# Joint Locks and Pressure Points



## MJS (Oct 20, 2006)

Are these things that you include into your training? Do you feel that they're worth knowing or do you feel that they're more of a waste of time? 

IMO, I look at them as two more tools that I have in the box. I don't think that we should seek out a lock, but instead wait until the chance to apply a lock presents itself to us.

As for the pressure points, I'm not convinced of the no touch stuff, and this really isn't where I am looking for the thread to go either. I do think though, that like the locks, there may be many times, ie: during a clinch or grabbing attack, that the opportunity may present itself for one to be applied.

Anyone else have thoughts on these things?

Mike


----------



## Drac (Oct 20, 2006)

MJS said:


> Are these things that you include into your training? Do you feel that they're worth knowing or do you feel that they're more of a waste of time?


 
Yes they are..I use them A LOT on duty..


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 20, 2006)

LOVE 'EM!!!!  

So many times the opportunity presents itself throughout SD techniques.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 20, 2006)

They (Pressure points & Joint Locks)are definately something included in what I do.  I too have also used them in the course of work.  You have the right idea about them being just a few more tools in the toolbox.

As for the no touch knockouts.  Well I have only seen them work on compliant students and have no faith in them working against a non compliant person.  They are not something that I practice or teach.


----------



## Mustafa (Oct 20, 2006)

MJS said:


> Are these things that you include into your training? Do you feel that they're worth knowing or do you feel that they're more of a waste of time?
> 
> IMO, I look at them as two more tools that I have in the box. I don't think that we should seek out a lock, but instead wait until the chance to apply a lock presents itself to us.
> 
> ...


Me personally.
I dont have the habit of making locking others, though i my lock myself.
However, in means of self defence, i try to avoid fighting when i have the opportunity, but if my opponent is persistent in whatever he is doing, i end rewarding him with the same thing he gives me. (especially when he gives he goes like
"you or me, when i have a belt" 
If you consider the ammount of mistakes the opponent makes, then you cant balme yourself for fighting back.

As for no touch stuff. I dont have any kind of experience with that.
This is a question like, do you belive in ki. My answer is, i havent experienced it (nor tried to).


----------



## Drac (Oct 20, 2006)

HKphooey said:


> LOVE 'EM!!!!
> 
> So many times the opportunity presents itself throughout SD techniques.


 

I agree 100%..Ask the guys who decided that they were going to push the fat gray haired cop out of their way...


----------



## Fluffy (Oct 20, 2006)

If you end up on the ground they will be some of your best moves, def worth the time invested in training.


----------



## exile (Oct 20, 2006)

MJS said:


> Are these things that you include into your training? Do you feel that they're worth knowing or do you feel that they're more of a waste of time?
> 
> IMO, I look at them as two more tools that I have in the box. I don't think that we should seek out a lock, but instead wait until the chance to apply a lock presents itself to us.
> 
> ...



Mike---like Brian, Drac and others, I definitely train these, as implicit parts of the TKD poomsae I do. I usually see in a `down block', for example, a wrist grab with the retracting, `chambering' hand and an arm lock, with pressure on the elbow from the forearm moving up to `chamber' the down motion, forcing the attack closer and lower and setting up the arm/neck/throat strike that the down block really represents. The joint locks are crucial I think to most effective techniques recorded in the hyungs/kata of karate-rooted MAs.

What I _don't_ practics is small-joint manipulation type movements. Maybe I should, but that will come later... For the kind of stuff our LEOs need to do, they are probably terrifically useful.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 20, 2006)

Drac said:


> Yes they are..I use them A LOT on duty..



The only catch is that it seems like the people you most want to use them on are the ones who aren't going to feel them...

Had a guy one day who was a wee bit mentally disturbed.  Took four of us to drag him out of the house after I arrested him on a domestic...  Pressure points didn't matter to him...


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 20, 2006)

MJS said:


> Are these things that you include into your training? Do you feel that they're worth knowing or do you feel that they're more of a waste of time?
> 
> Mike



Certainly do!  Yes, I believe they are very important.  Not just joint locks, locking up the entire body too! (er well most of it anyway).


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 20, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> As for the no touch knockouts.  Well I have only seen them work on compliant students and have no faith in them working against a non compliant person.  They are not something that I practice or teach.



I gotta agree with you there!


----------



## crushing (Oct 20, 2006)

Joint locks and pressure points are pretty big in my training.  Just this week, one of my teachers even recommended purchasing the Anatomy Coloring Book to help learn about the body and keep track of the pressure points we will be learning about in class.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 20, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> The only catch is that it seems like the people you most want to use them on are the ones who aren't going to feel them...
> 
> Had a guy one day who was a wee bit mentally disturbed. Took four of us to drag him out of the house after I arrested him on a domestic... Pressure points didn't matter to him...


 

PAIN is not relevant

if you use the points correctly it DOES NOT MATTER if they can feel it or not. if you are only looking for "pain compliance" then I can see why you might think this is not a very useful category of technique.


----------



## Drac (Oct 20, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> The only catch is that it seems like the people you most want to use them on are the ones who aren't going to feel them...
> 
> Had a guy one day who was a wee bit mentally disturbed. Took four of us to drag him out of the house after I arrested him on a domestic... Pressure points didn't matter to him...


 

Been there *TOO MANY* times...Had a Teenager that had been smoking "wet" cigarettes..Same scenerio you posted...


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 20, 2006)

DavidCC said:


> PAIN is not relevant
> 
> if you use the points correctly it DOES NOT MATTER if they can feel it or not.




Great point!  Joint locks are about control...


----------



## charyuop (Oct 20, 2006)

I do Tai Chi and yes there are many joint lock in it.
Unfortunately my teacher doesn't train for MA purposes, but I practice application with my wife (who had few years of MA training) and with a friend who has years in Aikido.
I used to think Locks were great to control the opponent, but I also (of course I have never been locked by a Master, and that might make a difference) found out that with the right movement it is easy to get out of joint locks, standing up not grappling, and most of them I can even turn the situation to my favour. I managed to get out of several joint locks and send the opponent to his butt or turned it into a joint lock into my favour.
The joint lock that I found most effective on me is the ones where I end up with a wrist bent and the arm bent behind my back or finger locks (I hate the latter, they so painful that paralize you).

On one side they are the best because not every punch can be a knock out punch, but if the opponent doens't know how to get out every lock 100% reaches its purpose. Moreover in case of further need a joint lock can lead to a broken bone or injured tendin that will make you get out a winner.
On the other hand tho, a joint lock will leave you a certain amount of time very close to the opponent and thus at risk for concealed weapons. Moreover some people don't hurt at all joint locks (like my wife, you can twist her wrist till it breaks and she doesn't feel any pain) or the opponent can be under some drugs and don't feel the pain.

In my opinion if you do a joint lock leave always an option open to strike your opponent at every single movement he/she might do.


----------



## The Kidd (Oct 20, 2006)

I think joint locks are a must. I teach them and use them. I teach alot of kids ranging from the ages of 8 to 16, there is a less likely chance they will get into trouble if they put someone into a hold in school who has tried to hurt them than if they knock or kick the guys block off then both parties get into trouble, I teach (to my higher belts) to hold the person until an adult gets there. Now if they are on the street then do what you have to do. 
I also use locks because I work in a school and I cannot go around punching or kickking the students so when I have to take control of a violent situation then the best way to get a 15 year old males attention who thinks he can kick everybodys butt is a good wrist lock and he becomes cooperative rather quickly.


----------



## charyuop (Oct 20, 2006)

LOL I don't know why Kidd, but your words made me smile. I have pictured you the teacher walking down the hall and twisting wrists here and there...all the students moving to the sides as you pass by...

But I agree it can be something usefull for kids in school. Blocking the bully in a lock and calling for the teacher would save them alot of troubles.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 20, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> Great point! Joint locks are about control...


 
There's a difference between a joint lock and a pressure point.  Joint locks can work even if the person doesn't feel the pain -- but they may lead to serious injury in those cases.  This isn't always something that's practical for law enforcement officers; we can't cripple someone just because they're not complying.  

As to some of the other sorts of pressure points (no touch knockouts and the like)... Neat ideas.  Maybe they work.  Maybe they don't.  I'm (obviously) far from convinced on them!

But there's another concern with locks and pressure points...  You get the guy in a wonderful arm bar, and he's begging you to let him go.  But just a second ago, he was trying to hurt you...  As a cop -- it's easy.  Cuff 'em and stuff 'em.  What about a civilian?  Where do you go with it?

I once watched someone teaching a beautifuly, elegant self defense move.  It was truly a thing of beauty to see it applied, and their partner even wasn't simply going with it.  But it had way too many steps unless someone was going to practice it regularly...  And, more importantly, it ended with the defender holding the attacker.  There was no way out of it!  I guess if anyone ever actually used it, they had to wait until some passerby called the cops, then try to explain what happened!

