# Most bad techniques are bad because you're bad at them



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

As some of you may know, I participate in a lot of martial arts discussions.  This includes talking with my fellow students in class, watching videos on Youtube (and commenting on them), MartialTalk, Reddit, and a few other places.  

In virtually all of these, I see commentary about what is good, and what is bad.  

Head kicks are bad, because your leg will get caught.  
Palm strikes are bad, because you might hurt your hand, unlike a punch (there was so much wrong with this I didn't know where to start).  
Wristlocks are bad, because you can't rely on pain compliance.  
That defense technique you did a video on is bad, because it only worked against a compliant partner.  
That wrist escape is bad, because I tried it and it didn't work.
I've seen all of these things, and I've come to a couple of conclusions.

There are a lot of moves in martial arts that work.  How effective each one is depends on the situation and your comfort level with them.
There aren't a whole lot of moves that are widely taught that don't work.  If they don't work, it's more likely that you don't know how to properly apply them.  (There are moves like no-touch that are pretty much bogus, but most techniques, concepts, or training methods will work if correctly applied).
If you are not trained in a technique, then you shouldn't use it, because it is a bad technique.  That's not a judgment of the technique, but rather your execution of it.
So how do I apply this to the situations above?

*Head Kicks*.  I'm going over this one first, because as a TKD guy, we do a lot of head kicks.  Now, there is plenty of evidence in MMA, kickboxing, and Muay Thai of well-timed head kicks getting a KO.  There are also a lot of times where someone will throw a head kick and get caught, and then easily taken down and submitted.

In most of these cases, I notice that the people with the KO tend to have a good quality in their kick, and the people who get submitted look very awkward.  Like they hadn't trained that kick, but they saw it and wanted to try it out, and that test backfired.  

So are head kicks bad?  No.  But if you haven't trained head kicks, are they bad?  Yes.

*Wrist Locks.  *My other main art, as some of you know, is Hapkido.  We do a lot of wrist locks.  A *LOT* of wrist locks.  As much fun as it is to try and use as little effort as possible to make your partner do a front flip, the majority of our take-downs are not from pain compliance, but rather from our footwork affecting our opponent's center of gravity.

In most cases, I can get someone to go down with my feet, more than my hands.  My footwork is what makes it work.  It's not just the pain compliance of the wrist lock, it's also the effect my wristlock has on their shoulders, the effect my feet have in directing that force, and possibly that my shoulders and hips have in pushing them further off balance.

That wrist-lock take-down will work, not only because of the pain compliance, but because of the other things I do to break down their structure.

Does that mean it's a good technique or a bad technique?  It depends on how well you understand them, and have practiced the application.

*Defense Drills only work on Compliant Partners.*  I see this posted a lot on videos where a 1-step drill is shown.  "That only worked because your partner is compliant."  People who post this seem to have no idea how one-step drills properly work.  If you just memorize the techniques, then...yeah.  It's just a drill against a compliant partner.  But if you learn the concepts and how to correctly apply them, it can be much more.  Part of this is learning more techniques (that you can bring in when you fail to use the technique you're trying), and part of this is drilling against a decreasingly compliant partner.

However, for the initial phases of learning, and especially for instruction, you need a compliant partner.  That's because at this point, you're drilling a technique, and you're not applying it.  The application comes later, when you increase resistance, run failure drills, spar, and experiment and improvise with the techniques.  That one-step drill might train you to deal with a haymaker, but it can be applied:

If you grab the 5th punch in a combination
To a hand grab
To your attack
Pieces can be grabbed here and there where appropriate
Now, does this mean one-step drills are good or bad?  Well, they're good if used properly, because it's a great way to drill a technique on a person, instead of a heavy bag or an imaginary opponent.  It's also a good way to experiment with different variations of the technique.  But if you don't do all that, then these drills do become more of a dance, and less of a martial art.

*I can't figure it out, so obviously it sucks!*  There's a video I watched of two professional MMA fighters (at least I think they are) reviewing a women's self defense video.  The video taught a technique I learned at 7 years old, and I understood better than these guys.  It's something I've taught to kids as young as 4, who understood better than these guys.  The technique was simple - open your hand to flex your wrist, and pull your thumb towards their thumb.

It's a very simple concept   You attack the weakest point of the grip (where there's only 1 finger) instead of the stronger points (4 fingers or the palm).  It's an easy escape that I personally think every child should know how to do.

