drills they provide?
Personally, I think you're struggling to articulate the lack of application in these arts.  Simply put, in my opinion, you aren't identifying a problem with training.  You're identifying the lack of application.  You can't fake skills you don't have. 

What are some other examples of a martial art primarily fighting against itself in its drills?
All of them.  Even sports.  It's an inherent, unavoidable characteristic of training.  You can't replicate application in training.  Training is, by definition, not "real life."  The only way you can overcome this is to do the thing you're training to do.  And this is why, over time, styles get worse.  It only takes a generation to see serious issues emerge.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> Wasn't it extremely short term though?



I legit cant give a accurate response to that. I wouldn't call it extremely short term, but its shorter rather than longer.   I have done it enough to do the four directional patterns to perhaps a grading standard at this point.


----------



## Steve (Sep 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> Obviously I can't speak for every school, but maybe try taekwon-do instead of taekwondo...


It's teakwon-do in Britain.   It's true, fact checked on Quora.


----------



## Steve (Sep 25, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've been fortunate enough to have the experience of grappling and/or sparring with wrestlers, judoka, jiu-jiteiros, capoeristas, karateka, wing chunners, boxers, samboists, MMA fighters, nak muay, aikidoka, power lifters, football players, completely untrained people, and many more.


This experience will help you be a better coach and a well rounded martial artist, but you just can't teach experience.  If the goal is to build the same breadth of experience, the best thing the coach can do is expose the student to as many of those same experiences as possible. 

And also, "working out with" someone isn't going to be of much benefit, unless it's relatively similar to skills already developed.  What I mean is, rolling with a power lifter or an untrained football player isn't the same as fighting them or competing against them or arresting them.


----------



## pdg (Sep 25, 2018)

Rat said:


> I legit cant give a accurate response to that. I wouldn't call it extremely short term, but its shorter rather than longer.   I have done it enough to do the four directional patterns to perhaps a grading standard at this point.



You mean 4 direction punch?

To grading standard?

It's not a pattern, it's an exercise.

To get that to grading standard (at least the standard required for that grading) with no previous experience you're talking, what, 4 weeks maybe.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> To get that to grading standard (at least the standard required for that grading) with no previous experience you're talking, what, 4 weeks maybe.



I think its around a month i have seen it cited as on average to get to the yellow tag/belt.  (there might be some variation in which organization you go with)  Obviously its on averages, some faster some slower. 

Yeah, four directional punching.


----------



## pdg (Sep 25, 2018)

Rat said:


> I think its around a month i have seen it cited as on average to get to the yellow tag/belt.  (there might be some variation in which organization you go with)  Obviously its on averages, some faster some slower.
> 
> Yeah, four directional punching.



A month or two is extremely short term...


----------



## WaterGal (Sep 25, 2018)

skribs said:


> But from my experience, we generally practice against a haymaker, and don't get to deal much with other styles of punching coming at us.  So is that because a haymaker is the most likely punch you'll see in a street fight?  Is it because the training stops before sparring?  Is it because the Taekwondo fighters generally don't throw punching combos, so we don't train against it?



Honestly, I think, it's because it's the easiest one to see coming. A person throwing a haymaker telegraphs like crazy, and really throws their body into it. That means you can easily see it ahead of time and use their exaggerated, committed body movement against them.

That's also why so many knife-defense systems teach you to defend against huge sweeping slices/stabs from arms-length.


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2018)

WaterGal said:


> Honestly, I think, it's because it's the easiest one to see coming. A person throwing a haymaker telegraphs like crazy, and really throws their body into it. That means you can easily see it ahead of time and use their exaggerated, committed body movement against them.
> 
> That's also why so many knife-defense systems teach you to defend against huge sweeping slices/stabs from arms-length.



I can't really disagree with you there, but that makes it even worse!

I also think this is a big reason people cross-train, is because they notice gaps in what they know.  Which is why after I get to be a Master in Taekwondo and my 2nd or 3rd in Hapkido, I may turn towards a punching and/or ground-fighting art.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 25, 2018)

skribs said:


> I also think this is a big reason people cross-train, is because they notice gaps in what they know.


Most of those gaps are only there, because the person is stuck in the Shu stage. This is the copying stage. They are just learning to copy the form, nothing more. They can do the form, they can make it look good, they can teach it to somebody else, they can impact a heavy bag quite hard. But, it is still just a copy. As such, they don't know what they have, thus they find "holes" in their system. If they understood what it was that they were copying, they would see that a lot of those "holes" are not really holes... they are filled by things they have already put 1000s of reps into. Instead of switching arts, it would be better to move on to the Ha stage. This is the stage were you diverge from the copy. You are doing different things with the form, beyond just the label and learning the why and how of the movement.



skribs said:


> I understand that the drills are to teach my technique. But the drills also train other things - such as timing, distance, and reactions. Doing the drill for a one-step punch I learn to see the haymaker, and my eyes get practice tracking the punch on the way in.
> 
> What I'm not getting out of these drills is how to track and time punches coming from the other side, or how to track different punches. And if I start learning to track that when I need it, then I'm going to get hit in the face. It's a lot better if that experience comes from drills or sparring than from a real fight or a match.


Sounds like you need to set up some different drills, using these other kinds of punches. Take two approaches here. First find the correct one step response for each type of punch. Second, take one of the one step responses and find a way to apply it to all the punches.



skribs said:


> Unfortunately there's not a lot of time to do that while I'm in class. That's the issue I have.


Its your instructors class, he will teach what he wants. Its your training, get what you need. You may have to meet up with another student for a few minutes before class or after class or at your place on the weekend. You may need to visit some other schools and meet some people. 

I had to spend a lot of time and effort to train with, and spar with as many different types of people as I have. I certainly have not done as much as I wanted, and will continue to do more. But, I have met a number of great people and learned many things about my art and about myself.

The tricky part about the Ha stage, is that your instructor can't do it for you. Even if he devoted a whole class to doing these different drills for you, thats still just you copying him. You have to do the work. You have to figure it out. Find out how to make these things work in different situations. Only then will you start to understand what you have. The experience of find out what works, what doesn't work and how to make it work is what really teaches you about the art. Copying will never get you there. (the Ri stage is even tougher... and I can't help you there, I am still trying to quit copying myself)

My point is that you spent so much time in these two arts, why chuck them and start over with something else? You will have to start at the copying stage again, and learn a new set of letters. I would suggest staying with your primary arts and going deeper. As you get to the Ha stage, you will start to truly understand these movements and you will see that there are a lot less gaps than you see now. Yes, this part is an exercise for the student.


----------



## pdg (Sep 25, 2018)

@wab25 - Shu, ha, ri?

Care to elaborate on these?


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Sounds like you need to set up some different drills, using these other kinds of punches. Take two approaches here. First find the correct one step response for each type of punch. Second, take one of the one step responses and find a way to apply it to all the punches.



I'm not the master.  I don't have the authority to dictate how classes go.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 25, 2018)

skribs said:


> My point is, for the most part in a one-step drill, you're training AGAINST a single punch with a step.  If that's the type of punch you always train against, what are you going to do against a boxer who throws a jab (the other hand than you've trained to defend), pulls back his cross after it lands/misses, or throws an uppercut?  What are you going to do if you go against a Wing Chun fighter who uses inside leverage on his strikes?
> 
> It's not about YOUR technique.  It's about the technique the other person is using.  There's a big difference between a haymaker, a 1-2-hook-uppercut combo, and a fast combo of centerline straight punches.  If all you ever train against is a haymaker, are you going to be prepared to deal with left hand or deal with combos?
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I think your field is too narrow for the views you have. If you have only seen one steps then you have only seen a very limited version of the usual training. Same for your Hapkido, like one of the other poster's said. You seem to be one of the many (millennial?) who haven't figured out that to learn some things in the MA and FMA just take time. There is a BIG difference in knowing the motions of a move and knowing the move well and effectively.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 25, 2018)

[/QUOTE]

I think your field is too narrow for the views you have. If you have only seen one steps then you have only seen a very limited version of the usual training. Same for your Hapkido, like one of the other poster's said. You seem to be one of the many (millennial?) who haven't figured out that to learn some things in the MA and FMA just take time. There is a BIG difference in knowing the motions of a move and knowing the move well and effectively.[/QUOTE]
What would being a millennial have to do with this?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 25, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Most of those gaps are only there, because the person is stuck in the Shu stage. This is the copying stage. They are just learning to copy the form, nothing more. They can do the form, they can make it look good, they can teach it to somebody else, they can impact a heavy bag quite hard. But, it is still just a copy. As such, they don't know what they have, thus they find "holes" in their system. If they understood what it was that they were copying, they would see that a lot of those "holes" are not really holes... they are filled by things they have already put 1000s of reps into. Instead of switching arts, it would be better to move on to the Ha stage. This is the stage were you diverge from the copy. You are doing different things with the form, beyond just the label and learning the why and how of the movement.
> 
> Sounds like you need to set up some different drills, using these other kinds of punches. Take two approaches here. First find the correct one step response for each type of punch. Second, take one of the one step responses and find a way to apply it to all the punches.
> 
> ...


I’m not familiar with the terms you are using, but agree with your message.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 25, 2018)

I think your field is too narrow for the views you have. If you have only seen one steps then you have only seen a very limited version of the usual training. Same for your Hapkido, like one of the other poster's said. You seem to be one of the many (millennial?) who haven't figured out that to learn some things in the MA and FMA just take time. There is a BIG difference in knowing the motions of a move and knowing the move well and effectively.[/QUOTE]
What would being a millennial have to do with this?[/QUOTE]
Age, wanting it and wanting it now syndrome.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 25, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Age, wanting it and wanting it now syndrome.


To me, that is something that would be more related to time in MA then age. From what I remember from my undergrad courses, that delayed gratification stuff is more or an innate trait than something that changes through time.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 25, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> To me, that is something that would be more related to time in MA then age. From what I remember from my undergrad courses, that delayed gratification stuff is more or an innate trait than something that changes through time.


??


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 25, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> ??


The idea of wanting something now. In regards to understanding MA is a long-term thing, I would relate it more to time practicing MA then to age. And with 'wanting it now', from what I remember, that is more based on innate traits and upbringing and tends to be a consistent characteristic over someones life, rather than something that changes as they get older.

Unless your suggestion was that something about the specific generation of millenials, unrelated to age, causes them to have that want it now mentality.


----------



## Martial_Kumite (Sep 25, 2018)

skribs said:


> *One-Step Punch Defense*
> The self defense we learn in my Taekwondo classes, and from a lot of the videos I've seen covering more traditional versions (as opposed to "modern" or "practical" versions) of Taekwondo and Karate are one-step punches.  These are trained to defend against a punch that comes in just like a punch from a poomsae or kata:  step forward into front stance and throw your weight into that punch.
> 
> Now, the "practical" application of this is that you're defending against a haymaker, instead of a string of punches.  Because most people who are going to sucker punch you are going to use a haymaker (and hopefully those with the mindset to train martial arts won't use them aggressively on the street).  But still, if someone is using boxing style punches, half the techniques will be different when dealing with a right cross than dealing with the right reverse punch.  If someone is using a more symmetrical type of punching, like Wing Chun, then the one-step drills will also fall flat



How does an art "get over itself" and train to fight against other arts? Or is that up to the individual fighter to look at what he needs to learn to defeat another art? 

Simply answer: go against someone with a different MA background. In my studio we had people who trained in; judo, Shotokan, Hapkido, jujitsu and even a boxer come in. I have watched every one of them keep to the roots they know when I have a sparring match with them. 

Where am I wrong in my understanding of these arts and the defense drills they provide?

Answer: I had questions regarding why we had such choreographed movements as well. It was then that I learned that these movements were to engrain the muscle memory and to work out easy to use moves. "Line, Beuty Speed"  is what it was summed up as. We had to get moves down "Line", grow and expand on what those movements can be used for " Beuty", then train until the evolved movements become quick and effective "speed".