Sure -- there are times when that's all you want to do, like if it's a drunk buddy.  But there are also times when you need to go further; self defense is about stopping the bad guy from harming you and getting away, not subdueing him for the cops.

(And since this is drifting off topic -- that's where I'll leave it.  If we want to go further, we can start another thread.)

In other words -- pressure points and joint locks have a very good place in any martial artists training.  But they aren't the only thing to train!


----------



## searcher (Oct 20, 2006)

I include them.   Not every situation requires a higher level of brutality.   I am not saying that joint locks and pressure points are not brutal, but having the option to refrain from striking another person is an essential tool.   You run LESS risk of permantly damaging somebody with a joint lock or pressure point than with a strike.   Again, I am not saying that it cannot happen, but there is less risk of it.


----------



## Drac (Oct 20, 2006)

searcher said:


> I include them. Not every situation requires a higher level of brutality. I am not saying that joint locks and pressure points are not brutal, but having the option to refrain from striking another person is an essential tool. You run LESS risk of permantly damaging somebody with a joint lock or pressure point than with a strike


 
Good point...In the good old days of law enforcement a punch or a kick was acceptable for almost any situation..As technology advanced cops found themselves  under more scrutiny..Joint locks and pressure ponts if caught on camera don't look bad..


----------



## Kwan Jang (Oct 20, 2006)

I like both as options in my tool box. They give me options for stun and run, as well as for control so that I don't need to move up the ladder of force. Legal defense is an important consideration; You may think those six guys with the AK-47's are scary? You should see their lawyers. LOL. 

In all seriousness, one poster did raise a good point about complex movements/fine motor skills being compromised under adrenal stress. This is why when I teach these skills in a tactical class, I stick to techniques that use movements that are already ingrained in peoples' muscle memory since they resemble common movements. 

With my martial art students, though I do introduce these at lower levels, I put a higher emphasis on them at advanced levels. I teach more kickboxing-ish skills first, then progress to submission grappling. With my advanced (healthy) students, I move them on to NHB on one end of the spectrum and kyusho/tuite and SCJJ on the other. I feel this syntax in the cirriculum gives them a strong base that they can really use with confidence and competence fairly quickly and build their options from there.


----------



## Keikai (Oct 20, 2006)

charyuop said:


> I used to think Locks were great to control the opponent, but I also (of course I have never been locked by a Master, and that might make a difference) found out that with the right movement it is easy to get out of joint locks, standing up not grappling, and most of them I can even turn the situation to my favour. I managed to get out of several joint locks and send the opponent to his butt or turned it into a joint lock into my favour.
> The joint lock that I found most effective on me is the ones where I end up with a wrist bent and the arm bent behind my back or finger locks (I hate the latter, they so painful that paralize you).


 
Part fo the definition that we use for a lock is that there is no escape. The only time it is possible to escape from a lock is 1) While in the process of putting the lock on the attacker is not unbalanced and so can resist. 2) The lock is not being applied correctly. A well applied lock will result in leeway for escape.

Our system trains a full grading on a person resisting applied locks and the defender is then required to re-unbalance the attacker and apply a new lock. We have nine (9) basic arm and wrist locks and you must be able to change from one to the other against a resisting attacker. At times two or three changes are necessary. The same same is done for locks to throws, throws to locks and throws to throws. Things don't always go as planned so you need to develop the skills to adapt to the new situation is our philosophy.



charyuop said:


> In my opinion if you do a joint lock leave always an option open to strike your opponent at every single movement he/she might do.


 
As I have outlined above why limit yourself to just a strike? That is just one tool to use against resisting attacker.

As for pressure points. Some are useful, particuarly when grabbed or held. Some work well IF you manage to hit the right spot in the right way. As the exact position and effect is different for everyone I wor one would never rely on pressure points to defend myself.

Greg Palmer

Tsutsumi Ryu Ju Jutsu


----------



## pstarr (Oct 20, 2006)

They're an absolute must.  The "no touch" stuff is just so much grabage, but the real thing is priceless.


----------



## exile (Oct 20, 2006)

Kwan Jang said:


> You may think those six guys with the AK-47's are scary? You should see their lawyers. LOL.



That quotation is an Instant Classic, IMHO!


----------



## The Kidd (Oct 21, 2006)

Hey Charyuop glad I made you smile, I work in an alternative school when you have a bunch of gang members wanting to kill each other all the time having a presence can calm things down a great deal.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 21, 2006)

I like to apply them as the attacker reaches out to grab or push ... so he can steady me for his ballistic assault.  Heck, I LET 'em grab me ... it just one more thing that won't be flying at my head or nether regions!

I use the pressure points on the arm, torso and legs to move the attackers body into a position from which I can throw him.  After that I clear the danger zone.


----------



## Drac (Oct 22, 2006)

Explorer said:


> I like to apply them as the attacker reaches out to grab or push ... so he can steady me for his ballistic assault. Heck, I LET 'em grab me


 
As Grandmaster Pellegrini of the Combat Hapkido Federation says "He just gave you something to play with"...Like you I use it OFTEN...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 22, 2006)

Drac said:


> As Grandmaster Pellegrini of the Combat Hapkido Federation says "He just gave you something to play with"...Like you I use it OFTEN...


 
Yes, if they are going to give you something to work with then it would almost be criminal not to oblige their request.  Myself I am just trying to be neighborly at that point.:rofl:


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 22, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yes, if they are going to give you something to work with then it would almost be criminal not to oblige their request.  Myself I am just trying to be neighborly at that point.:rofl:


I've even had my wrist grabbed on a couple of ocassions.  Talk about wristlocks 101!


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 22, 2006)

Drac said:


> As Grandmaster Pellegrini of the Combat Hapkido Federation says "He just gave you something to play with"...Like you I use it OFTEN...



HAHAHA Exactly!  People always seem to give things to play with.  Like Brian said, it is almost criminal not to be polite and accept the gift.  

One thing people always seem to give away are _*fingers*_!   Also, they always seem to find them *most painful*! :EG:


----------



## Drac (Oct 22, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> HAHAHA Exactly! People always seem to give things to play with. Like Brian said, it is almost criminal not to be polite and accept the gift.
> 
> One thing people always seem to give away are _*fingers*_! Also, they always seem to find them *most painful*! :EG:


 
*LOL...*Yes, fingers are a lot of fun to *"play with"*


----------



## crushing (Oct 22, 2006)

Drac said:


> As Grandmaster Pellegrini of the Combat Hapkido Federation says "He just gave you something to play with"...Like you I use it OFTEN...


 
Haha.  My teacher says the same thing.  He likely picked it up from Mr. P.  Those tend to be the days we have to shake the arms out a little more and I think about getting the ice packs out of the freezer.


----------



## Drac (Oct 22, 2006)

crushing said:


> Haha. My teacher says the same thing. He likely picked it up from Mr. P. Those tend to be the days we have to shake the arms out a little more and I think about getting the ice packs out of the freezer.


 
Having been the Uke for GMP a number of times I must agree..


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 22, 2006)

On the subject of fingers, I have told many a person I do not care how much weight they can lift, I bet their little finger bends easy. 

I once was doing push hands with someone that I would call both a Tai Chi and Qinna master. WOW!!! talk about cotton covered steal that very quickly went into a pressure point that ended as a joint lock.... By the way I was the pressure pointed and the joint locked. It was incredibly painful and yet so very impressive.


----------



## searcher (Oct 22, 2006)

On the finger subject, we must remember that God gave each of us 10 to break.   If you break 1 or 2 of a persons fingers there are still more to "play with."


----------



## Loaded Luke (Oct 23, 2006)

MJS said:


> Are these things that you include into your training? Do you feel that they're worth knowing or do you feel that they're more of a waste of time?



Used to train them. Don't anymore.


----------



## Loaded Luke (Oct 23, 2006)

searcher said:


> On the finger subject, we must remember that God gave each of us 10 to break.   If you break 1 or 2 of a persons fingers there are still more to "play with."



lol! I remember when I was grappling with this kid n he tried to submit me by extending my fingers. Was quite humerous. Was grappling with someone friday n he tried to get he in a wristlock submission (the bugger got it locked on as well) but it didnt do much, just only made me angry n I slammed him down n choked him.


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2006)

exile said:


> Mike---like Brian, Drac and others, I definitely train these, as implicit parts of the TKD poomsae I do. I usually see in a `down block', for example, a wrist grab with the retracting, `chambering' hand and an arm lock, with pressure on the elbow from the forearm moving up to `chamber' the down motion, forcing the attack closer and lower and setting up the arm/neck/throat strike that the down block really represents. The joint locks are crucial I think to most effective techniques recorded in the hyungs/kata of karate-rooted MAs.


 
My appologies for not responding to this thread a bit sooner.  