However, these guys didn't understand the concept.  They just copied the technique.  Now, the technique was demonstrated with a cross-arm underhand grab.  The escape in this case, is to pull your thumb across your body, towards your other shoulder.  These MMA gurus used a cross-arm overhand grab.  In this case, you would want to pull your thumb to the outside, if you apply the concept.  But they copied the technique.  So instead of pulling thumb-to-thumb, they were pulling thumb-to-palm and going deeper into the grip.

Their conclusion?  The technique is horrible and it doesn't work.

My initial reaction to this video was that they failed, because they didn't understand the concept.  Then I realized - the training video failed as well.  Because these pro MMA fighters couldn't figure out how to apply a simple concept taught by the video.  

I know the technique, and it's a great one.  I also know that for these fighters, it's bad, because they can't apply it.

*What does this mean?
*
This means a couple of things.  First off, whenever you're in a discussion with someone about what techniques work and what techniques don't, keep in mind that there are plenty of ways to achieve success in martial arts.  I may punch with 3 knuckles instead of 2, or I may prefer open-hand strikes.  I may focus on kicks, while you focus on punches or grabs.  I may train mostly with forms and 1-steps, while you train primarily with a heavy bag and sparring.  None of us are wrong, we just have different ways of learning and applying what we learn.

It also means that if you don't understand a technique or concept, there are three things you can do.  In order of worst to best:

Try to apply the technique or concept without understanding how it works.  This is what gets a lot of people tripping themselves up in fights
Reject the concept for your own personal use, but respect those who choose to use it.  For example, a boxer/wrestler not learning how to head kick, because it doesn't fit his style, but respecting those that can head kick.
Learn the technique or concept in order to be able to apply it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 26, 2019)

A technique doesn't work may be because you don't know how to set it up.

If you try to push someone back, most of the time you will fail. But if you pull him first, when he resists, you then borrow his resistance force and push, your successful rate of pushing will be higher.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 26, 2019)

I've told countless students that the solution to a bad technique or a bad side is to practice that technique or side more and more. Eventually it becomes a favorite, in nearly all cases.


----------



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've told countless students that the solution to a bad technique or a bad side is to practice that technique or side more and more. Eventually it becomes a favorite, in nearly all cases.



I agree that's the solution to bad techniques or bad sides.  I have rarely seen things take over as favorites, though.

For example, my Mom (1st degree black belt) still has two go-to moves, which have been her moves since before she started TKD:  front kick to the groin, or tickling the ribs.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jul 26, 2019)

skribs said:


> As some of you may know, I participate in a lot of martial arts discussions.  This includes talking with my fellow students in class, watching videos on Youtube (and commenting on them), MartialTalk, Reddit, and a few other places.
> 
> In virtually all of these, I see commentary about what is good, and what is bad.
> 
> ...


Excellent analysis of your subject.  I especially appreciated your comment on "increasing compliancy".  Nobody will stick out their arm and say "put me in a wrist lock," except of course in beginning drills.  In reality, a little softening up is called for to overcome their resistance: a little elbow strike, pressure to a tendon/nerve nexus, or a foot/knee motion on their legs to break their stance a bit.  All can render the opponent momentarily off balance (physically and/or mentally) and allow the lock to be set.  This is not hard to do if you practice these set-ups as part of entering the technique.  I find the hardest part of setting a lock is that since the opening for it may last only a second in the flow of battle, one's mental state must calm and alert to "seize" (pun intended) the opportunity.  Your other points were also right on.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 26, 2019)

skribs said:


> I agree that's the solution to bad techniques or bad sides.  I have rarely seen things take over as favorites, though.
> 
> For example, my Mom (1st degree black belt) still has two go-to moves, which have been her moves since before she started TKD:  front kick to the groin, or tickling the ribs.



Then they quit putting extra effort into those things too soon.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 26, 2019)

We all have bad side. Should we try to train both sides equally?

Which one is better?

1. 100% on right side, 0% on left side, or
2. 50% on right side, 50% on left side?

IMO, 1 > 2. The reason is simple, most of the time you will have only have one chance to apply your technique. If you intend to develop 6 techniques, you may develop 3 techniques on the right side, and develop the other 3 techniques on the left sides.

If you have right side forward, your

- right leg is ready to do a skip in side kick.
- left leg is ready to do a body spinning roundhouse kick.
- right hand is ready to do a jab.
- left hand is ready to do a cross.