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I think your field is too narrow for the views you have. If you have only seen one steps then you have only seen a very limited version of the usual training. Same for your Hapkido, like one of the other poster's said. You seem to be one of the many (millennial?) who haven't figured out that to learn some things in the MA and FMA just take time. There is a BIG difference in knowing the motions of a move and knowing the move well and effectively.



I've got 9 years of Taekwondo training.  5 at my current school.  I'm a 3rd degree black belt in the art.  I think that would have happened by now.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 26, 2018)

pdg said:


> @wab25 - Shu, ha, ri?
> 
> Care to elaborate on these?


Sorry. Skribs had started another thread on stages of learning, where I posted a link to an explaination of the Shu-Ha-Ri method. This is what many Japanese arts use to transmit the art to new people. 

Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin kai

Basically, the Shu stage is where you copy. This is learning the katas or forms. The Ha stage is where you diverge from the kata and start to make it your own. The process of learning how and where to diverge as well as why, is the important bit, as it helps you understand better your art. Ri is where you throw away the kata. 

I find that way too many people are stuck just copying and never knowing exactly what it is they are copying. Too many think that the kata/forms are the art as opposed to the kata/forms being the method of transmitting the art. More specifically, they are the material for the Shu stage, for people to copy, as a beginner.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 26, 2018)

skribs said:


> I've got 9 years of Taekwondo training. 5 at my current school. I'm a 3rd degree black belt in the art. I think that would have happened by now.


I think a lot of us think that should have happened by now... but it hasn't. This is an exercise for the student. You can change masters or change arts... but you will never get it until you go beyond copying. This is the students responsibility.



skribs said:


> I'm not the master. I don't have the authority to dictate how classes go.


I never said that you should dictate how the class goes, or even ask for him to change how class goes. If he changes how class goes, to cover this for you, you are still just copying. The piece you are missing only comes from exploring and experimenting, trying to figure it out for yourself. No one can give that to you. You need to take time outside of class, as I said, a few minutes before or after. Or find a different venue or a different club. Meet a class mate down at the park to train on your own and set up these drills. Its the only way you are going to learn what you are copying.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 26, 2018)

wab25 said:


> I think a lot of us think that should have happened by now... but it hasn't. This is an exercise for the student. You can change masters or change arts... but you will never get it until you go beyond copying. This is the students responsibility.
> 
> I never said that you should dictate how the class goes, or even ask for him to change how class goes. If he changes how class goes, to cover this for you, you are still just copying. The piece you are missing only comes from exploring and experimenting, trying to figure it out for yourself. No one can give that to you. You need to take time outside of class, as I said, a few minutes before or after. Or find a different venue or a different club. Meet a class mate down at the park to train on your own and set up these drills. Its the only way you are going to learn what you are copying.


The instructor can't give the student the answers for the "Ha" and "Ri" stages, but they can structure things to give students more opportunities and encouragement to do their exploring and experimenting. If not, then it does come down to finding time and training partners outside of class. The first is under the student's control, but the latter can be difficult.


----------



## pdg (Sep 26, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Basically, the Shu stage is where you copy. This is learning the katas or forms. The Ha stage is where you diverge from the kata and start to make it your own. The process of learning how and where to diverge as well as why, is the important bit, as it helps you understand better your art. Ri is where you throw away the kata.



Thanks.

I would personally not advocate the throwing away of the kata - more along the lines of re-evaluate your expectations of what it can do for you.

I appear to be in all 3 stages 

My practice of the patterns/kata is copying, fitting into the format and trying to get myself into the 'shape' of it. They are really performance pieces as much as anything, but there's a lot to be taken from them if you are of a mind to.

I diverge too though, I'll run them forward and backward, I'll alter transitions, I'll switch moves about, I'll take kata from other arts and reinterpret them for me.

I also work completely outside them, take the lessons they've provided and apply elsewhere.


----------



## pdg (Sep 26, 2018)

wab25 said:


> No one can give that to you. You need to take time outside of class, as I said, a few minutes before or after. Or find a different venue or a different club. Meet a class mate down at the park to train on your own and set up these drills. Its the only way you are going to learn what you are copying.



Just don't repeat what is done in class if you want to expand.

If the one step in class always uses the same attack, change it (outside class). Use different attacks.

Don't agree on attacks beforehand. To use the one step format stand facing each other and one attack - with anything that springs to mind.

Then defend.


----------



## wab25 (Sep 26, 2018)

pdg said:


> I would personally not advocate the throwing away of the kata - more along the lines of re-evaluate your expectations of what it can do for you.


I would encourage you to read the article I linked to, instead of relying on my basic summary. The article has a good discussion on what "throwing away" or "discarding" kata is. In fact this whole process is why we have kata. The problem is that most westerners went over there, copied some kata, got a black belt and came home without going through the process. They thought the kata was the art... many people still think that way. The kata is important, and has a place in all three stages.


----------



## skribs (Sep 26, 2018)

wab25 said:


> You can change masters or change arts



This is a criticism I have of the art, but not a reason to quit.  I'm still learning a lot in other areas.  This is just one area where the training isn't up to where I want it to be.


----------



## frank raud (Sep 26, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm not the master.  I don't have the authority to dictate how classes go.


Sounds like you do not and will not get what you are looking for out of your current arts, under your current teacher. I must admit I was fortunate enough that my first martial arts instructor organizes large multi style conventions, and exposed me and all his students to other schools of jiu jitsu, judo, karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, bjj and FMA. Many teachers wont do that. When I switched to judo, most of the people I trained with had no interest in how other martial arts did things, they saw themselves as judoka.  They were very skilled at what they did, but weren't concerned about how to defeat a different style of martial art.


----------



## skribs (Sep 26, 2018)

frank raud said:


> Sounds like you do not and will not get what you are looking for out of your current arts, under your current teacher. I must admit I was fortunate enough that my first martial arts instructor organizes large multi style conventions, and exposed me and all his students to other schools of jiu jitsu, judo, karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, bjj and FMA. Many teachers wont do that. When I switched to judo, most of the people I trained with had no interest in how other martial arts did things, they saw themselves as judoka.  They were very skilled at what they did, but weren't concerned about how to defeat a different style of martial art.



Part of the problem is that our classes are an hour long.  And if you eschew any elective content, the core curriculum at my level would probably take 3 hours to get through.  When you add in drills and WT sparring, that number gets even worse.

So it's not that I'm not learning.  It's that there's this one other thing I wish we had time for, but we don't.


----------



## pdg (Sep 26, 2018)

wab25 said:


> I would encourage you to read the article I linked to, instead of relying on my basic summary. The article has a good discussion on what "throwing away" or "discarding" kata is. In fact this whole process is why we have kata. The problem is that most westerners went over there, copied some kata, got a black belt and came home without going through the process. They thought the kata was the art... many people still think that way. The kata is important, and has a place in all three stages.



I had a scan over it, probably read it better later (although I'll have to copy the text out of the terrible format it's presented in on my phone to make it almost comfortable...)

I think that often nowadays, the student has to take their own responsibility for anything past the copy stage (and maybe a little tiny bit of the divergence stage).

Having classes, especially with many students at different levels, makes it very difficult for a teacher to go any further than getting the group to copy. Going deeper than that takes commitment and understanding on both sides, which many just don't have.

I think it's possible for the student to do this almost alone - certainly modern access to information helps a bit here.


----------



## pdg (Sep 26, 2018)

skribs said:


> Part of the problem is that our classes are an hour long.  And if you eschew any elective content, the core curriculum at my level would probably take 3 hours to get through.  When you add in drills and WT sparring, that number gets even worse.
> 
> So it's not that I'm not learning.  It's that there's this one other thing I wish we had time for, but we don't.



I may be misinterpreting, but...

It comes across as though you expect everything to be passed to you (not saying you're not putting in the effort to learn).

In almost every academic endeavour the same thing happens a lot - someone learns a subject and is completely stumped with a real world problem because it was never covered in class. I saw a lot of that in IT.

I hate the term "outside the box", but it's apt here.

The class setting is the box.

If you never get your mind outside of that, it will have no room to expand.

Trying to fit the curriculum into a class is just not going to happen - I'm 2nd kup, and just running through everything to that level would fill a few classes.

But you don't have to go through the curriculum every time, that's the whole point.


----------



## skribs (Sep 26, 2018)

pdg said:


> I may be misinterpreting, but...
> 
> It comes across as though you expect everything to be passed to you (not saying you're not putting in the effort to learn).



I'm not talking about having it handed to me.  I'm talking about having the time to work on it in class.



> But you don't have to go through the curriculum every time, that's the whole point.



You misunderstood my point.  My point is that between our curriculum and drilling techniques for that, and then our sparring drills and WT sparring, there's not much time left over.  There's a few things we do every time (such as foundational drills and forms) and then there's things we get to maybe once or twice a quarter.  If we have a hard time finding time for curriculum items, it's going to be harder to find time for elective content.

What I'm saying is I understand why we don't have time to dedicate to punch fighting in class.  I wish we could have more, and maybe we can.  But it's not something I'm up in arms about.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 26, 2018)

skribs said:


> I've got 9 years of Taekwondo training.  5 at my current school.  I'm a 3rd degree black belt in the art.  I think that would have happened by now.


It depends on how much time you have spent outside your home Dojang. Isolation


skribs said:


> I've got 9 years of Taekwondo training.  5 at my current school.  I'm a 3rd degree black belt in the art.  I think that would have happened by now.


It depends on how much time you have spent outside your home Dojang. Isolation is a crippling condition. Plus, if your nine years started when you were 6 years old it doesn't carry as much weight. Yea, it should have happened by now.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 26, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> The idea of wanting something now. In regards to understanding MA is a long-term thing, I would relate it more to time practicing MA then to age. And with 'wanting it now', from what I remember, that is more based on innate traits and upbringing and tends to be a consistent characteristic over someones life, rather than something that changes as they get older.
> 
> Unless your suggestion was that something about the specific generation of millenials, unrelated to age, causes them to have that want it now mentality.


Exactly what I meant.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 26, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> The idea of wanting something now. In regards to understanding MA is a long-term thing, I would relate it more to time practicing MA then to age. And with 'wanting it now', from what I remember, that is more based on innate traits and upbringing and tends to be a consistent characteristic over someones life, rather than something that changes as they get older.
> 
> Unless your suggestion was that something about the specific generation of millenials, unrelated to age, causes them to have that want it now mentality.


I could have said more but why? The simplest answer is usually the most elegant.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 26, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Exactly what I meant.





dvcochran said:


> I could have said more but why? The simplest answer is usually the most elegant.


Sometimes, but I'm still confused which one you meant in this instance. That it's age (meaning every 20 something year old has gone through this) or that it's the millenial-generation specific (meaning that its a new phenomena)?


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 26, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Sometimes, but I'm still confused which one you meant in this instance. That it's age (meaning every 20 something year old has gone through this) or that it's the millenial-generation specific (meaning that its a new phenomena)?


I hope it is millennial-generation specific. Of course, every older generation thinks the next couple of generations are going to bring on the end of everything.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 26, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I hope it is millennial-generation specific. Of course, every older generation thinks the next couple of generations are going to bring on the end of everything.


Then I disagree with you. I think it's more related to time in martial arts, and other characteristics that aren't based on MA or age at all. I know plenty of people currently in their 20s to early 30s, that fully accept they're going to have to put in a lot of effort and time to get good at MA (and have done so), and understand that they don't fully understand their arts. I also know plenty of people in their teens, 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s who assumed after a few years they knew everything there was to know, and gave up on their MA because of that.