Yes, I agree.  Its amazing how many locks, pressure point hits there are in forms.  Of course, sometimes people don't see this because they don't understand the kata.  Personally, whenever I teach a kata, I always like to give at least one other example, aside from the basic movement, of an application.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2006)

Drac said:


> Good point...In the good old days of law enforcement a punch or a kick was acceptable for almost any situation..As technology advanced cops found themselves under more scrutiny..Joint locks and pressure ponts if caught on camera don't look bad..


 
I couldn't agree more.  Cruiser mounted cameras, as well as the ones that are used by the bystanders, could make or break the officer.  Sure the bad guy is gonna be in some pain, but at least he won't have a bruise from a strike.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> lol! I remember when I was grappling with this kid n he tried to submit me by extending my fingers. Was quite humerous. Was grappling with someone friday n he tried to get he in a wristlock submission (the bugger got it locked on as well) but it didnt do much, just only made me angry n I slammed him down n choked him.


 
There are alot of people who are very flexable.  However, its important to make sure that the fine points of joint locks are understood.  

Mike


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 23, 2006)

people may be flexible but a finger bent all the way back usually gets attention.  I agree some locks do not seem to work on some people that is why it is necessary to learn how to change the locks and what to do if the lock dose not work


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

Coming in a little late on this discussion:

I LOVE working both joint manipulation & Pressure Points / aka: Kyusho.
I feel that in incorporating these things into my curriculum/training on a regular basis that at anygiven point of the flow of action my options to take effective control are at Least doubled!! I love Kenpo, I love the contact manipulation especially!!! I feel that when you add the effectiveness of the joint manipulations and the activation of pressure points just sky rockets!!

Love it...


good topic

Your Brother
John


----------



## Loaded Luke (Oct 23, 2006)

MJS said:


> There are alot of people who are very flexable.  However, its important to make sure that the fine points of joint locks are understood.
> 
> Mike



Why? I dont see it as being very important myself. Unless if your doing it as part of a syllabus or for the sake of getting a black belt then so be it.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 23, 2006)

MJS said:


> There are alot of people who are very flexable.  However, its important to make sure that the fine points of joint locks are understood.



That is very true!  Understanding the principles of the joint lock is the key.  IMO, It is not about pain compliance but control.  Joint locks work much like twisting a chain, eventually all the links bind against one another and the chain is no longer flexible but rigid.  Some people are more flexible than others, but locks will still work, you might have to go a little further to get the lock.

Some locks remind me of weapons.  For instance when I apply an arm bar type of lock, it feels like I am using a hanbo or bo, just the bo extends the length of the arm and through their shoulders.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> Why? I dont see it as being very important myself. Unless if your doing it as part of a syllabus or for the sake of getting a black belt then so be it.


Why do YOU feel it's NOT important?

Your Brother
John


----------



## Loaded Luke (Oct 23, 2006)

Brother John said:


> Why do YOU feel it's NOT important?
> 
> Your Brother
> John



Aah I asked the question first. lol, no seriously... I was referring more to small joint manipulations/finger attacks. I don't see why you have to spent time going into detailed minute fine points of these things when you can spend time concentrating on practicing more constructive and effective things.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

Then you've never had one of those done too you obviously....

at least
not correctly


Your Brother
John


----------



## Loaded Luke (Oct 23, 2006)

Brother John said:


> Then you've never had one of those done too you obviously....
> 
> at least
> not correctly
> ...



Ive had a lot of other stuff done to me, and thats what i'd rather spend my time on defending/countering, than some fingerlock that some nut's gonna try on me, lol.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 23, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> Ive had a lot of other stuff done to me, and thats what i'd rather spend my time on defending/countering, than some fingerlock that some nut's gonna try on me, lol.


To each their own I suppose Luke.
Me? I'm for gaining from ALL of it...and giving it all sometime.
I'm also not refering so much to learning to counter a fingerlock as I am in using it as ONE MORE feature of an excape or counter.
I've had times when large gross motor action was unable to remove an assailants hold, but a finger lock worked....
like magic

Your Brother (who plays with ALL the toys, not just some...)
John


----------



## matt.m (Oct 23, 2006)

Considering my background began in Moo Sul kwan hapkido and judo I would say that I am all about locks.  Locks never really present themselves, all technique have insertion and exit points.  However if you drill correctly then you won't care if it is a wrist or clothes grab from a certain position.

So I say if you are going to have and use joint locks and throws, drill the fire out of them or they are worthless.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 23, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> Ive had a lot of other stuff done to me, and thats what i'd rather spend my time on defending/countering, than some fingerlock that some nut's gonna try on me, lol.


 
You would be surprised at how quickly someone does what you want them to do if you get a hold of their finger. And there are other Qinna locks that involve holding the finger a certain way against your forearm (they grabbed you) and then applying slight pressure to the wrist. People go down fairly quick with that one done properly. 

Never underestimate locks and manipulations and I completely agree with matt.m...you have to practice them ALOT or they are worthless


----------



## Drac (Oct 23, 2006)

MJS said:


> I couldn't agree more. Cruiser mounted cameras, as well as the ones that are used by the bystanders, could make or break the officer. Sure the bad guy is gonna be in some pain, but at least he won't have a bruise from a strike


 
and when the apprehended male sues for damages he recieved from the officer when he was resisting arrest..The recording from the "cruisercam" will show the officer removing the suspects hand from his person..The fingerlocks are rarely seen...


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> Why? I dont see it as being very important myself. Unless if your doing it as part of a syllabus or for the sake of getting a black belt then so be it.


 
Sorry, I should have been more clear in what I was saying.  When I speak of the fine points, I'm basically saying that anyone can grab someones fingers, wrist, etc., and start cranking.  However, if someone doesn't understand the correct way to apply these moves, they're basically not going to get anywhere.  If someone knows how to apply them correctly, the results will be much more effective.

As for the importance of knowing them...well, not every situation is going to require punching someone in the face, breaking an arm or knee, or slamming them to the ground.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Oct 23, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> Aah I asked the question first. lol, no seriously... I was referring more to small joint manipulations/finger attacks. I don't see why you have to spent time going into detailed minute fine points of these things when you can spend time concentrating on practicing more constructive and effective things.


 
If you don't know the fine points, you'll be missing out on quite a bit.  This applies to anything, not just joint locks.  This applies to proper punching and kicking skills as well as anything thats done on the ground, from a grappling perspective.

Mike


----------



## Drac (Oct 23, 2006)

matt.m said:


> So I say if you are going to have and use joint locks and throws, drill the fire out of them or they are worthless.


 
Couldn't have said it better...


----------



## Drac (Oct 23, 2006)

MJS said:


> As for the importance of knowing them...well, not every situation is going to require punching someone in the face, breaking an arm or knee, or slamming them to the ground


 
John Q. Public and the ACLU has been telling LEO's that for YEARS...Now if they don't respond to a finger/joint lock (there are non-responders out there) THEN we go for the hard stuff...


----------



## thetruth (Oct 24, 2006)

I will say one thing re. pressure points.  They are one small part of a very big picture.  They do not always work and a great number of factors affect their effectiveness.  As long as your strikes and joint locks are effective without pressure points and the points only add a bit to their result then by all means use them.  If you are relying on them to actually make a technique effective in the first place then you are cruising for a bruising because that is not how they were intended to be used.  They were only ever meant to support already effective techniques. :asian:

Cheers
Sam


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 24, 2006)

Knowing how to lock someone is useful, but its important to know when its appropriate for.
Personally I figure a lock is only required in any situation where you cannot flee after there is violent contact.
In most cases the best plan for surviving conflict is get the hell out of there as fast as possible. 
Sticking around and locking an aggressor runs contrary to that.
So you should only be doing it if 
1 - Its your job (eg security, police)
2 - You can't leave the aggressor there (eg home, family members still there etc)
3 - You need this person intact (minimum force scenario, or sue happy rich kid. Spank for good measure)

Now with regards my actual guidelines for locking an opponent.

Pain in not a reliable factor. Pain tolerance, adrenaline and chemical substances can skew it too much for it to ever be reliable.
The lock must remove the opponents balance
The lock must remove the opponents leverage
The lock must involve a large joint. Small joint manipulation should only be used as aid to larger joing locks. For example, don't try and lock someone by the fingers or wrist. Lock the shoulder and use the fingers for added control instead.
You cannot lock someone indefinitely. Sooner or later, they will find a way out. Even if that involves doing themself harm, just like an animal gnawing its leg off when its stuck in a bear trap.
Now then we get to the subject of pressure points

Never bother with pressure point striking. Adrenaline dump renders fine motor skills useless, so pin-point striking chops shall be henceforth reserved for GI-Joe figures
Use of pressure point during locks follows same rules as small joint manipulation, use as an aid to large joint locks, not on its own.
Any other points or suggestions about these?


