# Locking



## Flatlander (Mar 6, 2006)

Is training ourselves in joint locking really practical for a self defence application?  Why or why not?

In my experience, locking really only comes into play when you have an element of surprise and already have contact, or are the physical superior in an engagement.  In that regard, I don't see locking as being a huge factor if your goal is to gain range and boogie.

Now, not to say that there isn't value in training it - there's a ton of value in learning and understanding lock flow - I'm just wondering if there isn't a tendency to over value locking - to suppose that we might actually be able to subdue attackers with a joint lock.

What say you?


----------



## bignick (Mar 6, 2006)

I'd worry less about locking for control in self defense rather than following through to the lock's conclusion and breaking or dislocating the joint.


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 6, 2006)

> Is training ourselves in joint locking really practical for a self defence application?


 
Yes it is!



> In my experience, locking really only comes into play when you have an element of surprise and already have contact, or are the physical superior in an engagement.


 
I do not mean to offend you...but you have very little idea about joint locking! A joint lock is not dependent on size or strength of the user. It has little to do with surprise or already having contact! Basically it comes down to blending with your opponents strike and sticking to that limb....a good example of this is a kake uke  
*



( open hand middle block ) begins with the palm facing UP, towards the sky, not palm facing the opponent as most would believe. The block comes out of chamber across the body at about a 45* angle, both out and up. It is the mid-forearm that makes the initial contact with the incoming attacking limb. At that point, the forearm makes a sort of semi circle, starting at the level of interception, going up, and as the semi circle drops down, thats when the palm then rotates, facing down, to facilitate the "grab" of the opponents arm (for a punch lets say).

Click to expand...

*

a descripton of kake uke by Sensei Jules Hoenig!

Also let us say that you have grabbed the offending apendage....it is not a matter of brute strength but teachnique....lets say you have your grip on his wrist...he then pulls his arm back towards his body...you step forward and apply your lock....or if he tries to push his arm towards your body...you step backward and apply your lock....*THE ANGLE OF RESISTANCE IS THE ANGLE OF ATTACK!*.....if he tries to stand stationary and resist with his strength....you spearhand him in the armpit, smack him upside the head, kick or knee to the groin, grab the side of his stomach, palm heel to solar plex, punch floating rib.....whatever..and then apply your lock!

Strength really has little to do with it...I am 117kg...I get hurled around in hapkido by people half my size...joints just arent made to turn inthe fashion of joint locks and it doesnt matter how strong you are muscles and bones are two very different things!



> Now, not to say that there isn't value in training it - there's a ton of value in learning and understanding lock flow - I'm just wondering if there isn't a tendency to over value locking - to suppose that we might actually be able to subdue attackers with a joint lock.


 
I for one have used it often, when I worked the doors in n ight clubs...I use it more than I throw strikes....why because I understand them, I train hard at it. I have disarmed knives, I have fought of multiple opponents using HKD! I think that it comes down to a aikidoka, hapkidoist, jujitsu player will be better and have a diffrent idea about locking than say a Jeet Kung Doist, Tae KWon Do ist ansd Muay Thai fighter!

By the same token I would hate to try to out kick a TKD/MT fighter...but I dont believe so much in kicks.

I also believe what you think...well not just you, but people in MA generally think along what I can do lines...basically a person that cant pull off locks...sees little ort no value in it. A person who cannot sucessfully
box but is a sucessful JUdoka sees more value in one than the other!



> What say you?


 
Joint locks are the best way to defend yourself, because it gives YOU the control as to how much the violence escalates! And I think that you need to not only look at the techniques but at its applications..the things that need to be done before attempting the lock...and the things after the lock is applied!


----------



## Marvin (Mar 6, 2006)

bignick said:
			
		

> I'd worry less about locking for control in self defense rather than following through to the lock's conclusion and breaking or dislocating the joint.