It may be a difference in experiences, but mine so far does not support that idea at all. I'm also confused about why you hope it is millennial-generation specific, but I'm guessing that you just mean that you hope the next generation will not be like that, rather than hoping millennials are like that.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 26, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Then I disagree with you. I think it's more related to time in martial arts, and other characteristics that aren't based on MA or age at all. I know plenty of people currently in their 20s to early 30s, that fully accept they're going to have to put in a lot of effort and time to get good at MA (and have done so), and understand that they don't fully understand their arts. I also know plenty of people in their teens, 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s who assumed after a few years they knew everything there was to know, and gave up on their MA because of that.
> 
> It may be a difference in experiences, but mine so far does not support that idea at all. I'm also confused about why you hope it is millennial-generation specific, but I'm guessing that you just mean that you hope the next generation will not be like that, rather than hoping millennials are like that.


Yea, you are stating the obvious and yes I am certain it will all change with the next generation.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 26, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Yea, you are stating the obvious and yes I am certain it will all change with the next generation.


I think because it's through text I can't get a feeling on your tone, so I'm misunderstanding you. I basically directly disagreed with what you stated and you are saying I'm stating the obvious. I can't tell if the second part is serious, sarcasm or placating me, since I can't tell tone here.

That said, I'm pretty sure both of us are misunderstanding each other a bit, so there is no real reason to continue to derail this thread.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 27, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> I think because it's through text I can't get a feeling on your tone, so I'm misunderstanding you. I basically directly disagreed with what you stated and you are saying I'm stating the obvious. I can't tell if the second part is serious, sarcasm or placating me, since I can't tell tone here.
> 
> That said, I'm pretty sure both of us are misunderstanding each other a bit, so there is no real reason to continue to derail this thread.


I love a good debate. If you don't get that it is ok do disagree so be it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 27, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I love a good debate. If you don't get that it is ok do disagree so be it.


I absolutely get that it's good to disagree, I do so all the time. But I'm pretty sure this one is primarily miscommunication because of the medium, and not on point of the thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2018)

Rat said:


> Edit:  I can almost guarantee most traditional styles wont let me fight how i want to fight, eg if i say i want to do vertical punches (which we all know i am fond of now) they will provably be non comprising given it might not be taught to low belts and isnt in Patterns.
> Covertly and with pad/sparring i might have more luck as i have done a pad session with vertical punches with little complaint, Instructor either didnt know (more likely) or care.
> 
> I will get back to you when i start going again and see how well it goes wanting to the type of punch i want to do. Overtly say i want to do X punch and not Y.  Perfectly fine if they complain about my technique though.


That depends upon the instructor's approach. If you came to me, I'd make you do it the way I teach while I'm teaching it - because my job is to teach you that method. But in sparring, I don't care, unless you're dodging weak areas (someone from TKD would be required to use their hands, not their kicks). If a student didn't want to do those things early in their training, they aren't really interested in learning what I can teach, so I'm probably not much use to them. Later in their training, I'm far less concerned with whether they use methods I teach or something they learned elsewhere.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Unfortunately most martial arts students don't have the opportunity to practice their techniques regularly against skilled practitioners of other martial arts. Still, there are things an instructor can do to maximize the chance that their students can generalize their skills for application against a wide range of opponents.
> 
> One very important component is of this process is regular sparring/free-form exercises where participants are not forced to limit themselves to a particular style of movement. Every drill has rules imposed for the sake of safety or focusing on a particular skillset (grappling only, striking only, striking and takedowns with no groundwork, groundwork only, no gouging the eyes, whatever). Within those boundaries, participants should be able to try whatever works for them. If your sparring partner throws a boxing punch or a karate punch or a wing chun punch or an untrained brawlers punch, it's your job to deal with it.  "He didn't throw the right kind of punch" is not an excuse for being hit.
> 
> ...


As usual, we'll said, Tony  

I'll add that most of us have people training with us who have some other experience. I like to encourage them to bring that to the table in specific situations, so other students (and I) get a chance to work against whatever it is. I don't care if it's karate, boxing, jujutsu, wrestling, fencing, etc. - so long as they can bring it with control.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I tell my students over and over again. The fundamental requirement for any throw is that you compromise your opponent's structure without compromising your own in the process. The same applies to sweeps, joint locks, and just about everything else in jiu-jitsu.


And I'm surprised by how often I see this not taught in my own primary art. It's probably the most important principle of grappling, whether standing or ground.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> I understand that the drills are to teach my technique.  But the drills also train other things - such as timing, distance, and reactions.  Doing the drill for a one-step punch I learn to see the haymaker, and my eyes get practice tracking the punch on the way in.
> 
> What I'm not getting out of these drills is how to track and time punches coming from the other side, or how to track different punches.  And if I start learning to track that when I need it, then I'm going to get hit in the face.  It's a lot better if that experience comes from drills or sparring than from a real fight or a match.
> 
> ...


I think the issue isn't the drills you cite, but those you don't (because they are missing, most likely). As with other issues, this may be mainly a problem of staying on the starter drill too long, and omitting the next step.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2018)

Rat said:


> Hes my role model.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One of the reasons I teach non-traditional punching early in my curriculum is to build better uke.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Sorry. Skribs had started another thread on stages of learning, where I posted a link to an explaination of the Shu-Ha-Ri method. This is what many Japanese arts use to transmit the art to new people.
> 
> Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin kai
> 
> ...


I've never heard those term (we don't use a lot of Japanese), but I've seen that progression, as well as the lack of it. I get grouchy when I see an instructor in what I now can refer to as the _shu_ stage. Even some with advanced rank.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> Part of the problem is that our classes are an hour long.  And if you eschew any elective content, the core curriculum at my level would probably take 3 hours to get through.  When you add in drills and WT sparring, that number gets even worse.
> 
> So it's not that I'm not learning.  It's that there's this one other thing I wish we had time for, but we don't.


There is time for it. I couldn't run through my curriculum at most levels in less than 4-5 hours, but I don't ever try to do it in a single session, so that doesn't matter. It just takes a lot of classes to get in the curriculum, plus the drills and free time needed to reach that next level. I was always slow moving through the ranks, because I rarely used free time in class to prep for a test, which would have replicated what was being covered in the structured time. It's all about how the classes are structured.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> Part of the problem is that our classes are an hour long.  And if you eschew any elective content, the core curriculum at my level would probably take 3 hours to get through.  When you add in drills and WT sparring, that number gets even worse.
> 
> So it's not that I'm not learning.  It's that there's this one other thing I wish we had time for, but we don't.





gpseymour said:


> There is time for it. I couldn't run through my curriculum at most levels in less than 4-5 hours, but I don't ever try to do it in a single session, so that doesn't matter. It just takes a lot of classes to get in the curriculum, plus the drills and free time needed to reach that next level. I was always slow moving through the ranks, because I rarely used free time in class to prep for a test, which would have replicated what was being covered in the structured time. It's all about how the classes are structured.



I can't even imagine the time it would take to go through the full curriculum of everything I teach. Even just demonstrating everything would take hours. Actually drilling enough reps for meaningful practice would take days.

My preferred approach for structuring a class is to cover just 2 or 3 techniques, drill them for a while, do some sort of live drill (sparring or otherwise) which gives students an opportunity to attempt those techniques in context, then do some troubleshooting to address issues students had in making things work against an uncooperative partner.


----------



## O'Malley (Sep 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And I'm surprised by how often I see this not taught in my own primary art. It's probably the most important principle of grappling, whether standing or ground.



Last week I trained with one of the top aikido teachers in the world (8th dan Iwama). He insisted on uke attacking correctly:

"_I can't stand watching uke doing half-***ed attacks. Uke does not overcommit and get off-balanced alone otherwise it is absolutely pointless. YOU, tori, have to unbalance uke with your own movement. We call it kuzushi and it's a fundamental principle of aikido._"

He also said that while shomen uchi and yokomen uchi come from the sword, we should be able to put enough power behind it so that we can break bones, it's always a nice skill to have.


----------



## now disabled (Sep 28, 2018)

O'Malley said:


> Last week I trained with one of the top aikido teachers in the world (8th dan Iwama). He insisted on uke attacking correctly:
> 
> "_I can't stand watching uke doing half-***ed attacks. Uke does not overcommit and get off-balanced alone otherwise it is absolutely pointless. YOU, tori, have to unbalance uke with your own movement. We call it kuzushi and it's a fundamental principle of aikido._"
> 
> He also said that while shomen uchi and yokomen uchi come from the sword, we should be able to put enough power behind it so that we can break bones, it's always a nice skill to have.




That would have been a good session or seminar .... was it an original Iwama shihan ?  as I don't know of any that Saito awarded 8th dan to (yes I know the ranks were all done thru the Aikikai  one of mine is ) I can think of one or two that may hold that rank it would be interesting to know which one


----------



## now disabled (Sep 28, 2018)

I am assuming that he is Japanese as the only westerner I know of that holds the 8th Dan is Tissier and he is def not Iwama


----------



## now disabled (Sep 28, 2018)

O'Malley said:


> Last week I trained with one of the top aikido teachers in the world (8th dan Iwama). He insisted on uke attacking correctly:
> 
> "_I can't stand watching uke doing half-***ed attacks. Uke does not overcommit and get off-balanced alone otherwise it is absolutely pointless. YOU, tori, have to unbalance uke with your own movement. We call it kuzushi and it's a fundamental principle of aikido._"
> 
> He also said that while shomen uchi and yokomen uchi come from the sword, we should be able to put enough power behind it so that we can break bones, it's always a nice skill to have.




The only one I can think of that I know holds the 8th dan and teaches or did at Iwama is Isoyama Hiroshi but he was a student of Ueshiba Morihei although he did study with him at Iwama .....I am intrigued as to who it could be as the only ones that are direct Saito students that I know of that hold high rank are Corallini, Evanas and Witt unless they have been made up as they were and are Saito direct line ...I am really interested to know as I thought the highest rank from Saito line was a 7th dan and as I said I thought the only westerner to hold the 8th Dan shihan thru the Aikikai was Tissier


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> Apologies for the click-baity title.  From my own training in Taekwondo and Hapkido, and what I've seen in several different videos around the web, one theme I keep seeing in martial arts is that an art typically teaches combat only against the style taught by the art.
> 
> In some cases, it makes sense for the sport.  Obviously a wrestler needs to know how to counter wrestlers, boxers don't need to worry about kicks, and a Taekwondoist doesn't need to have a plan to deal with ankle locks.  Just like how I don't expect Tom Brady to go to batting practice, Michael Jordan to work on his bicycle kick, or Tiger Woods to run passing drills.  If someone has 5 years experience boxing, I should destroy them in a Taekwondo match.  I should be no match for them in the boxing ring.
> 
> ...



I have much more experience in Hapkido than TaeKwonDo.  A lot of what I thought of when I read this post has been answered by @wab25.  The Hapkido you are learning seems more unfocused than I thought.  I guess since it is sort of an "elective" as you mentioned, not really a course in Hapkido, perhaps that isn't as bad as it would otherwise sound.

In the Hapkido I studied, we learned defense against wrist grabs for sure.  As wab25 pointed out, there is a lot to learn in wrist-grab defense.  One learns the "feel' of grappling, and sets up muscle memory with that "feel."  Then begins to learn to seek that feel and muscle memory when taught other joint grappling techniques.  I wasn't taught a lot of things by having them explicitly pointed out.  I was corrected on foot movement and learned that I was moving out of line of the attack, inside or outside.  

I also began to learn to move into an attack, inside or outside.  It makes an opponent uncomfortable and tends to make him feel he needs to move away from the defense, giving me greater leverage, along with ease of breaking his structure.  That isn't used in every defense of course, but as I learned, it is used in many.  I need to learn early on not to be uncomfortable doing it myself.

I simply don't understand not normally wanting to break an opponent's structure.  Maybe we don't apply the same meaning to the term?  Most of the defenses I learned which attack joints, are not only causing joint breaks/dislocations, they also force the rest of the opponent's body away from being able to punch, grab, or kick me.  That is how I understand breaking the opponent's structure.  If @wab25 disagrees I hope he will tell us how he interprets the term.



skribs said:


> *Hapkido*
> Along the same lines, you have hapkido.  Hapkido's primary method of submitting the enemy is with wristlocks.  What does hapkido generally teach?  Defenses against someone grabbing your wrist.  It's not quite the same as drilling against its own techniques, but it still takes the focus of your wrist needing to be defended and your attacker's wrist being the source of his destruction.
> 
> *Part of my insight into hapkido may be limited by the fact that Hapkido at my school is basically an elective addition to our Taekwondo curriculum*, so we take only that which Hapkido does better than Taekwondo and focus on the grappling and joint locks.  But the theme still seems to be the same.  Hapkido assumes wrists are a weak link that you need to protect in yourself and attack in your enemy.