----------



## searcher (Oct 24, 2006)

Loaded Luke said:


> Aah I asked the question first. lol, no seriously... I was referring more to small joint manipulations/finger attacks. I don't see why you have to spent time going into detailed minute fine points of these things when you can spend time concentrating on practicing more constructive and effective things.


 

Working on "more destructive things" will be fine if they present themselves to you.   Sometimes you may get a wrist, shoulder, or strike that opens up and you can exploit it.   Then there are those times you get a finger.   If you don't know how to work a technique then you may well get the crapped kicked out of you for not knowing.   At that point in time it will not seem so small.


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 24, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Knowing how to lock someone is useful, but its important to know when its appropriate for.
> Personally I figure a lock is only required in any situation where you cannot flee after there is violent contact.
> In most cases the best plan for surviving conflict is get the hell out of there as fast as possible.
> Sticking around and locking an aggressor runs contrary to that.
> ...



I don't have a pre-conceived notion of when or where I will use a joint lock.  I let the situation and the feeling at that moment dictate what is necessary.  I think it is a bad thing to have a preconceived idea of what one will do when, because, it is often not exactly how I thought it would be and changes the dynamics enough that what I thought of doing is useless or nearly useless and something different would have been more effective.



Shotgun Buddha said:


> Now with regards my actual guidelines for locking an opponent.
> Pain in not a reliable factor. Pain tolerance, adrenaline and chemical substances can skew it too much for it to ever be reliable.
> The lock must remove the opponents balance
> The lock must remove the opponents leverage
> ...



I like how you tied balance in.  Balance is extremely important!  Keeping balance while breaking the attacker's balance. 




Shotgun Buddha said:


> Now then we get to the subject of pressure points
> Never bother with pressure point striking. Adrenaline dump renders fine motor skills useless, so pin-point striking chops shall be henceforth reserved for GI-Joe figures
> Use of pressure point during locks follows same rules as small joint manipulation, use as an aid to large joint locks, not on its own.
> Any other points or suggestions about these?



I am not so sure about pressure points as you describe them.  Regarding pressure points, I tend to think of sensitive places to strike.  There are places that can be struck quite easily that can cause the strike to be quite a bit more painful than it would be in other parts of the general vacinity.  However, if they are doped up or whatever, chances are it won't have the desired affect, other than it being just a strike, so nothing lost.


As far as trying to do the touch of death, well, I would have to see that.


----------



## MJS (Oct 24, 2006)

Drac said:


> John Q. Public and the ACLU has been telling LEO's that for YEARS...Now if they don't respond to a finger/joint lock (there are non-responders out there) THEN we go for the hard stuff...


 
I worked in Corrections for a short time and that was something that they always stressed in the academy.  

Mike


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 24, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I don't have a pre-conceived notion of when or where I will use a joint lock. I let the situation and the feeling at that moment dictate what is necessary. I think it is a bad thing to have a preconceived idea of what one will do when, because, it is often not exactly how I thought it would be and changes the dynamics enough that what I thought of doing is useless or nearly useless and something different would have been more effective.


 
It isn't so much when I would use them, as when I WOULDN'T. If there's multiple aggressors for example, the last thing I want is to get tangled up in a lock with someone. Or if Im unable to disable an aggressor by striking him, then odds are this is NOT someone I want to try holding down.
Locks involve being too stationary for my liking in a self-defence scenario.
My objective in self-defence survival, and the mest efficient way of doing that is drop the other guy on his *** then flee into the sunset.
Lockinh him would just leave me attached to someone who's intending me harm, and the longer Im there, more reisk of something going wrong.



> I like how you tied balance in. Balance is extremely important! Keeping balance while breaking the attacker's balance.


 
Yep. If he gets his balance, there's no point trying to lock him, he'll be able to struggle too much.



> I am not so sure about pressure points as you describe them. Regarding pressure points, I tend to think of sensitive places to strike. There are places that can be struck quite easily that can cause the strike to be quite a bit more painful than it would be in other parts of the general vacinity. However, if they are doped up or whatever, chances are it won't have the desired affect, other than it being just a strike, so nothing lost.


 
I prefer to target area's which will have a physical reaction thats more than simply causing pain. Strikes which will shock the central nervous system, or cause a forced reaction like a blow to the solar plexus.
Pain to me just isn't a reliable tool.



> As far as trying to do the touch of death, well, I would have to see that.


 
According to an ex girlfriend, you could see that watching me in the bedroom...


----------



## Drac (Oct 24, 2006)

MJS said:


> I worked in Corrections for a short time and that was something that they always stressed in the academy.
> 
> Mike


 
We* still* stress that..Don't stand there attempting another pressure point/ joint lock if he didn't respond to the first one..*TAKE THEM DOWN...*


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 24, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> It isn't so much when I would use them, as when I WOULDN'T. If there's multiple aggressors for example, the last thing I want is to get tangled up in a lock with someone.



I don't know...  It just depends.  Locks can be beneficial to keeping the attacker betwixt me and the other attacker(s).  Just because someone gets a lock doesn't mean they have to keep it.  It is just like anything else, it is disposable for something better.  

Like I said, it all depends on what is happening at that moment and what the shape of the attack feels like.  That is why I don't have a cut and dried rule about anything other than balance.  Balance is pretty cut and dried.  I want to have it and I want to take theirs.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 24, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I don't know... It just depends. Locks can be beneficial to keeping the attacker betwixt me and the other attacker(s). Just because someone gets a lock doesn't mean they have to keep it. It is just like anything else, it is disposable for something better.


 

Waaaaay back when I trained Jujitsu we trained multiple attackers and this was commonly used. Lock one and use him as a shield while attacking others


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 24, 2006)

I think a lot of it also depends on where the focus of your training is as well.  If you study a style that is primarily striking with some joint work thrown in, you'll be more likely to look for opportunities to strike with the odd lock thrown in.  If you study a style that puts a lot of emphasis on joint locking, you might just find yourself doing the opposite.  I don't think either one is better, just different.

Jeff


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 24, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I don't know... It just depends. Locks can be beneficial to keeping the attacker betwixt me and the other attacker(s). Just because someone gets a lock doesn't mean they have to keep it. It is just like anything else, it is disposable for something better.
> 
> Like I said, it all depends on what is happening at that moment and what the shape of the attack feels like. That is why I don't have a cut and dried rule about anything other than balance. Balance is pretty cut and dried. I want to have it and I want to take theirs.


 
I never particularly liked those sort of randori "stand-off" scenarios, where you use a person as a human shield. From what Ive seen of attacks involving multiple opponents it tends to be extremely aggressive, and anything which keeps you stationary will result in the opponents swarming you. If I needed to create an obstacle, I'd throw one of the attackers at another, or onto the ground in their path, and then continue attacking. Still be incredibly difficult thing to do though.


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 24, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:
			
		

> Never bother with pressure point striking. Adrenaline dump renders fine motor skills useless, so pin-point striking chops shall be henceforth reserved for GI-Joe figures.


 



Shotgun Buddha said:


> I prefer to target area's which will have a physical reaction thats more than simply causing pain. Strikes which will shock the central nervous system, or cause a forced reaction like a blow to the solar plexus.
> Pain to me just isn't a reliable tool.


 

So which is it Shotgun???


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 24, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> and anything which keeps you stationary



Who said you have to be stationary?   You can move while having someone locked up.  If not, I would revisit why I couldn't move.  Again, will reiterate, who says you have to keep them?  It is all very fluid and dynamic.

Locks and pressure points have their place.  However, they are not the end all of martial arts, they are just another set of weapons in the arsenal to be used when needed as appropriate.  To discount them is like not tying your shoes... IMO.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 24, 2006)

DavidCC said:


> So which is it Shotgun???


 
Which part of that are you viewing as being in conflict?
Strikes such as elbow strikes to the temple or or jaw, or upper-cut to the solar plexus, are gross motor skills. With practice, they'll still function under an adrenaline dump.
Pressure points for the most part are areas sensitive to pain. Thats different from shocking the central nervous system. For example when someone is KO'd by a strike to the head, its nothing to do with pain. They've been hit hard enough to shock the brain, so it crashes.
Likewise punching the solar plexus causes the the lungs to sieze up, which has nothing to do with pain. Its just the body cannot function the way its supposed to and crashes.

So where do you see a conflict?


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 24, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> Who said you have to be stationary?  You can move while having someone locked up. If not, I would revisit why I couldn't move. Again, will reiterate, who says you have to keep them? It is all very fluid and dynamic.
> 
> Locks and pressure points have their place. However, they are not the end all of martial arts, they are just another set of weapons in the arsenal to be used when needed as appropriate. To discount them is like not tying your shoes... IMO.


 
Hehe you can move, but you've still the problem of time it takes, and your movement is slowed by holding on to them. I guess I just view the time it takes to sieze and lock an opponent, as time that could be better spent tossing him at someone else, or running in girlish terror.
And my terror gets pretty girlish.
Just personal opinion on it anyway mate :ultracool


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 24, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> or running in girlish terror.