I didn't quite understand that, could you explain it again please. If I seem dense it's cuz I am 
Thanks
Marvin


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 6, 2006)

In a SD application yes it has a lot of value. Particularly if you're in a situation where you can't readily get away. By momentarily subduing your attacker/antagonist you gain a precious few moments to think your way and perhaps (though sometimes not likely) to reason with them. 
I had a guy who was wanting to "put the hurt" on me. After avoiding all that I could from our physical contact we "got in to it" and I managed to get him into a nice arm/neck lock that basically with a little pressure would've put the hurt seriously on him as in hospitalization and perhaps a wheelchair confinment for the rest of his life. I told him thus and he relented. 

Not always and not in every SD situation but it does come in handy.


----------



## bignick (Mar 6, 2006)

Marvin said:
			
		

> I didn't quite understand that, could you explain it again please. If I seem dense it's cuz I am
> Thanks
> Marvin



No prob...

In theory, a joint lock works by taking a joint outside of it's ROM (range of motion).  When this starts to happen the body sends pain signals to the brain to try to prevent injury.  This is where the term "pain compliance" comes into play.  Once you start to take the joint outside of the ROM there is only so far you can go before you start damaging the joint, either by dislocating it or tearing ligaments free, etc.  If this is a true self defense situation...I'd worry less about trying to control someone with pain and try my best to remove one of their weapons/defenses.  Applying a joint lock hard and fast limits or removes the other persons ability to "go with it" and this is where you get that type of damage.  If you would like more detail I can do my best to give an example.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 6, 2006)

bignick said:
			
		

> If you would like more detail I can do my best to give an example.



While I understand what you're saying, please do anyway.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 7, 2006)

I love joint locks and train with them often.  I also spent some time bouncing and guarding bodies and have had chances to find out their value in s-d.

I find that the intricate joint locks rely on too much precision for _me_ to use in combat.  More skilled people might be able to lock them in.  The more basic arm bars, leg bars and body creases work like a charm.

The other important aspect if not to focus on the lock for its own sake.  Use the lock to distract, offset and position your opponent for your power shots.  Or to knock them down so you're 50 yards away at a dead sprint by the time they're back on their feet.

My 1 1/3 cents canadian.


----------



## Simon Curran (Mar 7, 2006)

I see value in training joint locks for self defence purposes because they are just another tool to have in the tool box, might never need it or even get to use it, but it is there if the necessity arises.


----------



## Marvin (Mar 7, 2006)

So BigNick, what you are saying is the intent should be to break or dislocate the joint, not to "control" it?


----------



## bdparsons (Mar 7, 2006)

I posted this reply on another thread that dealt with basically the same subject:

The process of joint manipulation to detain is using hyper-extension and hyper-flexion to selectively apply and release pressure to "persuade" an opponnent to behave accordingly, even if it means setting them up for a strike which is many times a viable option..

The process of joint manipulation to disable is to take the hyper-extension or hyper-flexion to the level at which structural damge to the joint occurs in the form of torn ligaments, muscles & tendons; even to the point of joint seperation and dislocation. 

While things such as arc, angle and pressure are important in both detaining and disabling, the difference lies in time and results. Frankly in the multi-attacker scenario mentioned time spent detaining an attacker is time spent losing. By the same token to use disabling manipulation takes no more time, in fact often less time, than locking and then striking, multi-tasking if you will. It's quicker, more powerful and frees up the defender to move on to the next threat. The results speak for themselves. Can the attacker continue to use their joint effectively after they are released?

Four options.
Lock to Detain
Lock to Throw
Lock to Strike
Lock to Disable

Choose wisely.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## bignick (Mar 7, 2006)

Marvin said:
			
		

> So BigNick, what you are saying is the intent should be to break or dislocate the joint, not to "control" it?



Not really, what I'm saying is that if this is truly a self defense situation and there are possibilities of multiple attackers you don't always have the liberty to detain someone.  When I think "self defense" I think possibility of serious bodily harm, dark alleys, etc...not a schoolyard scuffle or a tiff in a barroom somewhere.  

Pain compliance is fantastic, but I know guys that can lay their palm flat on their forearm, trying to detain someone like that in a joint lock is just gonna get you a smile from them as they're pounding you.  

What I'm saying is, and I should have been more clear, is that restraint is not the only useful application of a joint locks and that you need to explore and think about using them for disabling joints as well.