I guess it isn't wrong to expect a wrist to be deployed more than other attacks, especially in a TKD school.  But in the Hapkido I studied, we also learned clothing-grab defense, kick defenses, knife defenses and sword defenses (attacking wrists sometimes?), lapel-throw defenses, hair grab defenses, sitting defenses, get off the ground defenses; pretty much any way you can be attacked, front or back, we learned defenses.  We also learned counters for many things.  Some used joint locks/breaks, some kicks, some strikes, some combined other types of defense.  Quite often, there was a sequence of strikes, breaks, and throws in our defenses.  That was up to 3rd Dan.

And I know many other things would be taught at higher belts.  For instance, if I had tested for 3rd Dan, I would have begun a lot of healing techniques for a 4th Dan grade.  Don't ask me what.  I never trained any, nor even saw them used.  But the point is, there is a whole lot you haven't even gotten to.  I hope your teacher will teach you most all the things I had to learn for 1st Dan.  Testing you only wrist-attack defenses, and maybe some other joint attacks, would to me, be an incomplete 1st Dan.

BTW, we have a little different mind set in our studies.  We don't quite think of wrists as a weak link we need to protect in ourselves, and attack in others.   We are defensive.  So when attacked, we use a defense against that kind of attack.  In the Hapkido I studied, the last thing we learned before testing for a Dan level, was offense techniques.  Sometimes using a defense we had already learned, but as a offensive technique, more rarely, something new.


----------



## skribs (Sep 29, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I simply don't understand not normally wanting to break an opponent's structure. Maybe we don't apply the same meaning to the term? Most of the defenses I learned which attack joints, are not only causing joint breaks/dislocations, they also force the rest of the opponent's body away from being able to punch, grab, or kick me. That is how I understand breaking the opponent's structure. If @wab25 disagrees I hope he will tell us how he interprets the term.



The breaking of the structure happens.  But the focal point is the wrist.  It is the pain and leverage on the wrist that breaks the structure.

It sounds like we're the blind men talking about the elephant at this point.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> The breaking of the structure happens.  But the focal point is the wrist.  It is the pain and leverage on the wrist that breaks the structure.
> 
> It sounds like we're the blind men talking about the elephant at this point.


In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.


----------



## skribs (Sep 29, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.



Depends on where you are.  We generally go back and forth.  Step in and break their structure, apply leverage to the wrist to get them in position to break their structure down even more so we can isolate their wrist and break it.

Sometimes it happens simultaneously too.  Again, it depends on the technique, where you are, and what you're trying to accomplish.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 29, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.


You beat me to that one. Wrist locks are relatively easy to block out if you have structure. Lose that structure, and things open up enough to make some opportunities.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.



Yeah. Tyrannosaurus arms are the ultimate defense.

I go for wrist locks all the time. Why ignore 5% of the human body.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 29, 2018)

Fixing the model by the way is easy. Instructor need to change their mind set and invite other people who can beat them.

Start holding open mats and appreciate when some slick guy comes in and manhandles everyone in the room.

Happens to us all the time. 

And I have never had any of these elite fighters try to murder anyone. They just want to do what they enjoy.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 30, 2018)

skribs said:


> The breaking of the structure happens.  But the focal point is the wrist.  It is the pain and leverage on the wrist that breaks the structure.
> 
> It sounds like we're the blind men talking about the elephant at this point.



LOL, kind of so.  In the Hapkido I learned, it was very much as you describe.  Pain compliance breaks the structure as the opponent attempts to alleviate the pain.  The structure is usually broken in such a way that the opponent cannot use any part of his body against us,  And that is so for any joint manipulation.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 30, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.



How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You beat me to that one. Wrist locks are relatively easy to block out if you have structure. Lose that structure, and things open up enough to make some opportunities.



Maybe I am not understanding something, can you elaborate on that please?  How do you block out the pain of wrist manipulation to the point of breaking, so you can block ... what?


----------



## skribs (Sep 30, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?



I guess it depends partially on what you would consider an attack on the wrist.  So once again, we're not arguing techniques, but semantics.  Which its useful to establish definitions for the sake of a discussion, but they tend to be "my school is better because we teach the cross punch", "no, my school is better because we teach the reverse punch."

Not all, but most of our wrist grab techniques follow this structure:

Simultaneously trap the attacker's hand and step to isolate the wrist (the step can be inside or outside)
Use a "shock" or pain compliance hold to lower the attacker and get them off balance
Use footwork (usually a circular step backward) to bring the attacker down while continuing the compliance hold
Isolate the wrist and destroy it
Depending on the technique, sometimes Steps 2 and 3 are done at the same time.

So let's look at this from a couple perspectives.  First off, do you consider trapping the attacker's hand or grabbing the wrist (without the wristlock yet) to be "attacking the wrist" or "breaking down the structure"?  The step in is definitely structure, as the step combined with the trap will either give you leverage or take away your opponent's leverage, and will usually keep their free hand away from you.  If you consider grabbing their wrist or trapping their hand to be "attacking the wrist" then it makes sense that it becomes step one.  If you consider it to be breaking down their structure, then there you have it.

The other key word that keeps popping up is "simultaneously."  On most of our techniques, we get scolded if we do trap-then-step or step-then-trap.  If one happens first, your attacker can adjust to it before you do the other.  So they must happen at the same time.

Going back to our first perspective, if attack and break structure happen simultaneously, then anyone saying one happens first is wrong.  They happen at the same time.  Same thing applies to step 2 and 3.  On many techniques they happen at the same time.  On some, particularly what we call a "motorcycle grip" (I think another term is z-lock), we generally go for shocking first.  On others, such as a Figure 4 or a hip throw, the structure breaks down often without much or any pain compliance.

In conclusion...

Both the pain compliance and breaking the structure are important, it's not one-or-the-other
Which happens first depends on the technique, and they might even happen simultaneously
We're more likely arguing over definitions than technique, which is a stupid thing to argue over on a board with scores of arts represented and every art has their own terminology (or even lineages have their own terminology)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 30, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Maybe I am not understanding something, can you elaborate on that please?  How do you block out the pain of wrist manipulation to the point of breaking, so you can block ... what?


I don't have to block the pain - I block the actual lock. In many cases, with wrists, it's a matter of the right extension and changing the structure of their connection. So, if they don't break my structure as they move toward the lock, I'll disrupt their structure and prevent the lock. All techniques have weak points, obviously. The smaller the point of attack, as a general (but not absolute) rule, the smaller the movement needed to block out the lock. So, wrist locks are generally much easier to block than shoulder locks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 30, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?


Since I'm obviously Tony, I'll respond to this, too. 

If I'm moving in for a wrist lock, I'll typically use one of two methods (or a variation of one or the other). Either extend their arm away in a spiral to roll their shoulders off their base, or jam the arm in to shove their shoulders off their base. Both of those are simplifications of what happens, but you can probably follow them anyway. If I can get their shoulders out of line with their hips, I disrupt their strength and mobility, and usually manage to block off counter-attacks. At that point, their vulnerable to the locks. Without some kind of disruption, there are many fewer actual openings, since they still have movement, strength, and counter-attacks to disrupt my technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 30, 2018)

skribs said:


> I guess it depends partially on what you would consider an attack on the wrist.  So once again, we're not arguing techniques, but semantics.  Which its useful to establish definitions for the sake of a discussion, but they tend to be "my school is better because we teach the cross punch", "no, my school is better because we teach the reverse punch."
> 
> Not all, but most of our wrist grab techniques follow this structure:
> 
> ...


The only part of that I'd debate is the pain compliance. I don't consider it reliable. When it works, it works well. When it fails, it typically fails catastrophically (meaning it fails completely and without warning). I work to include it in practice, because it's helpful when it works, but I make a point of not relying upon it for anything. 

That might be semantics, too, though, so stick with me on this. If the pain compliance fails, I just complete my original technique. If it succeeds, the technique is cut short. Another way I could say that is, "If the pain compliance fails, I proceed to my backup technique. If it succeeds, I finish my original technique." I'm not sure those two sets of statements are significantly different.


----------



## skribs (Sep 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The only part of that I'd debate is the pain compliance. I don't consider it reliable. When it works, it works well. When it fails, it typically fails catastrophically (meaning it fails completely and without warning). I work to include it in practice, because it's helpful when it works, but I make a point of not relying upon it for anything.
> 
> That might be semantics, too, though, so stick with me on this. If the pain compliance fails, I just complete my original technique. If it succeeds, the technique is cut short. Another way I could say that is, "If the pain compliance fails, I proceed to my backup technique. If it succeeds, I finish my original technique." I'm not sure those two sets of statements are significantly different.



This is why we do the pain compliance either simultaneously or in quick succession with footwork that will take the person down with our leverage.  If the person fails to listen to their pain, then something will break.  Then there's the double-jointed, and I haven't found a good answer there for some of our techniques.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 30, 2018)

skribs said:


> This is why we do the pain compliance either simultaneously or in quick succession with footwork that will take the person down with our leverage.  If the person fails to listen to their pain, then something will break.  Then there's the double-jointed, and I haven't found a good answer there for some of our techniques.


This brings up the issue of pain compliance for self defense. You dont know if the person is doublejointed, and depending on the state they are in, they may not care about the pain. That would lead to either you backing off if youre not prepared to break something, or them accepting the break to hurt you however theyre trying to hurt you.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?



@skribs and @gpseymour and @kempodisciple I obviously used poor wording.  What I meant was from the point of the defender, whose wrist has been grabbed, how does the defender break the attacker's (the one grabbing the wrist) structure before attacking the wrist in some way?  I may manipulate the wrist in a way to break it, or to turn the attacker and expose his upper arm nerve points, or attack nerves in the wrist, or work against the attackers thumb and break the attacker's structure for/with a follow up move such as a throw.  

Skribs comes closest to the Hapkido I learned and I think he and I are closer than we (or maybe just me) may understand, with just differences in what a Kwan founder considered more important.  I'm still having problems with @gpseymour's explanations, but I think that may be the poor wording of my questions.

@kempodiscple In the Hapkido I learned, when we manipulate a wrist, arm, knee or ankle, or whatever, we expect sort of a reflexive response to movement in a certain way that is to our advantage.  You are of course correct that some people don't feel as much pain for whatever reason, but most will.  If they don't, we will have to be ready for a plan B.  If we can simply continue the movement to break a joint, one problem solved.  The attacker now only has 3 limbs to use against us.  Or if we are going into a take down we will probably finish with a strong head strike.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> This brings up the issue of pain compliance for self defense. You dont know if the person is doublejointed, and depending on the state they are in, they may not care about the pain. That would lead to either you backing off if youre not prepared to break something, or them accepting the break to hurt you however theyre trying to hurt you.



I think I have only run across one person who was double jointed.  He was not a martial artist.  He had a medical condition which he was told would deteriorate as he aged until he might find himself on his back from then on.

Extraordinarily suple people I have run across, as well as those who are muscle bound.  I am, or rather used to be fairly suple, especially in my wrists and shoulders.  Broken bones, injuries, and age have taken their toll.  None I should point out were Hapkido related.