That is always an option...  Who knows it could humor them into submission 



Shotgun Buddha said:


> Just personal opinion on it anyway mate :ultracool



That is understood.  Likewise!


----------



## morph4me (Oct 24, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Hehe you can move, but you've still the problem of time it takes, and your movement is slowed by holding on to them. I guess I just view the time it takes to sieze and lock an opponent, as time that could be better spent tossing him at someone else, or running in girlish terror.
> And my terror gets pretty girlish.
> Just personal opinion on it anyway mate :ultracool


 
My movement has never been slowed by holding on to someone, their movement has speeded up  especially when I have the advantage of girlish terror to give me an extra burst of speed


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 25, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Knowing how to lock someone is useful, but its important to know when its appropriate for.
> Personally I figure a lock is only required in any situation where you cannot flee after there is violent contact.



I have to disagree.

You are using the term "lock" when I would use the term "restraint technique." One may be related to the other, but they are different animals.

Take this as a hypothetical situation. What if someone comes after you with a knife? In most situations, you would want to control the weapon. That means grabbing the knife hand if you can. What do you do when you do that? You really can't let go to strike the other guy. Use of minor joint locks like those against the fingers or wrist might be your best bet while you use the other limb to deal with everything else he throws at you.

And if you can't keep the lock on past the point he drops the knife (which is the case with many finger locks) then you are still in a hell of a lot better position than when you started.

And then they is the case of when you throw a punch and he throws up his arm to block it. I have learned rather nasty techniques of _not_ retracting my hand but rather have it slide down the blocking arm until I get that old familiar hold on the wrist I am so in love with. Then I have another way to break through his defenses other than trying to beat them down. If they only get me to the point where he is off balance, on the way to the ground and open to my attacks, I really don't care if I need to stick around after the fight or if I can run.

So as long as we are sure that joint locks do not need to always be restraint techniques I think we will see eye to eye and we can help each other see new things. I like your idea that running is the first thing you should be thinking about if you don't need to hold the guy down some way. But I hope I made it clear that you can use joint locks even if that is the case.:cheers:


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 25, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> You are using the term "lock" when I would use the term "restraint technique." One may be related to the other, but they are different animals.
> 
> ...


 
I'd view the opponent as having a weapon as a reason not being able to flee though, so I wouldn't be against locking an opponent in those circumstances. A knife in the back makes a very convincing arguement for not leaving an opponent with a weapon.
I woundn't try locking by the hand or wrist though, because of how messy that could get. Most small joint locks leave an opponent with too much balance and leverage for my liking to perform on their own.
Instead I'd be looking to lock via the shoulder, and then elbow, so that they have limited movement, trying to bring them down to the ground face first if possible, and then lock the wrist at that point to take the knife.
Im trying to avoid being techniques specific on this because of how completely random knife-attack patterns can be, as they usually only follow the pattern of "stabby-slashy-kill-kill"

Im not saying that joint locks don't have a place in self-defence, just that in unarmed cases that striking and throwing are of more use.
Cheers mate.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 25, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> That is always an option... Who knows it could humor them into submission


 
Humour them? You underestimate the awesome might of my girlish terror, a spectatcle which has rendered grown men paralysed with embarassment.


----------



## Drac (Oct 25, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Humour them? You underestimate the awesome might of my girlish terror, a spectatcle which has rendered grown men paralysed with embarassment.


 
LOL...


----------



## MJS (Oct 25, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> I'd view the opponent as having a weapon as a reason not being able to flee though, so I wouldn't be against locking an opponent in those circumstances. A knife in the back makes a very convincing arguement for not leaving an opponent with a weapon.
> I woundn't try locking by the hand or wrist though, because of how messy that could get. Most small joint locks leave an opponent with too much balance and leverage for my liking to perform on their own.
> Instead I'd be looking to lock via the shoulder, and then elbow, so that they have limited movement, trying to bring them down to the ground face first if possible, and then lock the wrist at that point to take the knife.
> Im trying to avoid being techniques specific on this because of how completely random knife-attack patterns can be, as they usually only follow the pattern of "stabby-slashy-kill-kill"
> ...


 
Its always good to hear other viewpoints on this topic.  Thanks for your thoughts.

For me, I've had good luck with locks.  One thing that is key, is to always keep the pressure on.  Doing this, the person should be moving where you want them to go.  This is another reason why I like the lock flow, as it allows you to transition from one to the next, in the event something goes wrong.

Mike


----------



## Brother John (Oct 25, 2006)

> Personally I figure a lock is only required in any situation where you cannot flee after there is violent contact.


Again: this may go to prove the point that no-ones ever really taught you joint locks. The term "Lock" does make it sound like something you are going to use to KEEP someone still for a while. Some locks are good for that. But the term "Lock" merely denotes that you've taken a joint to the point that it can no longer articulate...in other words, it's in YOUR control now. I prefer the term "joint manipulation" because of this. Joint manipulations are some of the best ways to effect a throw and/or sweep/takedown. The difference between a joint "lock" and a joint "Break" or rupture, is a matter of a centimeter or so. So really it's not always about "Holding" them as it is disabling one of their limbs. Also a joint lock causes the opponent to move in a certain way, whether by pain compliance or through mechanical force, and this can open up some of the best finishing strikes and like I said before: takedowns/sweeps/throws...etc. OFTEN a well applied joint 'lock' IS it's own throw, causing them to dump quickly. 


> In most cases the best plan for surviving conflict is get the hell out of there as fast as possible.


Sure is!!!
BUT: if this is your reasoning for not learning/practicing joint locks then why the heck even study martial arts at all? Why not just practice quick sprints and running in a zig-zag pattern? Because if this is your rationale for not learning joint locks, it's just as applicable for not learning ANY feature of the martial arts: Kicks, strikes, throws, escapes, chokes...etc.


> Sticking around and locking an aggressor runs contrary to that.


further evidence that no one has ever taught you joint locks!
You think that in order to make use of a joint lock I need to "Stick around", like it's time consuming.
Joint locks are quick! Often in the blink of an eye, one moment they have control of their limb.....the next...YOU do. I don't see how that's NOT effective combat. When you have control of one of their limbs you have a profound impact on their ability to move the rest of their body.
...and it's not 'time consuming' at all. Sometimes, it's a real time saver.


> 3 - You need this person intact


Actually, you made a good point with this one....but in favor of joint locks, but again, you didn't go far enough. 
Joint locks have a greater range of possible outcomes than mere striking does. When you strike, you smash...end of story. When you lock, you control...if it needs to go to the next level....you UP the pain with the flick of your wrist.....Need another level? Press further and disrupt the joint completely. I can use joint locks to keep a persons physical integrity intact, or to maim them! Greater level of control through a greater range of options.


> Pain in not a reliable factor. Pain tolerance, adrenaline and chemical substances can skew it too much for it to ever be reliable.


That's true. But you'd be amazed how seldom adrenaline is sufficient to overcome all pain, and not everyone who fights is hopped up on some street drug... pain is applicable and useable more often than it is not. Besides, again you show that you think joint locks only cause pain...
I don't need them to "Feel" the joint lock for it to be 100% useful to me and my tactics. If I break a drug freaks wrist and then later he tries to punch me with that hand....because he doesn't feel the break.......his punch isn't nearly the threat it could have been. And when he tries to grab me with that hand?? Nope, it just won't work....because the mechanical element of his hand just won't work. If I disrupt his shoulder? Same thing, much less effective in Everything! If I break his elbow? Punches? no.. nothing more than flinging a dangly limb at me. Grabs? no...limp noodle.
If I disrupt his knee....my chances for your favorite tactic, runing, to be effective just trippled. Easily.
Pain? I don't need no stinking pain...
What about your tactics for an advancing aggressor who's on some street drugs, crazed out of his gord? I see you do MMA, including Kyukoshinkai...
would you strike him? Kick him? Would he "feel" it? 
It's much easier to break a joint with a joint lock than to cause that level of damage with strikes...


> The lock must remove the opponents balance


It very often does, which is a Wonderful tactic..
but it doesn't Need too.


> The lock must remove the opponents leverage


That's one of the main points of all joint locks. It mechanically takes control of a limb, thus they lose their leverage with that limb and often others. 
...but if it doesn't, I can still use it to my advantage...


> The lock must involve a large joint. Small joint manipulation should only be used as aid to larger joing locks. For example, don't try and lock someone by the fingers or wrist. Lock the shoulder and use the fingers for added control instead.


That's a wonderful tactic, the multi-joint joint lock, but then you'd be advocating joint locks. The fine joint locks are good for heightening control, and only good as a set up when used alone....but they do work. I know, I've used them in actual confrontations and so have some of my students.
They work.


> You cannot lock someone indefinitely. Sooner or later, they will find a way out. Even if that involves doing themself harm, just like an animal gnawing its leg off when its stuck in a bear trap.