----------



## MJS (Mar 7, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Is training ourselves in joint locking really practical for a self defence application? Why or why not?
> 
> In my experience, locking really only comes into play when you have an element of surprise and already have contact, or are the physical superior in an engagement. In that regard, I don't see locking as being a huge factor if your goal is to gain range and boogie.
> 
> ...


 
IMO, locks certainly have their place.  Not every situation is going to warrant a knee break or something along those lines.  The nice thing about locks, is that they can easily turn into a break, should that be the case.  I dont think that we should set out to 'find' a lock, but instead take advantage of them as they present themselves.

Mike


----------



## bignick (Mar 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> I dont think that we should set out to 'find' a lock, but instead take advantage of them as they present themselves.



The same goes for pretty much any action.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 7, 2006)

Joint locking also known to Chinese martial artists as Qin Na.

Qin Na is described very much as bignick said, but the terminology I am use to says Joint locking, muscle and tendon tearing. 

The Joint locking Qin Na is great for restraint, the muscle and tendon tearing is great for disabling. But you do have to be very good at hitting the mark correnctly and/or have strong hands. Many Chinese Qin Na master are incredibly strong. But it is not necessarily required; there are points that you do not have to apply much pressure to that can be quite painful.

I once went to a seminar on Qin Na and a person in the group asked the teacher "But what do you do after you have locked them" the teachers response, "kill them, Qin Na was made for war and if you lock someone and let them go they will kill you" The shocked person that asked the question said "but I don't want to kill anyone" teacher response "then be happy you don't live in ancient times" 

Qin Na and/or Joint locking can be very serious, very destructive and as anyone who has been locked knows very painful.

The only martial arts book I ever read that made me cringe and stop reading was a Qin Na book.


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 7, 2006)

I think strong grips are important...not really strength, because you are forcing people outside the ROM using there own force. In HKD Fingertip (I mean Tips) push ups are required for grading..I can only hit about 125 right now...I got a long way to go!


----------



## scottcatchot (Mar 8, 2006)

A strong grip and a decent understanding of body mechanics is the most important IMHO.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 8, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Is training ourselves in joint locking really practical for a self defence application? Why or why not?
> 
> In my experience, locking really only comes into play when you have an element of surprise and already have contact, or are the physical superior in an engagement. In that regard, I don't see locking as being a huge factor if your goal is to gain range and boogie.
> 
> ...


I'm inclined to agree. Locks are IMO not very reliable for restraint, and too complex to apply in a live situation, except against the poorest quality of aggressor. 3-on-1 bouncer scenarios are possibly another issue though.


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 8, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to agree. Locks are IMO not very reliable for restraint, and too complex to apply in a live situation, except against the poorest quality of aggressor. 3-on-1 bouncer scenarios are possibly another issue though.


 
hmmmm....arent you the same kickcatcher that was kicked off fightingarts  for trolling?


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 8, 2006)

Possibly. I used to post on fighting arts and I don't think anyone else uses this nickname so yes. You're h2Whoa right? - long time no meet on the internet, at least not since you got banned from All-krotty and TMAX folded. I hope you're not intending to derail the thread. I'm intrigued to hear your input since you are a NHB fighter and all.


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 8, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Possibly. I used to post on fighting arts and I don't think anyone else uses this nickname so yes. You're h2Whoa right? - long time no meet on the internet, at least not since you got banned from All-krotty and TMAX folded. I hope you're not intending to derail the thread. I'm intrigued to hear your input since you are a NHB fighter and all.


 
I think you and ACA, know why I got kicked off All Karate! So has Bam or jones or whatever you are calling yourself still running All-Karate!


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 8, 2006)

And FYI KICKYBOY....I am not a fighter I am a martial artist...there is a big difference!


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 8, 2006)

No need to get angry with me dear fellow. Let's keep the thread on topic shall we.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to agree. Locks are IMO not very reliable for restraint, and too complex to apply in a live situation, except against the poorest quality of aggressor. 3-on-1 bouncer scenarios are possibly another issue though.


 
I tend to disagree, I have used them for restraint and they have worked very well. But I tended to use the simple ones not the complicated locks.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 8, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I tend to disagree, I have used them for restraint and they have worked very well. But I tended to use the simple ones not the complicated locks.