Unless you switch sides all the time, your right side techniques and left side techniques are pretty much pre-defined by which side that you may put your leg forward.

Can you

- shoot your hand gun with both hands?
- chop vegetable with both hands?
- play tennis with both hands?
- write with both hands?
- ...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 26, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We all have bad side.



No, we don't.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 26, 2019)

Some techniques are bad because they were created from people who engage in too much compliancy, and never realiry-tested it while coming up with it. Or were never meant to be used for fighting. Those techniques are just bad, a lot of the time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 26, 2019)

The definition of a bad technique can be that you may give your opponent's arms and legs too much freedom.


----------



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We all have bad side. Should we try to train both sides equally?
> 
> Which one is better?
> 
> ...



So you can develop 6 techniques on one side, or 3 techniques on 2 sides.  Three is simpler to learn, and you know the mechanics of them.  (I've learned a lot of my weak-side techniques by mimicing my strong-side, which is how I was able to quickly learn left-hand nunchaku and left leg 540 roundhouse kick).

Or you can do a different split, like 70% right side, 30% on left side.  It also depends on your art.  The way TKD works, it's better to be as close to 50/50 as possible.  With something like boxing, for most fighters 100/0 is a better split (although some boxers incorporate traditional footwork, in which case being ambidextrous is important).


*- shoot your hand gun with both hands?* - You should be able to.  Most gunfighting sites recommend this, in case one hand is injured or otherwise occupied.
*- chop vegetable with both hands?* - Less necessary, unless you have an injury and need to cook.
*- write with both hands? *- Again, less necessary, unless you have an injury.


----------



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Some techniques are bad because they were created from people who engage in too much compliancy, and never realiry-tested it while coming up with it. Or were never meant to be used for fighting. Those techniques are just bad, a lot of the time.



In this case, the problem is not with the techniques, but because there is no concept of resistance.  If you add in resistance, then the techniques that don't work will fall out of favor.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 26, 2019)

skribs said:


> In this case, the problem is not with the techniques, but because there is no concept of resistance.  If you add in resistance, then the techniques that don't work will fall out of favor.


Well its a problem with both. The techniques themselves are problematic because there was no resistance in their creation phase, and until you add resistance there will be a problem with the technique.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2019)

There are statistically more and less successful techniques.

School of Grappling on Instagram: “The 2018-2019 ADCC Trials Back Take Breakdown. ⚠️ I only looked at the back takes which resulted in a successful Rear Naked Choke finish.…”

You can be bad at a high percentage technique and good at a low one. But their is a base line for success.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2019)

skribs said:


> As some of you may know, I participate in a lot of martial arts discussions.  This includes talking with my fellow students in class, watching videos on Youtube (and commenting on them), MartialTalk, Reddit, and a few other places.
> 
> In virtually all of these, I see commentary about what is good, and what is bad.
> 
> ...



And I think the science of this post is incorrect.

You observe a thing working it works. In martial arts you observe a thing working consistently against resistance it works.

There really is no. It should work or why is it in a martial art if it doesn't work  or it works in a situation we can't recreate for you just now. That is all pretty much irrelevant. 

And we can see the issue when science is used to determine if magic is real.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2019)

So let's look at dowsing. And we could use all the OP,s logic to determine that people who say it doesn't work are just haters.






But the science doesn't back up that dowsing works.


----------



## jobo (Jul 26, 2019)

skribs said:


> As some of you may know, I participate in a lot of martial arts discussions.  This includes talking with my fellow students in class, watching videos on Youtube (and commenting on them), MartialTalk, Reddit, and a few other places.
> 
> In virtually all of these, I see commentary about what is good, and what is bad.
> 
> ...


flipping Eck mate that's a long post, yes I sort of agree, it's all about context, if your in a win or get battered situation, then lots of techniques are " bad" as there not high % enough to make up for the down side of having your leg caught and getting battered.b

you could argue if your good enough all are high % and its difficult to argue with that logic, but your not good enough and neither are very few other people to make them all work, all the time against all or even most people. if you've never tried one of your wrist locks against a 250 lbs strongman who really doesn't want to be wrist locked, then doing your fancy footwork and finding he can just unlock his arm by twisting it, rather than doing a somersault as you imagined,is not a good time to find out your  not good enough


----------



## Buka (Jul 26, 2019)

This photo was on the wall of my old dojo........