:barf:  ...hahaha....I like that. HEY...if they want to permanently damage themselves to get out of a lock..._more POWER too'm._ Who in the world wants to "lock someone indefinitely". It's a Fight, we're not moving in with them so that we can maintain a lock. That's funny.
Would you rather face a four legged wolf or a three legged wolf? Besides, I'd have had LOTS of time...while he was gnawing his own leg off, to grab my gun/knife and or large rock and do him TONS of permanent damage.

as you said: On to pressure points.


> Never bother with pressure point striking. Adrenaline dump renders fine motor skills useless, so pin-point striking chops shall be henceforth reserved for GI-Joe figures


Actually, most don't need you to be THAT exact. If this were the case, then targetting at all with your strikes/kicks would be useless and you should just say "Kicking high, middle, low...". Most of the pressure-points or nerves are in bundles or groups, if you strike that area, you affect one or more. Period. I do it all the time, in the heat of the moment, while in motion. I've also targeted very specific ones...and hit them dead on while in motion with a resistive opponent.
The use of pressure points in striking was very important to Lots of prominent martial artists down through time, including Gichin Funakoshi....a very practical/pragmatic martial artist who said in one of his books: "Never strike unless to a kyusho, or it is a wasted strike." (Kyusho being one term for what we generally call a "Pressure Point") Chojun Miyagi, founder of Goju Ryu Karate-Do, felt the same way. MANY traditional styles of Jujutsu make consistent use of pressure points in their moves, to great effect. Do you figure these folks didn't know what they were talking about? 



> Use of pressure point during locks follows same rules as small joint manipulation, use as an aid to large joint locks, not on its own.


I don't remember Anyone suggesting that you even could use pressure points "on their own"..
what would that even look like? Just walk up and poke them?
Sounds like "Chun", from the movie Remo Williams.

Pressure point use IS something that must be used in conjuction or rather through the medium of your art. Anything else doesn't even make sense.

Your Brother
John


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 25, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Which part of that are you viewing as being in conflict?
> Strikes such as elbow strikes to the temple or or jaw, or upper-cut to the solar plexus, are gross motor skills. With practice, they'll still function under an adrenaline dump.
> Pressure points for the most part are areas sensitive to pain. Thats different from shocking the central nervous system. For example when someone is KO'd by a strike to the head, its nothing to do with pain. They've been hit hard enough to shock the brain, so it crashes.
> Likewise punching the solar plexus causes the the lungs to sieze up, which has nothing to do with pain. Its just the body cannot function the way its supposed to and crashes.
> ...


 
"Pressure points for the most part are areas sensitive to pain. "
I see now... I understood your two statements that I quoted as conflicting because of our different definitions of "pressure point". The way we train it, pain is completely irrelevant to the proper use of pressure points. It is an entertaining and occaisonally useful by-product, that is all. The stuff you describe as "shocking the central nervous system" and "body cannot function the way it is supposed to" is pretty much how I define the use of pressure points.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 25, 2006)

Brother John said:


> Again: this may go to prove the point that no-ones ever really taught you joint locks. The term "Lock" does make it sound like something you are going to use to KEEP someone still for a while. Some locks are good for that. But the term "Lock" merely denotes that you've taken a joint to the point that it can no longer articulate...in other words, it's in YOUR control now. I prefer the term "joint manipulation" because of this. Joint manipulations are some of the best ways to effect a throw and/or sweep/takedown. The difference between a joint "lock" and a joint "Break" or rupture, is a matter of a centimeter or so. So really it's not always about "Holding" them as it is disabling one of their limbs. Also a joint lock causes the opponent to move in a certain way, whether by pain compliance or through mechanical force, and this can open up some of the best finishing strikes and like I said before: takedowns/sweeps/throws...etc. OFTEN a well applied joint 'lock' IS it's own throw, causing them to dump quickly.
> 
> 
> Sure is!!!
> ...


 
Question, have you in some way confused me with the original poster? Im finding the bit where you state repeatedly that "no one thought me joint locks" a tad condescending, and I was wondering if you've perhaps mixed us up somehow?
Im currently training in Aikido, Judo and BJJ, and I previously did Ninpo, so I can cheerfully say, Yes, people HAVE thought me joint-locking.
So to clarify, are you confusing me with the OP?
I'll deal with the points raised once I get this sorted, rather than having a rambling arguement where neither side is quite getting the other.
That ok?


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 25, 2006)

DavidCC said:


> "Pressure points for the most part are areas sensitive to pain. "
> I see now... I understood your two statements that I quoted as conflicting because of our different definitions of "pressure point". The way we train it, pain is completely irrelevant to the proper use of pressure points. It is an entertaining and occaisonally useful by-product, that is all. The stuff you describe as "shocking the central nervous system" and "body cannot function the way it is supposed to" is pretty much how I define the use of pressure points.


 
I know alot of people who seeemed focused on the pain aspect of pressure points too much I guess. Generally I heard the term used in conjunction with the phrase "they'll be immobilised by the pain" which led to the raising of my eyebrow.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 25, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Question, have you in some way confused me with the original poster? Im finding the bit where you state repeatedly that "no one thought me joint locks" a tad condescending, and I was wondering if you've perhaps mixed us up somehow?
> Im currently training in Aikido, Judo and BJJ, and I previously did Ninpo, so I can cheerfully say, Yes, people HAVE thought me joint-locking.
> So to clarify, are you confusing me with the OP?
> I'll deal with the points raised once I get this sorted, rather than having a rambling arguement where neither side is quite getting the other.
> That ok?


I don't think I am. I know him.

I guess it was condescending to state it like that. I'm sorry then...

I guess it would be better to say that I disagree with your stance on these two things...
care to discuss the points?

Your Brother
John


----------



## pete (Oct 25, 2006)

seems like one thing i notice missing from this conversation is the strategy of joint locks/manipulations.  i learn this from training chin na (qinna). 
first, as i've been taught, the object is not to lock the joint you are grabbing for control, whether it be finger, wrist, elbow, sholder, etc. 
that is mearly your entry point in controling their spine and their center. 
cause them discomfort, take away their leverage and or footing, making their continued assault powerless, and putting you into the position of control.  
from their you then have choices; you can take them down by throw or sweep, you can strike by fist or foot, or you can continue to crank the lock to force submission or injury to their joints or tendons. 
chin na is part of the arsenal, not the ends and means to all.  a complete martial art is defined by chinese as having ti (kicking) da (striking) shuai (wrestling/takedowns) & chin na (seize and control), and used as appropriate for the situation and in combinations to support eachother.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 25, 2006)

Sure throw Qinna theory application and logic into it 

Not that you need reinforcement here but this is exactly as it was explained to me by the Qinna master I referred to earlier with one difference; he added you can also kill them. This shocked some in the group, but as he said, it was made for war. 

And if I remember correctly he said pretty much what you said to be a complete martial artist you need kicking and striking and you need Wrestling/takedowns to counter kicking and striking and you need Seize and control to counter Wrestling/takedowns and you need kicking and striking to counter Seize and control. I may have that in the wrong order, if so please feel free to correct me.


----------



## MJS (Oct 25, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Question, have you in some way confused me with the original poster?


 
I'm guessing that you're referring to me as the OP?  If so, I'm not sure where any confusion would be, as I'm all for locks.  After spending quite some time training in Arnis, I feel that I'm more than comfortable with locks and their applications. 

Mike


----------



## Don Roley (Oct 25, 2006)

pete said:


> seems like one thing i notice missing from this conversation is the strategy of joint locks/manipulations.  i learn this from training chin na (qinna).
> first, as i've been taught, the object is not to lock the joint you are grabbing for control, whether it be finger, wrist, elbow, sholder, etc.
> that is mearly your entry point in controling their spine and their center.
> cause them discomfort, take away their leverage and or footing, making their continued assault powerless, and putting you into the position of control.



That has been my experience as well. It is not merely about pain, or controlling the limb/joint. But that fulcrum allows you to leverage the other guy long enough to do something. Maybe take him down, control him or get him off you.


----------



## Keikai (Oct 25, 2006)

Why do people talk of not using wrist locks against weapons? The Tsutsumi system of ju jutsu uses 5 wrist locks, 2 elbow locks and 2 shoulder locks. We rarely do finger locks at all. The majority of our defences against weapons are locks because it means the attacker cannot use the weapon agaisnt us. Usually we take it off them as the final move of the locking action.

Fingers are hard to get in a fight situation against punches or weapon attacks. My sensei always advocated going for the weakest joints first. The wrist is the weakest next to the fingers, elbow then shoulder. Against a knife or stick a wrist lock is VERY effective when combined with unbalancing and by unbalancing I don't usually mean striking unbalancing. Physically moving the centre of gravity outside the support of the feet is the more effective and reliable option.