EDIT:  BTW, to me breaking the opponent's structure, in addition to what @skribs has already said, is to put him off balance, or move him in a way he doesn't want to go, or prevent him from going where he wants to go, or anything else that gives me the advantage over the attacker.  Anyone who has a different definition, I would love to hear it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think I have only run across one person who was double jointed.  He was not a martial artist.  He had a medical condition which he was told would deteriorate as he aged until he might find himself on his back from then on.
> 
> Extraordinarily suple people I have run across, as well as those who are muscle bound.  I am, or rather used to be fairly suple, especially in my wrists and shoulders.  Broken bones, injuries, and age have taken their toll.  None I should point out were Hapkido related.
> 
> EDIT:  BTW, to me breaking the opponent's structure, in addition to what @skribs has already said, is to put him off balance, or move him in a way he doesn't want to go, or prevent him from going where he wants to go, or anything else that gives me the advantage over the attacker.  Anyone who has a different definition, I would love to hear it.


Ive run across quite a few double jointed people myself. As a kid it fascinated me, and I would ask people, a lot of people would show me how they are. A quick google search had numbers from 5 to 25 percent of the population being double jointed (im guessing the variation depends on what a person is considering double jointed)


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> @skribs and @gpseymour and @kempodisciple I obviously used poor wording.  What I meant was from the point of the defender, whose wrist has been grabbed, how does the defender break the attacker's (the one grabbing the wrist) structure before attacking the wrist in some way?  I may manipulate the wrist in a way to break it, or to turn the attacker and expose his upper arm nerve points, or attack nerves in the wrist, or work against the attackers thumb and break the attacker's structure for/with a follow up move such as a throw.
> 
> Skribs comes closest to the Hapkido I learned and I think he and I are closer than we (or maybe just me) may understand, with just differences in what a Kwan founder considered more important.  I'm still having problems with @gpseymour's explanations, but I think that may be the poor wording of my questions.
> 
> @kempodiscple In the Hapkido I learned, when we manipulate a wrist, arm, knee or ankle, or whatever, we expect sort of a reflexive response to movement in a certain way that is to our advantage.  You are of course correct that some people don't feel as much pain for whatever reason, but most will.  If they don't, we will have to be ready for a plan B.  If we can simply continue the movement to break a joint, one problem solved.  The attacker now only has 3 limbs to use against us.  Or if we are going into a take down we will probably finish with a strong head strike.


Regarding the pain aspect, that was exactly what i was getting at. Pain compliance/pain holds work, but you have to be prepared in case they dont. That (to me) means moving so you are out of the way of any potential strikes, and having some other leverage that you can use if the initial lock fails. The issue is when people think because they have it they dont have to worry about anything from the attacker, which isnt true.


----------



## skribs (Oct 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> This brings up the issue of pain compliance for self defense. You dont know if the person is doublejointed, and depending on the state they are in, they may not care about the pain. That would lead to either you backing off if youre not prepared to break something, or them accepting the break to hurt you however theyre trying to hurt you.



This is where two principles come in, both of which we practice:


Simultaneous pain and leverage.  If the pain doesn't get them, the leverage will.
Failure drills.  When we start learning a technique the attacker complies relatively easy, but the resistance increases as your comfort with the technique improves.  This increases the proficiency of the technique, but also allows the defender to recognize when a technique has failed and modify or failover to another technique.



oftheherd1 said:


> @skribs and @gpseymour and @kempodisciple I obviously used poor wording.  What I meant was from the point of the defender, whose wrist has been grabbed, how does the defender break the attacker's (the one grabbing the wrist) structure before attacking the wrist in some way?  I may manipulate the wrist in a way to break it, or to turn the attacker and expose his upper arm nerve points, or attack nerves in the wrist, or work against the attackers thumb and break the attacker's structure for/with a follow up move such as a throw.
> 
> Skribs comes closest to the Hapkido I learned and I think he and I are closer than we (or maybe just me) may understand, with just differences in what a Kwan founder considered more important.  I'm still having problems with @gpseymour's explanations, but I think that may be the poor wording of my questions.
> 
> @kempodiscple In the Hapkido I learned, when we manipulate a wrist, arm, knee or ankle, or whatever, we expect sort of a reflexive response to movement in a certain way that is to our advantage.  You are of course correct that some people don't feel as much pain for whatever reason, but most will.  If they don't, we will have to be ready for a plan B.  If we can simply continue the movement to break a joint, one problem solved.  The attacker now only has 3 limbs to use against us.  Or if we are going into a take down we will probably finish with a strong head strike.



I'm going to throw two definitions in here to try and clarify:  "*control the wrist*" and "*attack the wrist*".  Control being to manipulate the wrist to break down the attacker's structure, without causing a joint lock or pain compliance.  Attack to be to cause the lock or compliance.

Are you saying you need to at least control the wrist?  Or are you saying you must always attack first?


----------



## wab25 (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> Not all, but most of our wrist grab techniques follow this structure:
> 
> Simultaneously trap the attacker's hand and step to isolate the wrist (the step can be inside or outside)
> Use a "shock" or pain compliance hold to lower the attacker and get them off balance
> ...


So, this set of steps here misses many, if not most, of the important parts of getting a wrist lock. The most important thing missing is the connection to the other guy. You can trap my hand, grip it very hard, and step whatever direction you want... but if you have not broken my structure and taken my balance... as @gpseymour says, there will be no pain to comply with and countering, blocking, defeating your technique will be easy. You need to connect with the other guy first. If you are connected, when you move his wrist, you will move his body and shift his weight. There are lots of ways to accomplish this off balance and structural break. Aikido and Daito Ryu are some of the best arts I have come across, that really dig into this idea. 

The best way to explain this is with demonstration, being able to see and feel what is going on. But, I will attempt. If you are holding you arm out, and I grab your hand, and step inside or out side, but you have not changed your posture or position of your arm... then I will not be able to apply a lock. You are still in a strong posture and your arm/wrist/hand are all in positions of power. If instead, as I touch your hand, I put a little weight into it, this will slightly shift your posture... you will need to use your toes more to remain upright. At the same time, I slightly move your hand away from your body. You are now resisting a downwards pressure and an outwards pressure. Now, as I step in, if I maintain those two pressures, this should cause the shoulder rotations that @gpseymour was talking of. At this point, your body is out of alignment, you are not centered in your balance, and the structure of you arm is broken. Now the lock can be applied causing pain, or injury or a take down... The trick is that if you apply this downward force or outward force too much, or too long, the other guy just takes a step and recovers. This is why many times these things are practiced from a reach or a punch... the other guy is giving you momentum, such that if you simply continue his motion a bit further, you will accomplish the structural break and off balance needed. (this is why it works in the dojo, but not on the street... the guy on the street is not giving you the right momentum. If you have never figured out how to generate this structural break, without that help, it won't work.)

The first two steps I would add to the 4 above would be:
0.0 Connect with the attacker
0.1 move the attackers weight in a direction of weakness (perpendicular to the line drawn connecting his heels, for example)
0.2 move the attackers joint out of the strength alignment
0.3 the combination of 0.1 and 0.2, should create a tension in the other guys body, even if slight... maintain this tension

Now you can start with step 1. Note that is you drop that tension or if at any point from now on, if the other guy is not moving, when you move, the technique is over. If the attacker is in a strong position, or can recover to a strong position... you will not have the leverage, through pain or any other means, to finish your lock. Also note that all the important bits happen before you think the pain starts or the damaging leverage. By applying the wrist lock correctly, it effects their entire structure, not just his wrist... thus it does not matter if they are flexible, double jointed, or not feeling pain right now. You are still able to effect their entire body, take them down and or damage them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> This is why we do the pain compliance either simultaneously or in quick succession with footwork that will take the person down with our leverage.  If the person fails to listen to their pain, then something will break.  Then there's the double-jointed, and I haven't found a good answer there for some of our techniques.


It sounds like we're saying more or less the same thing. The structure breaking to enable the technique can't actually be simultaneous with the technique it enables, but if it's a straight flow (which Hapkido would have a focus on), then there's no real separation between them. One starts before the other, but they overlap. That's often verbally expressed as "simultaneous", even when it isn't actually, because it's effective to think of them that way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> This brings up the issue of pain compliance for self defense. You dont know if the person is doublejointed, and depending on the state they are in, they may not care about the pain. That would lead to either you backing off if youre not prepared to break something, or them accepting the break to hurt you however theyre trying to hurt you.


If you're good at the technique, you'll feel when the leverage is working, regardless of whether the pain works or not. Some leverage won't work on double-jointed folks, and some won't work on folks with limited joint mobility. You just have to recognize it early in the application, and change to something else before they have a chance to recover.


----------



## skribs (Oct 1, 2018)

wab25 said:


> So, this set of steps here misses many, if not most, of the important parts of getting a wrist lock. The most important thing missing is the connection to the other guy. You can trap my hand, grip it very hard, and step whatever direction you want... but if you have not broken my structure and taken my balance... as @gpseymour says, there will be no pain to comply with and countering, blocking, defeating your technique will be easy. You need to connect with the other guy first. If you are connected, when you move his wrist, you will move his body and shift his weight. There are lots of ways to accomplish this off balance and structural break. Aikido and Daito Ryu are some of the best arts I have come across, that really dig into this idea.
> 
> The best way to explain this is with demonstration, being able to see and feel what is going on. But, I will attempt. If you are holding you arm out, and I grab your hand, and step inside or out side, but you have not changed your posture or position of your arm... then I will not be able to apply a lock. You are still in a strong posture and your arm/wrist/hand are all in positions of power. If instead, as I touch your hand, I put a little weight into it, this will slightly shift your posture... you will need to use your toes more to remain upright. At the same time, I slightly move your hand away from your body. You are now resisting a downwards pressure and an outwards pressure. Now, as I step in, if I maintain those two pressures, this should cause the shoulder rotations that @gpseymour was talking of. At this point, your body is out of alignment, you are not centered in your balance, and the structure of you arm is broken. Now the lock can be applied causing pain, or injury or a take down... The trick is that if you apply this downward force or outward force too much, or too long, the other guy just takes a step and recovers. This is why many times these things are practiced from a reach or a punch... the other guy is giving you momentum, such that if you simply continue his motion a bit further, you will accomplish the structural break and off balance needed. (this is why it works in the dojo, but not on the street... the guy on the street is not giving you the right momentum. If you have never figured out how to generate this structural break, without that help, it won't work.)
> 
> ...



I'm going to go on a rant here, because this whole discussion can be summed up this way:  *this thread is a prime example of people trying to poke holes in what isn't said.*

This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum.  I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented.  But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.

There's the assumption that because it wasn't said, the poster doesn't know it.  If a poster talks about a punch and doesn't mention the proper fist, obviously he doesn't know how to make a fist and must be told.  If a poster talks about a block and doesn't mention any other application of that technique, obviously he's just a pleb that only knows techniques and stuck in his learning.  If a poster talks about a hip throw and doesn't mention that he ate a good breakfast, it's important to remind him that breakfast is the most important meal of the day.  If a poster is talking about a joint lock and doesn't mention the exact position each of your limbs must be relative to yourself, the sun, and each of the other 7 or 8 planets (what is Pluto now, anyway?), then obviously you know nothing.

Well, there are tons of details that go into each individual technique, and some of those details get left out.  Because people don't have time to list every single muscle and every single joint and every single minor movement in a technique.  But then someone has to be all high and mighty and say "oh, you didn't say this, this is important," and turn their nose up so the rest of the forum can see how smart they are; how much they know about martial arts because they caught that missing piece.

Then the poster has to say, "no, I know that" and explain that they have a different term, or they simply omitted it because it wasn't necessary, or it's something that's so ingrained in their muscle memory they don't even think about it anymore.  But no, that's not good enough.  The commenter has to have the poster acknowledge that they're right, that they know better and they pointed out your mistake.  It can't be that the poster knew the detail and just didn't make it into the post.  It has to be that the poster didn't know at all.  Because the poster has no proof of whether or not they knew it before it was pointed out in the thread, they get defensive and backpedal, and then there's a huge argument *over something that everyone agrees on.
*
This is the problem.  I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with how the techniques work.  We just have different ways of describing them.  And we've been arguing for four fracking pages about something we all agree with!  If you got us all into a room together and actually worked through what we're talking about, I'm sure everyone would say "oh, yeah, that's what I meant."