......under it was the caption *Wrist Lock This*.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 26, 2019)

skribs said:


> As some of you may know, I participate in a lot of martial arts discussions.  This includes talking with my fellow students in class, watching videos on Youtube (and commenting on them), MartialTalk, Reddit, and a few other places.
> 
> In virtually all of these, I see commentary about what is good, and what is bad.
> 
> ...


Sure, but there is more to it than that in practice. It's not the technical quality of a headkick that makes it work, it's the timing. I've seen a lot of herky jerky kicks land simply because the opponent moved into them, or was timed

Wristlocks..ehh. I guess.

You need to get them in a very specific way while they aren't resisting, and then they work, generally.
It's very hard to get someone's wrist if they are fighting back, which is why you rarely bordering on never see them used in BJJ or MMA competition.

Catching punches just doesn't happen. Maybe a super gumby haymaker, but I've never seen it happen or heard of it happening.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 26, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Catching punches just doesn't happen.


You don't catch a punch, you block it. After you block that punch, you can then wrap that punching arm. A bad technique could be that you just miss something before you apply that technique.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 26, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You don't catch a punch, you block it. After you block that punch, you can then wrap that punching arm. A bad technique could be that you just miss something before you apply that technique.


You quoted the wrong guy, @Martial D said that. Got me very confused for a second.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 26, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> You quoted the wrong guy, @Martial D said that. Got me very confused for a second.


Have fixed it.


----------



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

drop bear said:


> And I think the science of this post is incorrect.
> 
> You observe a thing working it works. In martial arts you observe a thing working consistently against resistance it works.
> 
> ...



How do you create a situation where it works without resistance?  For example, if someone resists my inside move, I will do an outside move.  If I try an outside move and it is resisted, I will do an inside move.  So I can't say "let me show you the inside move with resistance", because when I feel resistance, I will not use the inside move.


----------



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Sure, but there is more to it than that in practice. It's not the technical quality of a headkick that makes it work, it's the timing. I've seen a lot of herky jerky kicks land simply because the opponent moved into them, or was timed
> 
> Wristlocks..ehh. I guess.
> 
> ...



Like I said in my OP.  Sometimes you can't get the wrist lock, but you can still use the rest of the concept to grab their hand or arm and then take them down.  As a white belt in Hapkido, I spent a lot of time learning to make the wrist locks work.  As an orange and green (and now blue) belt, I learned more of what to do when the wristlock doesn't work.  If I just relied on the wrist, then I wouldn't be able to do half of what I can do.  But applying the concepts and using the rest of the body, I'm able to make it work.


----------



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So let's look at dowsing. And we could use all the OP,s logic to determine that people who say it doesn't work are just haters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did say "most", not "all".  And to be perfectly honest, I was thinking about a recent argument with you as part of writing this post.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2019)

skribs said:


> How do you create a situation where it works without resistance?  For example, if someone resists my inside move, I will do an outside move.  If I try an outside move and it is resisted, I will do an inside move.  So I can't say "let me show you the inside move with resistance", because when I feel resistance, I will not use the inside move.



And the dousing sometimes doesn't work because God likes a laugh.

You would do a bunch of blind tests of training with resistance and during that training you would attempt that wrist lock. And it would either work or it wouldn't.

And then you could show that the wrist lock does work against resistance and in a consistent manner.

The leaps of logic that you needed to make your theory work make your conclusions incorrect.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2019)

skribs said:


> I did say "most", not "all".  And to be perfectly honest, I was thinking about a recent argument with you as part of writing this post.



But you are using anecdotes as evidence.

"Wrist locks work because I can make them work. So there."

But we don't know if you can make them work. Just like dowsing.

Anecdotally it works. Scientifically it is as effective as random chance.

If we can only show a technique working on compliant partners. Then the evidence suggests that it only works on compliant partners.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2019)

And this works both ways. So a move that logically shouldn't work can be shown to work. Then it works.

Regardless of the logic.


----------



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

drop bear said:


> But you are using anecdotes as evidence.
> 
> "Wrist locks work because I can make them work. So there."
> 
> ...



The fact it works anecdotally is proof enough for me.  It works.  In fact, it's a staple technique used by police officers when making arrests.  I'm pretty sure the people getting arrested are not compliant.  I've seen compliant people get arrested, and they don't need wrist locks.

The fact you can't make it work is not because the technique doesn't work, but that you do not have the capability of making it work.  You've chosen to believe it doesn't work at all, which is an incorrect assessment.

Every technique is as effective as random chance.  Show me one technique that will never fail.