Which locks have you used? I know two competant martial artists who have each seperately applied text-book locks in an attempt to restrain someone and both times they have been unsuccessful even though the lock is fully applied. Similarly I've found th typical standing locks to be ineffective during alive training. I'm intrigued at which ones have worked for you and why/how.


----------



## Stan (Mar 8, 2006)

I love locks (they're great with bagels, but that's another kettle of fish).  

Seriously though...

Both of the arts that I practice, Modern Arnis and Aikido, use them extensively.  

I'd be interested to hear how people here who train in locks train in _getting to_ the locks.  Different arts have different approaches.  

I first learned joint locks in a Modern Arnis class with a heavy emphasis on the Small Circle influence.  Thus, I not only focused on the minutae of lock mechanics, I also worked on applying locks from various empty hand and stick exchanges.  There are plenty of Arnisadors here who know how much fun it is to try to apply a lock while doing _de Cadena _trapping hands.  I feel that this training has caused me to focus on "stickiness" and the anatomy of locks, so in training I often find a lock when I "feel" it, without having to look for it.  If this makes sense.  

Understanding joints, both objectively and subjectively, also helps with understanding joint locks.  I spend a lot of idle time just stretching my joints, feeling their limits and thinking of what motions produce pain, immobilization, etc.  

When I started Aikido after several years of Arnis, I was able to make most of the joint techniques "work" right away, even if I hadn't learned them in exactly the same form before, because of the training I described above.

Stan


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 8, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Which locks have you used? I know two competant martial artists who have each seperately applied text-book locks in an attempt to restrain someone and both times they have been unsuccessful even though the lock is fully applied. Similarly I've found th typical standing locks to be ineffective during alive training. I'm intrigued at which ones have worked for you and why/how.


 
As I think about it I am not sure all would qualify as a lock, any I have learned can be classified a Qin Na. But a simple wristlock worked rather well, but then it was generally applied with the persons wrist flexed hand pointing down elbow up. If you are a trained martial artist it is rather easy to get out of, but most fortunately none were trained in martial artists, although one did claim to be a trained FBI killer. But then I never gave them time to flail around either; generally they are forced to the wall. 

If they are already down the behind the back lock works too. Dont get me wrong sometime they didnt work and if you do not get them just right they will fail. Also if the person you are in a confrontation with has been on a 3-day beer and heroin bender locks dont work well at all. 

I use to work in security at a Hospital with a mental health and detox unit and the police would bring someone in hand cuffs in, put them in a room take off the cuffs and leave, this is generally not conducive to a peaceful and quiet day at work. I was for the most part able to talk people out of wanting to be violent but on occasion it just was not possible. With 200 incidents in 3 months, just on the shifts I worked and total for the place on all shifts was much greater you got pretty good a talking people out of what they were planning to do. 

Also hitting is right out, that will get you in big big trouble so restraint and locks (Qin Na) were all you had really had if it got violent. This was also before pepper spray became legal to carry. I also was much better at push hands then (more practice) and redirection came in very handy.

Luckily I left there and went to work for the state in security and luckier yet I no longer work in physical security at all.


----------



## Cujo (Mar 8, 2006)

Im a LEO and so I use locks on a regular basis and have had no problem so far. However the intent is to restrain and capture the individual. If the encounter turns to a flat out physical assault against me then locks are out and I escalate the use of force as needed. 
Pax 
Cujo


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

Interesting last two posts. In some regards our positions on locks are closer than may first appear. 

I am fully aware of the limitations placed upon LEOs and related work areas in terms of acceptable ways of restraining people. However, I look at the situation from a civilian in a self-defence situation and who lack the "authority" advantage _often_ provided by being an LEO. 

As you both make clear, locks have limited effect against someone really going for it. They only really fit into the scenario of restraint (_*and blade disarms but let's not go there_) - a situation which is rare for most civilians. The obvious advice is that if someone is going to attack you (as a civilian), do not attempt to restrain them unless you are confident of a MASSIVE physical advantage. That goes for intervening in other people's situations too. 