And there'd still be someone saying "well that's not really what you meant, but now that I've shown you, I'm glad you understand."

I'm sick and tired of arguing over things we agree on.  There's plenty of things we disagree on that are waiting to be debated until the cows come home.  But we're stuck arguing semantics, stuck arguing over things unsaid, stuck arguing over meaningless distinctions, when we could be arguing over things that actually matter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> @skribs and @gpseymour and @kempodisciple I obviously used poor wording.  What I meant was from the point of the defender, whose wrist has been grabbed, how does the defender break the attacker's (the one grabbing the wrist) structure before attacking the wrist in some way?  I may manipulate the wrist in a way to break it, or to turn the attacker and expose his upper arm nerve points, or attack nerves in the wrist, or work against the attackers thumb and break the attacker's structure for/with a follow up move such as a throw.
> 
> Skribs comes closest to the Hapkido I learned and I think he and I are closer than we (or maybe just me) may understand, with just differences in what a Kwan founder considered more important.  I'm still having problems with @gpseymour's explanations, but I think that may be the poor wording of my questions.
> 
> @kempodiscple In the Hapkido I learned, when we manipulate a wrist, arm, knee or ankle, or whatever, we expect sort of a reflexive response to movement in a certain way that is to our advantage.  You are of course correct that some people don't feel as much pain for whatever reason, but most will.  If they don't, we will have to be ready for a plan B.  If we can simply continue the movement to break a joint, one problem solved.  The attacker now only has 3 limbs to use against us.  Or if we are going into a take down we will probably finish with a strong head strike.


If you're having trouble understanding my explanations, wait a bit. @Tony Dismukes will probably say it better (and in fewer words). 

Part of the difference might be "attacking the wrist". To me, that's the technique - the thing that's applying pain or damage to the wrist. But you might be including the point before that, where you've attached to it (grabbed wrist/hand/whatever), and put them (or allowed them to put themselves) into position for the technique. If you include that part (what I refer to as the entry to the technique) then that would explain the difference in our descriptions. Let me use a technique I'm pretty sure we share, and which is likely done fairly similarly (and others will probably understand, as well): kote gaeshi (in NGA: Front Wrist Throw). So, if I get ahold of a hand/wrist and simply apply kote gaeshi while you are standing upright, turning your hand back at or across your forearm (some differences among styles on that), you can easily block that by putting your elbow in the path of the throw, extending your arm to put my elbow behind the plane of my body, or a number of other small adjustments. However, if I - during my entry to the technique - extend your arm down in a spiral to draw your shoulder forward then to the outside before reversing the wrist, the technique has a much better chance of working. In NGA's Classical form (the short, one-step introduction to a technique), that entry is part of the "technique", but I see them as separate things - modular and interchangeable between techniques.

Does that help, or do we have to wait for Tony?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Ive run across quite a few double jointed people myself. As a kid it fascinated me, and I would ask people, a lot of people would show me how they are. A quick google search had numbers from 5 to 25 percent of the population being double jointed (im guessing the variation depends on what a person is considering double jointed)



I especially like the definitions at the end of the article at Why Are Some People Double-Jointed? where they mention those with particularly shallow sockets (for ball and socket joints), can dislocate and as far as I know, re-locate the ball portion of the joint..  That is how I usually think when I hear the term double-jointedness.  Thanks to you, I guess I will have to modify and call that a specialized form of double jointedness.   



kempodisciple said:


> Regarding the pain aspect, that was exactly what i was getting at. Pain compliance/pain holds work, but you have to be prepared in case they dont. That (to me) means moving so you are out of the way of any potential strikes, and having some other leverage that you can use if the initial lock fails. The issue is when people think because they have it they dont have to worry about anything from the attacker, which isnt true.



Well, maybe I just need to get out more, but I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't affected painfully from a properly applied wrist manipulation.  Maybe it will happen yet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> EDIT:  BTW, to me breaking the opponent's structure, in addition to what @skribs has already said, is to put him off balance, or move him in a way he doesn't want to go, or prevent him from going where he wants to go, or anything else that gives me the advantage over the attacker.  Anyone who has a different definition, I would love to hear it.


That's a reasonable definition. To me, it's anything that messes up their balance or physical structure (takes head or shoulders off the top of their hips, bends the spine, etc.). It could (and often does) also include putting them in a position that takes away offensive and reactive options. A simple example is from a cross-hand wrist grip: roll your hand under theirs and reach over to grab their wrist. If you do this without breaking their structure, they can easily still pull you. If you - during the roll and grab - extend their hand away from them and downward so it moves their shoulder, you reduce their ability to pull you.


----------



## skribs (Oct 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It sounds like we're saying more or less the same thing. The structure breaking to enable the technique can't actually be simultaneous with the technique it enables, but if it's a straight flow (which Hapkido would have a focus on), then there's no real separation between them. One starts before the other, but they overlap. That's often verbally expressed as "simultaneous", even when it isn't actually, because it's effective to think of them that way.



And again, back to definitions.  How do you define a "technique"?

Our hapkido curriculum starts out with rote drills that start with your attacker grabbing you, and end with your attacker in a wristlock tapping before their wrist breaks.  So one of our techniques, for example, will follow this format:


Attacker grabs wrist in cross-arm grab (right hand)
Step in towards attacker with right leg and stick right elbow into their solarplexus or bring your right hand up to their ear
Grab their wrist with left hand (thumb on the back of their hand, fingers under the wrist).  Their grip should be broken to allow you to pull your right hand free and also grab their wrist with that hand, but it's not necessary
Swing your left leg around behind you and apply downward pressure to their pinky to twist their wrist in.  This will take them down, to land on their back.
Place your right foot under their armpit, keep swinging your left leg back against their body and drop into a horse stance.  Pull their wrist straight against their body.
Now, you'll notice at least 3-4 techniques here, in one of our "techniques".  You've got the grab-break, you've got securing their hand, you have the take-down, and the submission.  At first, these are all whole techniques together (from the understanding of the student), but as you gain familiarity with these combinations, you learn to spot individual techniques and the points at which you can switch from one technique to another.

Now, I think that Step 2 is what @wab25 would refer to as "connecting with your attacker".  What someone else might call "controlling the wrist", someone else might call "breaking their structure", and someone else might call "attacking the wrist".  Because depending on whether you go for the solarplexus or the ear, you might trap at the same time or you might trap just after the step.  

As you get more advanced, you learn when to go for the solarplexus, when to go for the ear, or some other tricks.  You learn to identify points at which you will have this type of wristlock without those extra steps.  You learn how to respond when your attacker doesn't let you gain that inside leverage.  You learn how to respond when your attacker doesn't fall the way you want them to.

But while we might call this "technique #5", it's really several techniques together.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

wab25 said:


> So, this set of steps here misses many, if not most, of the important parts of getting a wrist lock. The most important thing missing is the connection to the other guy. You can trap my hand, grip it very hard, and step whatever direction you want... but if you have not broken my structure and taken my balance... as @gpseymour says, there will be no pain to comply with and countering, blocking, defeating your technique will be easy. You need to connect with the other guy first. If you are connected, when you move his wrist, you will move his body and shift his weight. There are lots of ways to accomplish this off balance and structural break. Aikido and Daito Ryu are some of the best arts I have come across, that really dig into this idea.
> 
> The best way to explain this is with demonstration, being able to see and feel what is going on. But, I will attempt. If you are holding you arm out, and I grab your hand, and step inside or out side, but you have not changed your posture or position of your arm... then I will not be able to apply a lock. You are still in a strong posture and your arm/wrist/hand are all in positions of power. If instead, as I touch your hand, I put a little weight into it, this will slightly shift your posture... you will need to use your toes more to remain upright. At the same time, I slightly move your hand away from your body. You are now resisting a downwards pressure and an outwards pressure. Now, as I step in, if I maintain those two pressures, this should cause the shoulder rotations that @gpseymour was talking of. At this point, your body is out of alignment, you are not centered in your balance, and the structure of you arm is broken. Now the lock can be applied causing pain, or injury or a take down... The trick is that if you apply this downward force or outward force too much, or too long, the other guy just takes a step and recovers. This is why many times these things are practiced from a reach or a punch... the other guy is giving you momentum, such that if you simply continue his motion a bit further, you will accomplish the structural break and off balance needed. (this is why it works in the dojo, but not on the street... the guy on the street is not giving you the right momentum. If you have never figured out how to generate this structural break, without that help, it won't work.)
> 
> ...


An excellent description, and a near match to something I was picturing in my mind in my earlier reply.


----------



## skribs (Oct 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That's a reasonable definition. To me, it's anything that messes up their balance or physical structure (takes head or shoulders off the top of their hips, bends the spine, etc.). It could (and often does) also include putting them in a position that takes away offensive and reactive options. A simple example is from a cross-hand wrist grip: roll your hand under theirs and reach over to grab their wrist. If you do this without breaking their structure, they can easily still pull you. If you - during the roll and grab - extend their hand away from them and downward so it moves their shoulder, you reduce their ability to pull you.



The fact that even you see several different definitions is part of why we're all arguing.  Are we talking about messing up balance and setting up a take-down?  Are we talking about disrupting their attack in progress?  Are we talking about gaining leverage to isolate joints?  Are we talking about positioning the attacker in such a way they cannot retaliate?  (Or something else)?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm going to go on a rant here, because this whole discussion can be summed up this way:  *this thread is a prime example of people trying to poke holes in what isn't said.*
> 
> This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum.  I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented.  But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.
> 
> ...


I don't think there's been much argument on this, Skribs. Getting straight on each others' usage is important in making sure we understand each other. It sounds like your description assumes something @wab25 and deliberately separate in our descriptions. I don't think there's anything wrong with not separating it, though I find it useful to do so to avoid some of the errors I've seen students make.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I especially like the definitions at the end of the article at Why Are Some People Double-Jointed? where they mention those with particularly shallow sockets (for ball and socket joints), can dislocate and as far as I know, re-locate the ball portion of the joint..  That is how I usually think when I hear the term double-jointedness.  Thanks to you, I guess I will have to modify and call that a specialized form of double jointedness.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe I just need to get out more, but I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't affected painfully from a properly applied wrist manipulation.  Maybe it will happen yet.


That depends which ones you're talking about. I did have one training partner who got his hand broken without ever feeling the pain of a lock, but that's really unusual. I used to not feel finger locks (don't know what other arts call it - it's a Lift Up in NGA) unless extreme variants were used, and often didn't feel some other wrist locks. I was never double-jointed, just had really limber wrists. My wrists are still pretty limber - though not nearly as they were when I was in my 30's - but arthritis in my hands has made me much more compliant to any wrist and hand locks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> And again, back to definitions.  How do you define a "technique"?
> 
> Our hapkido curriculum starts out with rote drills that start with your attacker grabbing you, and end with your attacker in a wristlock tapping before their wrist breaks.  So one of our techniques, for example, will follow this format:
> 
> ...


Yes - that's exactly what I was getting at. If you were to look at a "Classical Technique" in NGA (what I call a "Classical form" of a technique), you get a similar issue, though they are a bit shorter. I teach that every Classical form contains an entry and a finish (the finish being the "technique"), but most instructors will consider the entry part of the technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> The fact that even you see several different definitions is part of why we're all arguing.  Are we talking about messing up balance and setting up a take-down?  Are we talking about disrupting their attack in progress?  Are we talking about gaining leverage to isolate joints?  Are we talking about positioning the attacker in such a way they cannot retaliate?  (Or something else)?


A bit of all of that, really, when I use the term. To be clear, it's easy to spot what I mean when I'm demonstrating, and it becomes clear what I mean - it's really about disrupting their physical alignment from feet (or hips) to head. But the point of doing it is one or all of the things you listed.

As I said, I don't think we're really arguing, so much as getting clear on each others' terminology.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm going to go on a rant here, because this whole discussion can be summed up this way:  *this thread is a prime example of people trying to poke holes in what isn't said.*
> 
> This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum.  I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented.  But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.
> 
> ...