----------



## skribs (Jul 26, 2019)

drop bear said:


> And this works both ways. So a move that logically shouldn't work can be shown to work. Then it works.
> 
> Regardless of the logic.


This is exactly what I'm talking about.  The cartwheel kick would appear to be bad if you have poor balance, poor aim, haven't practiced on a bag, or don't know how to set it up.  Any of those possibilities will derail that cartwheel kick, and result in you whiffing on the kick, getting kneed in the face while you throw the kick, or getting your arm broken.  

That doesn't mean the cartwheel kick is bad.  It just means the cartwheel kick has requirements in order to be used properly.  If used by someone skilled in the kick, in the right situation, it's a good technique.  If used by someone unskilled in the technique, whether the execution or the strategy of the technique, then it is a bad technique.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about.  The cartwheel kick would appear to be bad if you have poor balance, poor aim, haven't practiced on a bag, or don't know how to set it up.  Any of those possibilities will derail that cartwheel kick, and result in you whiffing on the kick, getting kneed in the face while you throw the kick, or getting your arm broken.
> 
> That doesn't mean the cartwheel kick is bad.  It just means the cartwheel kick has requirements in order to be used properly.  If used by someone skilled in the kick, in the right situation, it's a good technique.  If used by someone unskilled in the technique, whether the execution or the strategy of the technique, then it is a bad technique.



That's fine. But we can see the cartwheel kick working. 

Just because things may work when we don't expect them to. Doesn't mean everything works.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> The fact it works anecdotally is proof enough for me.  It works.  In fact, it's a staple technique used by police officers when making arrests.  I'm pretty sure the people getting arrested are not compliant.  I've seen compliant people get arrested, and they don't need wrist locks.
> 
> The fact you can't make it work is not because the technique doesn't work, but that you do not have the capability of making it work.  You've chosen to believe it doesn't work at all, which is an incorrect assessment.
> 
> Every technique is as effective as random chance.  Show me one technique that will never fail.



No. 

We see dowsers  find water. Astrologists predict the future and mind readers read people's thoughts. 

But under scrutiny their method falls apart. 

I am not choosing to believe anything. I am choosing to follow the evidence. 

If there isn't good evidence then there isn't anything to support that a technique works. The arguments are irrelevant to the facts.

Sorry.


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> We see dowsers  find water. Astrologists predict the future and mind readers read people's thoughts.
> 
> ...



You are choosing which evidence to follow and which evidence to ignore.   You are choosing what is "fact" and what is "science", and what is "anecdote".  You are purposefully ignorant of successes, in order to say it only fails.


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> That's fine. But we can see the cartwheel kick working.
> 
> Just because things may work when we don't expect them to. Doesn't mean everything works.



Please quote me where I said everything works.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 27, 2019)

The term "against resistance opponent" can be misleading.

If your opponent wants to

- resist against your elbow lock, you apply shoulder lock.
- resist against your shoulder lock, you apply elbow lock.
- raise up, you lift him off the ground.
- sink down, you press him down on the ground.
- keep his feet apart, you spring his leg from inside out to make his stance wider.
- Keep his feet close, you sweep his leg from outside in to make his stance narrower.
- ...

In other words, you try to use the minimum amount of force to achieve the maximum amount of result. You should not against your opponent's well.

IMO, it makes no sense that when your opponent is on the ground, you pick him up and throw over your hip even if your "hip throw" is good.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> Please quote me where I said everything works.



There you go.

Your argument supports the conclusion that everything works. 

So I have this move where I shoot my laser eyes at people and kill them. 

How do you determine I am full of crap?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> You are choosing which evidence to follow and which evidence to ignore.   You are choosing what is "fact" and what is "science", and what is "anecdote".  You are purposefully ignorant of successes, in order to say it only fails.



Ok so with the cartwheel kick. I am Choosing to accept repeatable success by a top fighter against top fighters who are fighting  back that I can see and track as fact. Over "cops do wristlocks"

And you have an issue with that?