In terms of restraint, there are four obvious options as I look at it:
1. Pinning against some immovable object (wall, floor etc)
2. Chokeholds
3. Arm locks etc
4. Verbal persuasion

Pinning is a viable option IMO provided you have reasonable grappling skill. One pin that I like but have never used for &#8216;real&#8217; is to get a waist-lock type grip and barge/drag them into a wall. I am little but I can do it reasonably successfully against bigger people, though at least one of my old training partners is too big. Lol. Like most things it works best if you blindside them without warning. 

Chokeholds are generally agreed to be the most effective, although not usually a permissible tactic for LE. I think that civilians trained in self-defence should utilise these as the primary physical restraint.

Locks, the subject of this thread, come in a poor third for effectiveness and forth for preference for me. Like other people with real world experience have pointed out, they are unreliable. In my opinion they are least reliable in the sorts of scenarios civilians are likely to find themselves in (i.e. drunk in a pub starting trouble). 

Persuasion is obviously the preferred solution but inherently most limited in scope. It also normally requires a degree of intimidation which most people don&#8217;t have over an aggressor. 

All in all, I&#8217;d say standing arm locks, particularly small joint manipulations, are of questionable relevance and effectiveness for the typical self-defence situation and in scenarios where they are relevant, there are usually far better options. 

IMO.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 9, 2006)

I think it is a mis-conception to say that joint locks rely on pain compliance.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

Why? They do IMO unless you are talking purly about breaking which doesn't fit within "restraint" that we have been talking about these last few posts.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 9, 2006)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Is training ourselves in joint locking really practical for a self defence application? Why or why not?
> 
> In my experience, locking really only comes into play when you have an element of surprise and already have contact, or are the physical superior in an engagement. In that regard, I don't see locking as being a huge factor if your goal is to gain range and boogie.
> 
> ...


 
If the person is aware locks are easily countered. 

If the person is too drunk or on drugs any pain compliance is non-existent.

Yet, I think it is very useful training. I have used them. Understanding them also make one aware of the body mechanics and also how to control and move an opponent. 

Now as has been mentioned, about 3 on 1 bouncer training. This works, if and only if the bouncers are trained together in tactics that work with three on one. If they just all go for it, they get in their own way and also can get hurt as bad or worse. Haivng backup is great as this allows the person to think twice about attacking. Yet, in cases of extreme rage or so far into drugs there is no option of thinking. Putting more bodies on a person to control someone helps, but many times just makes them cared and react even more dangerously. If you walk, guide, move the person out, even while they are calling you every name in the book, they leave.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Why? They do IMO unless you are talking purly about breaking which doesn't fit within "restraint" that we have been talking about these last few posts.


 
I'm not any kind of expert in this, but I have learned that it is possible to immobilize a person through locked joints.  Not because it hurts, but because their position/posture makes it impossible for them to have any type of leverage to resist the pressure you are applying.  It might hurt, too, but that is NOT why they work.

You are face down, I'm standing over you, your arm is bent backwards, vertical, and I have twisted your wrist around, pressing your shoulder to the ground.

Some more experienced joint-lockers might be better able to explain this concept which I am only just learning to apply... my experience so far does not really enable to me to explain it very well yet, but I have felt it and can do it with some success.  But basically the mis-alignment of your joints and disadvantge of your posture vs theirs makes it impossible for them to do any kind of practical maneuvers.

I hope somebody else can expand on this, sorry, I'm still at the "learning to do it" phase, not yet at the "teaching it" phase


----------



## tempus (Mar 10, 2006)

I train in Nihon Goshin Aikido and we use a lot of joint locks and throws.  We also incorporate strikes to loosen up the attacker for such joint locks and throws.  We train to bring pain on to a joint and then move to disable the joint depending on the situation.  Hence, escalate the pain as the situation escalates.  No need to break someone apart if not necessary.

Against multiple opponents we use the locked up opponent as a shield to block the other attackers.  This allows us to defend against the other attacker or throw the locked up attacker into the other attackers and make a run for it.

I am sure all things change depending on the attackers mental capacity or if they were drug induced.  This may call for more then locks.


----------