Wow @skribs why don't you tell us how you really feel?   

But you are right.  It is something we seem to do here a lot at MT.  I tried to overcome my angst by ignoring it, only to discover that only made me more frustrated.  I finally defeated my anger by simply joining in.  Now I hardly even notice it.

I was particularly intrigued by the bolded parts of you comment.  Several times I have tried to describe a technique, with all the details a person would need to try the technique.  I have never gotten a response, much less a derogatory response telling how stupid that was.  Are people really not interested?  Do they still not get it?  I don't know.  But my curiosity is salved by joining in with ignoring it when someone else tries to impart some secret technique of some ancient master.  There you have it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> If you're having trouble understanding my explanations, wait a bit. @Tony Dismukes will probably say it better (and in fewer words).
> 
> Part of the difference might be "attacking the wrist". To me, that's the technique - the thing that's applying pain or damage to the wrist. But you might be including the point before that, where you've attached to it (grabbed wrist/hand/whatever), and put them (or allowed them to put themselves) into position for the technique. If you include that part (what I refer to as the entry to the technique) then that would explain the difference in our descriptions. Let me use a technique I'm pretty sure we share, and which is likely done fairly similarly (and others will probably understand, as well): kote gaeshi (in NGA: Front Wrist Throw). So, if I get ahold of a hand/wrist and simply apply kote gaeshi while you are standing upright, turning your hand back at or across your forearm (some differences among styles on that), you can easily block that by putting your elbow in the path of the throw, extending your arm to put my elbow behind the plane of my body, or a number of other small adjustments. However, if I - during my entry to the technique - extend your arm down in a spiral to draw your shoulder forward then to the outside before reversing the wrist, the technique has a much better chance of working. In NGA's Classical form (the short, one-step introduction to a technique), that entry is part of the "technique", but I see them as separate things - modular and interchangeable between techniques.
> 
> Does that help, or do we have to wait for Tony?



Yes, I like, dislike, agree, disagree, think it's funny, no - informative, and useful no matter.

Thank you.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I especially like the definitions at the end of the article at Why Are Some People Double-Jointed? where they mention those with particularly shallow sockets (for ball and socket joints), can dislocate and as far as I know, re-locate the ball portion of the joint..  That is how I usually think when I hear the term double-jointedness.  Thanks to you, I guess I will have to modify and call that a specialized form of double jointedness.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe I just need to get out more, but I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't affected painfully from a properly applied wrist manipulation.  Maybe it will happen yet.


Regarding the double jointed thing...i have made your life slightly more difficult by forcing you to modify a word! My mission is complete 
Regarding the pain...in a dojo ive never seen it. I have seen it with people that were high on specific substances. I never put someone who was drunk/high in the lock, so the person doing it could have just been messing it up, but it doesnt appear reliable if the person is drunk or on a specific group of substances (PCP and cocaine, iirc)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Regarding the double jointed thing...i have made your life slightly more difficult by forcing you to modify a word! My mission is complete
> Regarding the pain...in a dojo ive never seen it. I have seen it with people that were high on specific substances. I never put someone who was drunk/high in the lock, so the person doing it could have just been messing it up, but it doesnt appear reliable if the person is drunk or on a specific group of substances (PCP and cocaine, iirc)


I do recall a senior brown belt when I started (a bouncer at a strip club) and my primary instructor (a pharmacist who more than once had to deal with drug addicts trying to steal from the pharmacy) both describe people with chemicals in their system not responding to pain from locks. The bouncer had a guy simply stand up out of a shoulder lock, dislocating his own shoulder in the process, and proceeding with his attack, without use of that arm.


----------



## skribs (Oct 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I do recall a senior brown belt when I started (a bouncer at a strip club) and my primary instructor (a pharmacist who more than once had to deal with drug addicts trying to steal from the pharmacy) both describe people with chemicals in their system not responding to pain from locks. The bouncer had a guy simply stand up out of a shoulder lock, dislocating his own shoulder in the process, and proceeding with his attack, without use of that arm.



Well, now that person has one less weapon and should be easier to subdue!

That's the point of most joint locks.  It's not that the lock is guaranteed to hold you in place.  It's that you pay a price for your mobility.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Regarding the double jointed thing...i have made your life slightly more difficult by forcing you to modify a word! My mission is complete
> Regarding the pain...in a dojo ive never seen it. I have seen it with people that were high on specific substances. I never put someone who was drunk/high in the lock, so the person doing it could have just been messing it up, but it doesnt appear reliable if the person is drunk or on a specific group of substances (PCP and cocaine, iirc)



Add  barbiturates to the list.  You may have seen one of my posts about the soldier in Vietnam who was pistol whipped and shot (EDIT)two times before he got 'tired" and sat down, telling the two MPs he was tired but when he had rested a bit, he was going to really beat them up.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Add  barbiturates to the list.  You may have seen one of my posts about the soldier in Vietnam who was pistol whipped and shot three times before he got 'tired" and sat down, telling the two MPs he was tired but when he had rested a bit, he was going to really beat them up.


That makes sense. Probably benzos then also, although im a lot less concerned about a guy on xanax attacking me than a guy on coke attacking me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> Well, now that person has one less weapon and should be easier to subdue!
> 
> That's the point of most joint locks.  It's not that the lock is guaranteed to hold you in place.  It's that you pay a price for your mobility.


Agreed. I teach that locks aren't going to work "in the street" the way they do in the dojo. We're not going for a tap-out or submission - either they stay put (if it's a lock that can be used for that purpose - many aren't) or we're disabling that limb to gain an advantage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> That makes sense. Probably benzos then also, although im a lot less concerned about a guy on xanax attacking me than a guy on coke attacking me.


Yeah, somehow, that's not an intimidating thought.


----------



## wab25 (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum. I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented. But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.


I apologize. I only meant to join in the discussions here. But since I am obviously not able to add anything that you don't already know so well, that you don't bother to write it out anymore... I will leave your discussions alone here. My apologies again. Please continue.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 1, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> That makes sense. Probably benzos then also, although im a lot less concerned about a guy on xanax attacking me than a guy on coke attacking me.



Something rang a bell so I looked it up.  Barbiturates are not benzos.  According to the googling I did, benzos have mostly replaced barbiturates.  I don't know about benzos, but barbiturates can have more than one side effect.  They can be like the soldier I described in Vietnam, or like one on Okinawa who fell down beating his body and screaming about the bugs eating him up.  Some were more discerning and knowing what it took to get the high, only took that much.  It did seem it took them more time to come down.  We had a couple or three guys in my platoon who we knew were popping pills.  Barbs were very addictive.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Something rang a bell so I looked it up.  Barbiturates are not benzos.  According to the googling I did, benzos have mostly replaced barbiturates.  I don't know about benzos, but barbiturates can have more than one side effect.  They can be like the soldier I described in Vietnam, or like one on Okinawa who fell down beating his body and screaming about the bugs eating him up.  Some were more discerning and knowing what it took to get the high, only took that much.  It did seem it took them more time to come down.  We had a couple or three guys in my platoon who we knew were popping pills.  Barbs were very addictive.


Yeah, for the most part benzos dont have that reaction, although every once in a while people react weirdly to them (for barbiturates its a combination of people reacting odd to the drug, and that if you take even slightly more than you want it can cauae something odd, for benzos its just if the person has a weird reaction to the drug in general). The sedative effect though is likely why they dont feel the pain response, so that should be true for benzos just like barbiturates.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Add  barbiturates to the list.  You may have seen one of my posts about the soldier in Vietnam who was pistol whipped and shot (EDIT)two times before he got 'tired" and sat down, telling the two MPs he was tired but when he had rested a bit, he was going to really beat them up.


Just absorbed this-thats crazy! I cant imagine continuing after being pistol whipped, never mind shot twice on top of that


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm going to go on a rant here, because this whole discussion can be summed up this way:  *this thread is a prime example of people trying to poke holes in what isn't said.*
> 
> This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum.  I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented.  But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.
> 
> ...


Okay, I get you're annoyed that wab25 went over a number of details that you didn't happen to list in your breakdown, but I think most of the discussion in the last couple of pages regarding breaking structure was in response to offheherd1's question:


oftheherd1 said:


> How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?


Which was in response to my comment:



Tony Dismukes said:


> In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.


Which was in response to your comment:



skribs said:


> The breaking of the structure happens.  But the focal point is the wrist.  It is the pain and leverage on the wrist that breaks the structure.
> 
> It sounds like we're the blind men talking about the elephant at this point.



After I made my comment, you clarified that you might break an opponent's structure first in order to get the wrist lock and then use the wrist lock to break their structure even further. That's totally reasonable. However, oftheherd1's question still needed to be addressed, because it's a very important one. The single most common flaw which keeps joint locks or takedowns from succeeding under pressure is a failure to compromise the opponent's structure while setting up the technique. (The second most common is for the practitioner to compromise their own structure in the attempt.)

I'll try to provide my own answer here shortly, although Gerry and William covered a lot of it already.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?





skribs said:


> The fact that even you see several different definitions is part of why we're all arguing.  Are we talking about messing up balance and setting up a take-down?  Are we talking about disrupting their attack in progress?  Are we talking about gaining leverage to isolate joints?  Are we talking about positioning the attacker in such a way they cannot retaliate?  (Or something else)?



Something I tell my students over and over again is that almost no grappling technique (takedown or joint lock) is likely to succeed unless you break their structure first. (Or unless they're completely clueless or you have a massive size and strength advantage, but we're not training for that sort of situation.)

What do I mean by that?

Imagine a wrestler in his stance. Low, solid base. Spine in good alignment. Elbows glued to his ribs. Hands pointed forward. Wrists solid and straight, not bent either way. All the parts of his body are aligned to support each other for maximum power generation.

Now try to complete a wristlock, arm lock, shoulder lock or hip throw on this guy while he's got that solid base and alignment. Not going to work. He's going to easily rebuff your attempts to twist limbs in directions where you can cause pain or damage.

What you have to do is win the small battles first. Get his head turned to weaken his spinal alignment. Get his weight shifted to weaken his connection to the ground. Get him to reach a little further than he should. Get him reaching to the side. Get his elbows flared away from his side causing internal rotation of the shoulder. Get his wrist to flex just a little bit one way or another. Little things which do no damage by themselves and which he would immediately recover from if you didn't follow up. Follow them up - use one bit of compromised structure to create another. Accumulate enough little advantages - places where your opponent's structure is weakened and yours is not - and then you will be able to take someone down or break their limb.


----------



## skribs (Oct 1, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Something I tell my students over and over again is that almost no grappling technique (takedown or joint lock) is likely to succeed unless you break their structure first. (Or unless they're completely clueless or you have a massive size and strength advantage, but we're not training for that sort of situation.)
> 
> What do I mean by that?
> 
> ...



This may be part of the confusion.  I can't speak for everyone in the discussion, but I've been talking about using a wristlock to counter a wrist grab.  Someone who has grabbed me cannot be in the stance you mention (elbows tucked in, hands up).  They have opened that gate (as someone said in another thread) by creating their attack and it is that which allows us to use our footwork and our pain compliance.

Yes, I agree completely that if you are against someone who is in a fighting stance (whatever that stance may be), that you will need to break their structure down before you can successfully take them down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Something I tell my students over and over again is that almost no grappling technique (takedown or joint lock) is likely to succeed unless you break their structure first. (Or unless they're completely clueless or you have a massive size and strength advantage, but we're not training for that sort of situation.)
> 
> What do I mean by that?
> 
> ...


That, as usual, is a great explanation, Tony.

See? I told you he'd do that.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> This may be part of the confusion. I can't speak for everyone in the discussion, but I've been talking about using a wristlock to counter a wrist grab. Someone who has grabbed me cannot be in the stance you mention (elbows tucked in, hands up).