Locks to us, by definition, mean that the person cannot escape and cannot get at the defender by any means. They are tied up totally. Most of our locks finish up with the attacker on the ground still in the original lock or there has been a fluid transition to a new lock.

We train and grade for when there is strong resistance to the application of a lock and have to re-unbalance and apply a new lock or to throws and takedowns. The ability to change from one lock to the other eight locks is developed and depends on the type of resistance. For some locks and situations it is not possible to get all eight but certainly five is easily possible.

Good locks require good unbalancing or the chance of success is dimished.

Greg Palmer

Tsutsumi Ryu Ju Jutsu


----------



## thetruth (Oct 26, 2006)

Brother John said:


> I don't remember Anyone suggesting that you even could use pressure points "on their own"..
> what would that even look like? Just walk up and poke them?
> Sounds like "Chun", from the movie Remo Williams.
> 
> ...



With joint locks I guess you couldn't entirely rely on points but I think that they meant that your technique must be spot on first before the use of pressure points rather than using the points to actually get you into the lock in the first place. I hope that makes sense.  The striking version of this would be the tippy tap crap rather than smacking them and using the points to augment an already effective technique.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## thetruth (Oct 26, 2006)

DavidCC said:


> "Pressure points for the most part are areas sensitive to pain. "
> I see now... I understood your two statements that I quoted as conflicting because of our different definitions of "pressure point". The way we train it, pain is completely irrelevant to the proper use of pressure points. It is an entertaining and occaisonally useful by-product, that is all. The stuff you describe as "shocking the central nervous system" and "body cannot function the way it is supposed to" is pretty much how I define the use of pressure points.



Some pressure points effect the central nervous system and body function but as far as locks go this is not exactly true.  The points that would be used during the application of locks are the ones around the area which release the joint and allow the application of the lock.  You have to be very accurate with this which is why I would recommend being able to get the lock on first and either use the point to assist in maintaining it or to inflict pain.  Also there are plenty of points which induce pain and are able to be used to just hurt someone.   Lastly to be able to maintain an effective joint lock for any substantial amount of time you must be able to hold the individual in a position and only inflict the pain when they struggle as this will disuade them from further attempts.  It is very hard to do and I have not met anyone who could maintain it for too long.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## thetruth (Oct 26, 2006)

Also one last thing on pressure points and their effect on the central nervous system.  If you are defending yourself from someone then it should be impossible to tell whether you affected their central nervous system etc. with pressure points as you will have hit them with full force regardless and whether they went down from a pressure point combination or the force of your strike is inconsequential. The only way you can tell is with tippy tap crap and that is for dog and pony shows.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 26, 2006)

for both posts.


I've said this before, regarding this issue, for self defense stick to the big targets and keep it simple. Those areas will be hard enough to strike, fully, during an altercation, with all of the factors going on, then to worry about pin pointing or sequencing small areas on the body.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 26, 2006)

MJS said:


> I'm guessing that you're referring to me as the OP? If so, I'm not sure where any confusion would be, as I'm all for locks. After spending quite some time training in Arnis, I feel that I'm more than comfortable with locks and their applications.
> 
> Mike


 
Hehe sorry actually I made a mistake there. For some odd reason I had the notion in my head that Loaded Luke was the guy who started the thread, and since he was the first to dismiss the locks, that I was being confused with him.
I have absolutely no idea how I reached that conclusion, I blame it on trying to (work/pretend Im working/vegetate) and post at the same time.
Apologies for that, and and apologies to Brother John also.


----------



## MJS (Oct 26, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Hehe sorry actually I made a mistake there. For some odd reason I had the notion in my head that Loaded Luke was the guy who started the thread, and since he was the first to dismiss the locks, that I was being confused with him.
> I have absolutely no idea how I reached that conclusion, I blame it on trying to (work/pretend Im working/vegetate) and post at the same time.
> Apologies for that, and and apologies to Brother John also.


 
No problem.   Yeah, after 7 pages, and alot of posts, my eyes get confused too! 

Mike


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 26, 2006)

Brother John said:


> I don't think I am. I know him.
> 
> I guess it was condescending to state it like that. I'm sorry then...
> 
> ...


 
Sure no problem mate, I just wanted to clarify that first. Always best to debate with a clear head right?



> Again: this may go to prove the point that no-ones ever really taught you joint locks. The term "Lock" does make it sound like something you are going to use to KEEP someone still for a while. Some locks are good for that. But the term "Lock" merely denotes that you've taken a joint to the point that it can no longer articulate...in other words, it's in YOUR control now. I prefer the term "joint manipulation" because of this. Joint manipulations are some of the best ways to effect a throw and/or sweep/takedown. The difference between a joint "lock" and a joint "Break" or rupture, is a matter of a centimeter or so. So really it's not always about "Holding" them as it is disabling one of their limbs. Also a joint lock causes the opponent to move in a certain way, whether by pain compliance or through mechanical force, and this can open up some of the best finishing strikes and like I said before: takedowns/sweeps/throws...etc. OFTEN a well applied joint 'lock' IS it's own throw, causing them to dump quickly.


 
If a technique is being performed as a throw, then its a throw, and I already advocate those for use in self-defence. When I think of lock, I think of locking the opponents movement, which to my mind is completely different from throwing them.
As for breaking, I personally don't agree with it. Not because of any moral squeamishness, but because

1. Its not something you can practice fully on someone on a regular basis, for obvious reasons. This means that since Ive never performed the action, I don't consider being able to perform it under pressure reliable. This is a personal thing, not a statement that it can't be done. Just that since I haven't actually DONE it, I don't want to rely on it. I have learned how, and Ive made sure I know and have gone over how quite a bit, but I prefer to focus on stuff I can practice reliably. 

2. The legal mess. People are getting sue happy these days, so my objective in self-defence is not just to survive, but to survive hassle free afterwards if possible. And where Im from breaking something is like a mating call for criminals lawyers.



> Sure is!!!
> BUT: if this is your reasoning for not learning/practicing joint locks then why the heck even study martial arts at all? Why not just practice quick sprints and running in a zig-zag pattern? Because if this is your rationale for not learning joint locks, it's just as applicable for not learning ANY feature of the martial arts: Kicks, strikes, throws, escapes, chokes...etc.


 
I never said I didn't learn joint locks. Ive done quite a bit of practice with them, I just feel its best to use the right tool for the right job. And simple fact is, martial arts is actually low enough down of the list of effective ways of dealing with a conflict.
The "soft skills" section of self-defence, situational awareness training, verbal de-escalation, all the elements of AVOIDING a problem in the first place, take precedence.
Scrolling down the list of effective way of dealing with the problem, we still have the conclusion that the best method is getting the hell out of there. And then we figure out how martial arts training can be of the most use there, and tools like strikes and throws come to the fore.
So why learn martial at all? Well primarily because you enjoy it, which to me is the most important reason for why anyone should do it.
And secondly because its always important to have a back up plan. If trouble does occur, and can't be avoided, then being able to fight is pretty damn useful. How you fight though should still be dictated by what the most effective means of dealing with the problem are.



> further evidence that no one has ever taught you joint locks!
> You think that in order to make use of a joint lock I need to "Stick around", like it's time consuming.
> Joint locks are quick! Often in the blink of an eye, one moment they have control of their limb.....the next...YOU do. I don't see how that's NOT effective combat. When you have control of one of their limbs you have a profound impact on their ability to move the rest of their body.
> ...and it's not 'time consuming' at all. Sometimes, it's a real time saver.


 
As I said, I consider locking to be by nature restraint.And yes locking is time consuming. If you are fighting an opponent, who has even a REMOTE idea of how to fight, its going to be difficult securing a decent lock. Unless of course, you work on the assumption that you're attacker can;t fight, which to me is too risky an assumption. The sort of person who is going to actually attack you, has probably had a fair bit of practice at it. 



> Actually, you made a good point with this one....but in favor of joint locks, but again, you didn't go far enough.
> Joint locks have a greater range of possible outcomes than mere striking does. When you strike, you smash...end of story. When you lock, you control...if it needs to go to the next level....you UP the pain with the flick of your wrist.....Need another level? Press further and disrupt the joint completely. I can use joint locks to keep a persons physical integrity intact, or to maim them! Greater level of control through a greater range of options.


 
In self-defence, you want end of story. The more possible outcomes there are to something, the higher the risk of something going wrong. Thats why most self-dfence courses focus alot on gross motor based strikes. I know it seems great to have many possibilties in a fight, but the more possiblities there are the higher the risk tou yourself. Especially because of how that effects the body.
Under the effects of adrenaline, as per Hicks Law, the more reactions the body has to choose from, the longer it takes to pick one.
And since adrenaline dump also cancels out fine motor skills, an awful lot of small joint manipulation becomes near impossible to perform under that kind of pressure.