----------



## jobo (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> How do you create a situation where it works without resistance?  For example, if someone resists my inside move, I will do an outside move.  If I try an outside move and it is resisted, I will do an inside move.  So I can't say "let me show you the inside move with resistance", because when I feel resistance, I will not use the inside move.


get hold of a training partner, tell him your going to put him in a wrist lock and say you give him 50$ if you fail. that should ensure a good level of resistance and if your correct won't cost you any money at all


----------



## jobo (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about.  The cartwheel kick would appear to be bad if you have poor balance, poor aim, haven't practiced on a bag, or don't know how to set it up.  Any of those possibilities will derail that cartwheel kick, and result in you whiffing on the kick, getting kneed in the face while you throw the kick, or getting your arm broken.
> 
> That doesn't mean the cartwheel kick is bad.  It just means the cartwheel kick has requirements in order to be used properly.  If used by someone skilled in the kick, in the right situation, it's a good technique.  If used by someone unskilled in the technique, whether the execution or the strategy of the technique, then it is a bad technique.


it would be a good technique only if it works .common sense say it has a multitude of ways it can go badly  wrong, not least putting your head that close to the floor makes kicking you in the head a piece of cake, its much the same reason that people don't general go into a handstand when trying to defend themselves


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> There you go.
> 
> Your argument supports the conclusion that everything works.
> 
> ...



Do you have any times when that laser eyes move has worked?

I have literally made it clear in this thread that I do not think everything works.  I have specifically stated "most techniques" and not "all techniques".  However, you are doing to me the same thing you do with your argument.  You're picking which facts you agree with and which facts you reject.  In this case, you're rejecting that I said "most" and adding in that I must mean "all".

I never said dousing works.  You just assumed I did.  I never said all techniques work.  I don't know how you can assume I did, when I specifically did not.


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok so with the cartwheel kick. I am Choosing to accept repeatable success by a top fighter against top fighters who are fighting  back that I can see and track as fact. Over "cops do wristlocks"
> 
> And you have an issue with that?



Yeah, I do.  Because you're rejecting a ton of real-world success because it doesn't happen in _your_ arena.

If I were to follow your logic, I'd have to reject all kicks to the leg, punches to the face, and all grabs, because I do World Taekwondo, and in WT those techniques are ineffective.


----------



## jobo (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> Yeah, I do.  Because you're rejecting a ton of real-world success because it doesn't happen in _your_ arena.
> 
> If I were to follow your logic, I'd have to reject all kicks to the leg, punches to the face, and all grabs, because I do World Taekwondo, and in WT those techniques are ineffective.


you perhaps missing the irony, dowsing , may work , on the Ballance of probebilities , 1 times in a 100 , but the people who witnessed that are convinced that it works, because it been seen to work and go around telling people it works


----------



## Buka (Jul 27, 2019)

I watch MMA and boxing. I see a whole bunch of really nice right hands thrown and land.

I see MMA fighters get their opponents back, put a rear naked choke on. Sometimes the choke slips off, other times the opponent escapes it.

Does that mean that right hands and rear naked chokes don't work?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 27, 2019)

I generally agree with the premise of this thread.

However, I do not believe that the founders and ancestors who created and developed and evolved our systems into what they are today were perfect.  They did make mistakes, and some things that found a place in some systems are really bad ideas and make little sense.

Once a person has gained some level of experience in their training, it is perfectly appropriate to make some judgements and identify that there is some material that is bunk.  Weeding that stuff out can be a good thing.  

Adding material is not the only good way to evolve a system, and sometimes can be a mistake.

Deleting some material can also be a good move.  Some things really are not worth wasting anybody’s time with.  Training time is precious, it should not be wasted trying to get bad ideas to work.


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I generally agree with the premise of this thread.
> 
> However, I do not believe that the founders and ancestors who created and developed and evolved our systems into what they are today were perfect.  They did make mistakes, and some things that found a place in some systems are really bad ideas and make little sense.
> 
> ...



I would also argue that there are some things that work, that are not necessary in a martial arts system.  I've had talks with @gpseymour about this before, when he discussed designing his curriculum.  There's a lot of things he knows that he did not put into it, because it wasn't necessary to teach what he wanted.

This is why a boxer doesn't train kicks or grappling, because it is not necessary for what he does in the ring.

It's the same as virtually any hobby.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jul 27, 2019)

Maybe not covered, but there is some merit in this:


What is the point in learning something you cant do?   If a martial art is comprised of activities you cannot physically do, it is worthless for yourself.

I swear there is a proverb for something like this.  

But there is a opposition in similar line to it, that you think you are doing something wrong is why you think it doesn't work and you doubt your ability not the actual technique itself, which can be flawed.   In general with these things, some things dont work and you think its yourself and your ability not the thing in question, many areas of life are like this.