Sure they can. I'm teaching a class on how to do that very thing tonight. Maintain a good stance with elbows in tight and knees flexed. Use footwork to move in close enough to grab the opponents wrist (or preferably hand). If their hands are low, lower your stance to reach them rather than extending your arms.

I assume what you are talking about is the classic standing in natural posture with your hands by your side while an "attacker" stands opposite you (also in natural posture) and reaches out his arm to take your wrist. This is what I would refer to in technical terms as a completely incompetent, pointless "attack." Your opponent has pre-emptively compromised his own structure for no worthwhile purpose.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> This may be part of the confusion.  I can't speak for everyone in the discussion, but I've been talking about using a wristlock to counter a wrist grab.  Someone who has grabbed me cannot be in the stance you mention (elbows tucked in, hands up).  They have opened that gate (as someone said in another thread) by creating their attack and it is that which allows us to use our footwork and our pain compliance.
> 
> Yes, I agree completely that if you are against someone who is in a fighting stance (whatever that stance may be), that you will need to break their structure down before you can successfully take them down.


This - as with many things - would be much easier to be clear on if we could just lay hands on each other to explain.

I suspect - from your description - that you incorporate the necessary structure-taking for that wrist lock into the little bit of entry that's left to be done. Imagine I'm standing there and you grab my wrist. You're balanced and relaxed, spine is aligned relatively normally, and one foot is slightly forward (matching your hand). You have pretty good structure - not as good as that wrestler, but if I start a typical Z-lock (in NGA, "First Wrist Technique") you can simply extend into my counter-grip and stymie the technique. If I roll your wrist across or down (across is more common for me in that situation), I can reduce your available power, get a bend in the wrist before I start the actual lock (while your focus with that hand is still "hold on", not "stay safe"). With that small difference, I improve the chance of completing that lock, even on that static start. In a more dynamic situation, I'll probably need a bigger break in structure, but you might just give it to me by reaching out further for my wrist/sleeve.

I think we're saying the same thing, just with some different compartmentalization. Tony and I seem to use nearly identical phrasing, and probably for the same reason. I've seen people with otherwise good locking and throwing technique unable to apply it because they didn't have good entry technique, and didn't know to break (or at least look for broken) structure before doing those things. So now I emphasize that point, to avoid those issues.

So, in reply to you: yes, we appear to be saying the same thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 1, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sure they can. I'm teaching a class on how to do that very thing tonight. Maintain a good stance with elbows in tight and knees flexed. Use footwork to move in close enough to grab the opponents wrist (or preferably hand). If their hands are low, lower your stance to reach them rather than extending your arms.
> 
> I assume what you are talking about is the classic standing in natural posture with your hands by your side while an "attacker" stands opposite you (also in natural posture) and reaches out his arm to take your wrist. This is what I would refer to in technical terms as a completely incompetent, pointless "attack." Your opponent has pre-emptively compromised his own structure for no worthwhile purpose.


It's the "classical" start used by a lot of Japanese MA, and creates some confusion for students for just the reason you mention, if it isn't explained and followed up properly.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Oct 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> Apologies for the click-baity title.  From my own training in Taekwondo and Hapkido, and what I've seen in several different videos around the web, one theme I keep seeing in martial arts is that an art typically teaches combat only against the style taught by the art.
> 
> In some cases, it makes sense for the sport.  Obviously a wrestler needs to know how to counter wrestlers, boxers don't need to worry about kicks, and a Taekwondoist doesn't need to have a plan to deal with ankle locks.  Just like how I don't expect Tom Brady to go to batting practice, Michael Jordan to work on his bicycle kick, or Tiger Woods to run passing drills.  If someone has 5 years experience boxing, I should destroy them in a Taekwondo match.  I should be no match for them in the boxing ring.
> 
> ...


And I thought I was "wordy".  lol


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 2, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Just absorbed this-thats crazy! I cant imagine continuing after being pistol whipped, never mind shot twice on top of that



I'm told the MP said he just stood there momentarily stunned, not knowing what to do next; the man was fighting them both successfully, he had pistol whipped him, then shot him in the thigh, then in a foot, nothing worked until the man stopped to sit down and "rest."

Always made me think of the funny story of the two raccoon hunters who treed a raccoon and one hunter climbed the tree to get him.  A terrible fight ensured with amusing dialog between the two hunters.  At the last, the hunter in the tree implored his partner to shoot up into the tree.  The one on the ground declined because he might hit his friend since he could not see up there.  The hunter in the tree plaintively called out to him to just shoot, "one of us has got to have some relief!"


----------



## Balrog (Oct 2, 2018)

skribs said:


> *One-Step Punch Defense*
> The self defense we learn in my Taekwondo classes, and from a lot of the videos I've seen covering more traditional versions (as opposed to "modern" or "practical" versions) of Taekwondo and Karate are one-step punches.  These are trained to defend against a punch that comes in just like a punch from a poomsae or kata:  step forward into front stance and throw your weight into that punch.
> 
> Now, the "practical" application of this is that you're defending against a haymaker, instead of a string of punches.  Because most people who are going to sucker punch you are going to use a haymaker (and hopefully those with the mindset to train martial arts won't use them aggressively on the street).  But still, if someone is using boxing style punches, half the techniques will be different when dealing with a right cross than dealing with the right reverse punch.  If someone is using a more symmetrical type of punching, like Wing Chun, then the one-step drills will also fall flat.


That sounds to me like you are describing what we call one-steps.  One-steps are not teaching you self-defense per se.  They are a tool to help the student learn about timing, distancing and control.  They get the student used to the idea of block and counter or evade and counter as they get ready to learn how to spar.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 2, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Something I tell my students over and over again is that almost no grappling technique (takedown or joint lock) is likely to succeed unless you break their structure first. (Or unless they're completely clueless or you have a massive size and strength advantage, but we're not training for that sort of situation.)
> 
> What do I mean by that?
> 
> ...





skribs said:


> This may be part of the confusion.  *I can't speak for everyone in the discussion, but I've been talking about using a wristlock to counter a wrist grab.  Someone who has grabbed me cannot be in the stance you mention (elbows tucked in, hands up)*.  They have opened that gate (as someone said in another thread) by creating their attack and it is that which allows us to use our footwork and our pain compliance.
> 
> Yes, I agree completely that if you are against someone who is in a fighting stance (whatever that stance may be), that you will need to break their structure down before you can successfully take them down.



While you are both correct, skribs and I are indeed talking about defending having our wrist grabbed.  As I mentioned before, in Hapkido in general, we are very much defense oriented.  While we can indeed use many of our techniques offensively, we generally wait for an attack and then use a technique to defend ourselves.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 2, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sure they can. I'm teaching a class on how to do that very thing tonight. Maintain a good stance with elbows in tight and knees flexed. *Use footwork to move in close enough to grab the opponents wrist *(or preferably hand). If their hands are low, lower your stance to reach them rather than extending your arms.
> 
> I assume what you are talking about is the classic standing in natural posture with your hands by your side while an "attacker" stands opposite you (also in natural posture) and reaches out his arm to take your wrist. This is what I would refer to in technical terms as a completely incompetent, pointless "attack." Your opponent has pre-emptively compromised his own structure for no worthwhile purpose.



In the first paragraph, it sounds as if you are the attacker, reaching out to grab another persons wrist.  If you are the attacker, what you describe is fine.

Our teaching of basic defense grabs teaches us beginning grappling, but might have had a practical use when trying to prevent someone from deploying a sword or knife if you were unarmed.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 2, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> In the first paragraph, it sounds as if you are the attacker, reaching out to grab another persons wrist.  If you are the attacker, what you describe is fine.
> 
> Our teaching of basic defense grabs teaches us beginning grappling, but might have had a practical use when trying to prevent someone from deploying a sword or knife if you were unarmed.


Yeah, that was a response to skribs claiming that an attacker who is grabbing your wrist can’t be coming in with the kind of solid structure which needs to be broken before a wrist lock (or arm lock, throw, whatever) can be applied.

If you only train to defend against incompetent attacks, then you’ll never develop a really solid technical defense. Learn to defend against an attacker who knows what he’s doing and the results are much better.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> This - as with many things - would be much easier to be clear on if we could just lay hands on each other to explain.



That should have been said several pages ago..  Thanks!



gpseymour said:


> I suspect - from your description - that you incorporate the necessary structure-taking for that wrist lock into the little bit of entry that's left to be done. Imagine I'm standing there and you grab my wrist. You're balanced and relaxed, spine is aligned relatively normally, and one foot is slightly forward (matching your hand). You have pretty good structure - not as good as that wrestler, but if I start a typical Z-lock (in NGA, "First Wrist Technique") you can simply extend into my counter-grip and stymie the technique. If I roll your wrist across or down (across is more common for me in that situation), I can reduce your available power, get a bend in the wrist before I start the actual lock (while your focus with that hand is still "hold on", not "stay safe"). With that small difference, I improve the chance of completing that lock, even on that static start. In a more dynamic situation, I'll probably need a bigger break in structure, but you might just give it to me by reaching out further for my wrist/sleeve.
> 
> I think we're saying the same thing, just with some different compartmentalization. Tony and I seem to use nearly identical phrasing, and probably for the same reason. I've seen people with otherwise good locking and throwing technique unable to apply it because they didn't have good entry technique, and didn't know to break (or at least look for broken) structure before doing those things. So now I emphasize that point, to avoid those issues.
> So, in reply to you: yes, we appear to be saying the same thing.



Again, if I grab your wrist, I am the attacker.  You, as the defender may use any of a number of defenses, including a Z-lock, or goose-neck, or whatever you wish to call it.  We would probably use something simple also breaking structure.  But that is a great technique, especially as a come-along hold.  Oh, and a particular aspect of our mind set is that normally breaking an opponent's structure is not only to aid in completing a technique, but putting our opponent's body in a position that he can't attack us.  I am sure you and Tony understand that concept, and probably employ it as well.  Some MA do not.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 2, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> And I thought I was "wordy".  lol



I always thought I was the worst at wordiness.  Do no try to usurp my title please.


----------



## skribs (Oct 2, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, that was a response to skribs claiming that an attacker who is grabbing your wrist can’t be coming in with the kind of solid structure which needs to be broken before a wrist lock (or arm lock, throw, whatever) can be applied.
> 
> If you only train to defend against incompetent attacks, then you’ll never develop a really solid technical defense. Learn to defend against an attacker who knows what he’s doing and the results are much better.



There's a couple things to keep in mind:


I'm only an orange belt in the art.  Higher up we learn to adapt our techniques to more situations.
If someone is going to grab you on the street, they may not be trying to tackle you and get you into an armbar.  They may be grabbing you so they can push you around and intimidate you into giving them money (or something along those lines).  Once they realize you're resisting, they may resort to other tactics, such as punches or a takedown.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 2, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, that was a response to skribs claiming that an attacker who is grabbing your wrist can’t be coming in with the kind of solid structure which needs to be broken before a wrist lock (or arm lock, throw, whatever) can be applied.
> 
> If you only train to defend against incompetent attacks, then you’ll never develop a really solid technical defense. Learn to defend against an attacker who knows what he’s doing and the results are much better.



I understand that.  I may have been to terse in some of my replies.  But we normally break structure in order to be able to complete the technique and protect ourselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 2, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> That should have been said several pages ago..  Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if I grab your wrist, I am the attacker.  You, as the defender may use any of a number of defenses, including a Z-lock, or goose-neck, or whatever you wish to call it.  We would probably use something simple also breaking structure.  But that is a great technique, especially as a come-along hold.  Oh, and a particular aspect of our mind set is that normally breaking an opponent's structure is not only to aid in completing a technique, but putting our opponent's body in a position that he can't attack us.  I am sure you and Tony understand that concept, and probably employ it as well.  Some MA do not.


Absolutely. I think we're all saying pretty much the same thing. I know from my brief time playing with Tony that he definitely looks at ways to break structure that both create openings for him and block responses for his opponent. And I teach the same, probably in a way that would look familiar to someone in Hapkido.


----------