> That's true. But you'd be amazed how seldom adrenaline is sufficient to overcome all pain, and not everyone who fights is hopped up on some street drug... pain is applicable and useable more often than it is not. Besides, again you show that you think joint locks only cause pain...
> I don't need them to "Feel" the joint lock for it to be 100% useful to me and my tactics. If I break a drug freaks wrist and then later he tries to punch me with that hand....because he doesn't feel the break.......his punch isn't nearly the threat it could have been. And when he tries to grab me with that hand?? Nope, it just won't work....because the mechanical element of his hand just won't work. If I disrupt his shoulder? Same thing, much less effective in Everything! If I break his elbow? Punches? no.. nothing more than flinging a dangly limb at me. Grabs? no...limp noodle.
> If I disrupt his knee....my chances for your favorite tactic, runing, to be effective just trippled. Easily.
> Pain? I don't need no stinking pain...


 
I believe I already raised my points about breaking? Simple fact is, I don't trust it to be reliable since I haven't done it on someone before.



> What about your tactics for an advancing aggressor who's on some street drugs, crazed out of his gord? I see you do MMA, including Kyukoshinkai...
> would you strike him? Kick him? Would he "feel" it?
> It's much easier to break a joint with a joint lock than to cause that level of damage with strikes...


See above point about breaking. Drop him to the ground, and run like hell. Which is partly the reason why I practice Free Running alot, being able to clear a twelve foot wall in about half a second is a very useful survival trait.



> It very often does, which is a Wonderful tactic..
> but it doesn't Need too.


 
Remember, I refer to locking as restraint. And for restraining someone, removing balance is imperative.



> That's one of the main points of all joint locks. It mechanically takes control of a limb, thus they lose their leverage with that limb and often others.
> ...but if it doesn't, I can still use it to my advantage...


 
For restraint work, if they still have leverage, you still have a very big problem.



> That's a wonderful tactic, the multi-joint joint lock, but then you'd be advocating joint locks. The fine joint locks are good for heightening control, and only good as a set up when used alone....but they do work. I know, I've used them in actual confrontations and so have some of my students.
> They work.


No its not advocating joint locks. Its advocating using the joint locks correctly when they end up being used.



> :barf: ...hahaha....I like that. HEY...if they want to permanently damage themselves to get out of a lock..._more POWER too'm._ Who in the world wants to "lock someone indefinitely". It's a Fight, we're not moving in with them so that we can maintain a lock. That's funny.
> Would you rather face a four legged wolf or a three legged wolf? Besides, I'd have had LOTS of time...while he was gnawing his own leg off, to grab my gun/knife and or large rock and do him TONS of permanent damage.


 
Remember, Im interpeting locking as restraint work. Therefore him damaging himself, or you braining him with rock, runs contrary to that.



> Actually, most don't need you to be THAT exact. If this were the case, then targetting at all with your strikes/kicks would be useless and you should just say "Kicking high, middle, low...". Most of the pressure-points or nerves are in bundles or groups, if you strike that area, you affect one or more. Period. I do it all the time, in the heat of the moment, while in motion. I've also targeted very specific ones...and hit them dead on while in motion with a resistive opponent.
> The use of pressure points in striking was very important to Lots of prominent martial artists down through time, including Gichin Funakoshi....a very practical/pragmatic martial artist who said in one of his books: "Never strike unless to a kyusho, or it is a wasted strike." (Kyusho being one term for what we generally call a "Pressure Point") Chojun Miyagi, founder of Goju Ryu Karate-Do, felt the same way. MANY traditional styles of Jujutsu make consistent use of pressure points in their moves, to great effect. Do you figure these folks didn't know what they were talking about?


 
I wasn't there, therefore I can't make any declarations about whether or not they know what they were talking about. My concept on pressure point striking is probably refferring to something slightly different than yours here. Ive been subjected to lot of Dillman like rants about their mystical effects, so when I think of the term, I don't think of standard targerts such as jaw, temple, solar plexus, groin, etc so much as the general ranting about one touch ko's.
So we're probably getting a bit of a communications error there more than anything. I just try to keep the target area fairly large, because I don't want to try and hit a small target under pressure.



> I don't remember Anyone suggesting that you even could use pressure points "on their own"..
> what would that even look like? Just walk up and poke them?
> Sounds like "Chun", from the movie Remo Williams.


According the George Dillman, he doesn't even have to be touching them. Hence my distrust of the term. God that man is such a friggin charlatan.

Looking forward to discussing this with you more.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 26, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Hehe sorry actually I made a mistake there. For some odd reason I had the notion in my head that Loaded Luke was the guy who started the thread, and since he was the first to dismiss the locks, that I was being confused with him..


 
AHA!!!!!!!!
You were RIGHT! I was confusing you with Loaded Luke!!
The only thing you had wrong was WHOM I was confusing you with...

....very very sorry.....
Your Brother
John


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 27, 2006)

Brother John said:


> AHA!!!!!!!!
> You were RIGHT! I was confusing you with Loaded Luke!!
> The only thing you had wrong was WHOM I was confusing you with...
> 
> ...


 
Hehe no worries mate, I figured there was some confusion. And was then was confused myself it seems.


----------



## Drac (Oct 27, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> According the George Dillman, he doesn't even have to be touching them. Hence my distrust of the term. God that man is such a friggin charlatan.


 
Boy if that were true I'd probably never be written up again for claims of excessive force...


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 27, 2006)

:rofl:

"I guess.... he ......felldown?"


----------



## Brother John (Oct 27, 2006)

a LOT of people, like myself, find Dillman to not be a credible source on a lot of things. Sure....he knows what he knows, but all that he shows?? No. Like the "no touch" junk? Pleeeease.....  I LOVE Kyushojitsu, and I think that stuff _(Every thing is a KO and/or a "no-touch" KO)_ is *bunk*. Also: Dillman over all is just toooo gimmiky, too many parlor tricks laced into the actual info!! So much that they are starting to take over!  

Dillman and his ilk are Not the only source for Kyushojitsu, dian xue, in America!!!    ...and the good stuff isn't ALL about KO's, touch or no-touch.

Your Brother
John


----------



## searcher (Oct 27, 2006)

Many of the Okinawan styles that are just a few generations out of Okinawa are still using good, valid Kyusho.   Dillman and his group have made it a four letter word in most MA circles.   There are more in the CMAs that use it than there are in JMAs.

I and mine still practice Kyusho, though it is in limited amounts in the lower ranks.   We implement more around 4th kyu than at most other ranks.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 27, 2006)

I'm CMA and Dillman is not to highly thought of here either. 

The no touch knockout baloney only leads me to what I say about anyone that claims this. 

All he has done is successfully taught his students how to fall down.


----------



## thetruth (Oct 27, 2006)

searcher said:


> Many of the Okinawan styles that are just a few generations out of Okinawa are still using good, valid Kyusho.   Dillman and his group have made it a four letter word in most MA circles.   There are more in the CMAs that use it than there are in JMAs.
> 
> I and mine still practice Kyusho, though it is in limited amounts in the lower ranks.   We implement more around 4th kyu than at most other ranks.



One thing I will add is that Kyusho would not be the word used in Okinawa for pressure point techniques.  Kyusho's translation is closer to vital points such as the balls, eyes & throat etc. rather than pressure points.  I think it was just a cool Japanese/Okinawan tern for Dillman and the like to use.  

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## HG1 (Oct 27, 2006)

MJS said:


> Are these things that you include into your training? Do you feel that they're worth knowing or do you feel that they're more of a waste of time?


 
Development of basic fighting skills to high level takes priority. These specialization techniques should be veiwed as skill/combat multipliers only when integrated into _existing_ fighting skills. It becomes a waste of time when used as a short cut with no foundation to back it up.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 30, 2006)

One for your post too!


----------



## searcher (Oct 30, 2006)

thetruth said:


> One thing I will add is that Kyusho would not be the word used in Okinawa for pressure point techniques. Kyusho's translation is closer to vital points such as the balls, eyes & throat etc. rather than pressure points. I think it was just a cool Japanese/Okinawan tern for Dillman and the like to use.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
Correct.   Kyusho is vital point striking.   Pressure points are included under the umbrella of vital points.   Trust me, if I do an eye gouge they are going to feel pressure.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 30, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> I never particularly liked those sort of randori "stand-off" scenarios, where you use a person as a human shield. From what Ive seen of attacks involving multiple opponents it tends to be extremely aggressive, and anything which keeps you stationary will result in the opponents swarming you. If I needed to create an obstacle, I'd throw one of the attackers at another, or onto the ground in their path, and then continue attacking. Still be incredibly difficult thing to do though.



It's great in theory...

But the reality is that, unless your Chuck Norris with a fight choreagrapher and stunt men, people don't attack you one at a time.  Grab one, use him as a shield against another, and the third will be coming up from behind you.  They may not be coordinated in their efforts...  but the combined individual efforts of several people to hurt you at the same time will succeed!


----------