More of a response to the theme of your thread than its actual content however, or the literal point raised in the title. 


Also the palm strike one is news to me, the only point i saw for a palm strike is, it puts your hand in danger as does a punch.  (which is true) and generally might have a little less stopping power to it.   Never seen someone say its bad because you can hurt your hand unlike a punch, rather you can hurt your hand in both and a punch has more stopping power.  Different ways you can hurt it, you basically risk damage no matter what you do.  

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened just haven't seen it. 


Also the context for many things isnt addressed, it makes bad techniques look like they work and good techniques look like they dont work.  I dont recall seeing the bulk videos of you tube really explaining the context of something which seems to be a issue in martial arts, the context is left out when it should be included. thats the running issue with most systema videos, no one has explained the context in it, so you cant really form a proper opinion until you learn the context, its conjecture basically.  

No fault of a observing party it is the making party not explaining the context clearly enough or at all. (either out of not knowing it, their audience not being laymen but people who do their style or just forgetfulness/lapse of thinking based on their audience)   how ever if they have any experience they are going to use what they learnt from that  to try and make something work with how they learnt how to do it or in the context they learn it in if none is present or clearly relayed.


----------



## Buka (Jul 27, 2019)

Rat said:


> Maybe not covered, but there is some merit in this:
> 
> 
> What is the point in learning something you cant do?   If a martial art is comprised of activities you cannot physically do, it is worthless for yourself.



Actually, Rat, in some circumstances there is. 

I used to run a large fighting school. There were a lot of young, athletic guys who learned and utilized all the advanced kicks. You name it, they threw it, and more importantly, they landed them with great regularity. And this was a contact dojo.

Some of the other students weren't athletic at all. Others were older. But they would learn every nuance of, let's say for example, a jump spinning back kick. Even though they themselves would never be able to throw it while sparring. They would pay particular attention to those that used it the best, the most, the nastiest if you will. Not just to defend against it, not to block it or evade it, deflect it or thwart it.

They would study it in order to shove it right up the keister of the kicker to either crash him to the ground or punch his lights in mid kick. Which they did with equal regularity. And if you looked closely, they did it with a surreptitious smile.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> get hold of a training partner, tell him your going to put him in a wrist lock and say you give him 50$ if you fail. that should ensure a good level of resistance and if your correct won't cost you any money at all


Someone had given a public demo to ask audience to apply any kind of joint lock on him. Many audiences tried, none of them can apply joint lock on him.

Why did that happen? The answer is simple. If you concentrate 100% on defense, your opponent's offense will not work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

Rat said:


> What is the point in learning something you cant do? If a martial art is comprised of activities you cannot physically do, it is worthless for yourself.


"Can't do" is a relative term, in the context of this discussion. There are things done every day in the average Aikido dojo, some of which I don't think are actually likely to be available in an actual fight. Can you do them? Sure: go to a dojo. Some folks just love the work of developing the movement, without really caring whether it has fighting application or not. And some of the things they'll never find available in a fight, they can still apply those principles in the chaos of combat, but not via those movements.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> Yeah, I do.  Because you're rejecting a ton of real-world success because it doesn't happen in _your_ arena.
> 
> If I were to follow your logic, I'd have to reject all kicks to the leg, punches to the face, and all grabs, because I do World Taekwondo, and in WT those techniques are ineffective.



I can't take in to account evidence that isn't there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 27, 2019)

Rat said:


> What is the point in learning something you cant do?


I had asked my teacher the same question when he said that everything he taught me won't work on him.

If you have "ability", your opponent's skill will not work on you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok so with the cartwheel kick. I am Choosing to accept repeatable success by a top fighter against top fighters who are fighting  back that I can see and track as fact. Over "cops do wristlocks"
> 
> And you have an issue with that?


So one guy makes something work, and you decide it's workable. A bunch of guys make something work, and it's not reliable?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> Do you have any times when that laser eyes move has worked?
> 
> I have literally made it clear in this thread that I do not think everything works.  I have specifically stated "most techniques" and not "all techniques".  However, you are doing to me the same thing you do with your argument.  You're picking which facts you agree with and which facts you reject.  In this case, you're rejecting that I said "most" and adding in that I must mean "all".
> 
> I never said dousing works.  You just assumed I did.  I never said all techniques work.  I don't know how you can assume I did, when I specifically did not.



Yeah. Laser eyes worked dozens of times. Even seen cops use them. 

How do know dowsing doesn't work? Maby you just are not very good at it.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So one guy makes something work, and you decide it's workable. A bunch of guys make something work, and it's not reliable?



Which bunch of guys?

Show me where they made it work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Which bunch of guys?
> 
> Show me where they made it work.


You really can't find any videos of cops managing a wrist lock?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You really can't find any videos of cops managing a wrist lock?



Probably can. So random cops on random guys means wristlocks work?

Do dance battles work?


----------



## jobo (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You really can't find any videos of cops managing a wrist lock?


I had an unfortunate incident a couple of years or so ago, where two cops, were trying to put me in wrist lock/ arm twist to put me on the floor, they failed misably for a good five minutes, till a third cop appeared and lifted me up by the ankles, and on the floor I went,,  they still couldn't get my arms up my back


----------



## jobo (Jul 27, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone had given a public demo to ask audience to apply any kind of joint lock on him. Many audiences tried, none of them can apply joint lock on him.
> 
> Why did that happen? The answer is simple. If you concentrate 100% on defense, your opponent's offense will not work.


well yes, but if someone is trying to put you in a wrist lock, you should be concentrating a 100%, what else have you got to think about hats more important 

it seems a good fact that wrist locks against someone who is a good bit stronger than you are extremely difficult to both apply and if you do apply, to maintain


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You really can't find any videos of cops managing a wrist lock?



I can also find videos of dowsing.






So I guess science is wrong.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 27, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone had given a public demo to ask audience to apply any kind of joint lock on him. Many audiences tried, none of them can apply joint lock on him.
> 
> Why did that happen? The answer is simple. If you concentrate 100% on defense, your opponent's offense will not work.


Was the audience filled with martial artists, or was it the general public?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> well yes, but if someone is trying to put you in a wrist lock, you should be concentrating a 100%, what else have you got to think about hats more important
> 
> it seems a good fact that wrist locks against someone who is a good bit stronger than you are extremely difficult to both apply and if you do apply, to maintain



Where as if you did that with chokes.you would get a much better result.

I guess some techniques are just better than others.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 27, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Was the audience filled with martial artists, or was it the general public?


Both. If you know that your opponent will only use joint lock on you, since you don't have to worry about his kick and punch, you can interrupt his power generation during the initial stage.


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I can't take in to account evidence that isn't there.



It is there, you've just rejected it.  You're purposefully ignoring large amounts of reality to make your point.


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You really can't find any videos of cops managing a wrist lock?



He doesn't believe in video evidence.  In the eye-poke discussion, he saw a bunch of guys get poked in the eyes and stop fighting, and said there was no evidence of eye pokes stopping a fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Probably can. So random cops on random guys means wristlocks work?
> 
> Do dance battles work?


It means they work sometimes. Just like one guy making those kicks work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> I had an unfortunate incident a couple of years or so ago, where two cops, were trying to put me in wrist lock/ arm twist to put me on the floor, they failed misably for a good five minutes, till a third cop appeared and lifted me up by the ankles, and on the floor I went,,  they still couldn't get my arms up my back


Yeah, I see videos of them often trying to use locks where it's not really a good idea. I'd mostly expect them to work with passive resistance (not "fighting back", just making it hard to cuff them) - active resistance presents too small a window for them to be reliable. Maybe if someone practices them a ton, they'd be able to get them in more often, but I've only known a few cops who trained locks that much, and even they didn't rely on them in that kind of chaos.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> well yes, but if someone is trying to put you in a wrist lock, you should be concentrating a 100%, what else have you got to think about hats more important
> 
> it seems a good fact that wrist locks against someone who is a good bit stronger than you are extremely difficult to both apply and if you do apply, to maintain


They do work against stronger people, but only in a VERY limited window, in my experience. Not usually worth the fiddling at that point.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It means they work sometimes. Just like one guy making those kicks work.



One guy who can make those kicks work consistently.

Vs what is again random chance. Like dowsing.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> It is there, you've just rejected it.  You're purposefully ignoring large amounts of reality to make your point.



Ok. So same deal with GPseymor. It has to be better than random chance.

I am purposely ignoring a whole bunch of variables that put the results out. And ignoring evidence that we don't really know what the situation is. 

So a random policeman wristlocking a random crook has too many unknowns to make a conclusion.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

So as an explanation. Here is evidence that when I roll dice I roll 6s






So therefore my method of rolling dice is valid.

This is the same as a random cop putting a random crook in a wristlock. And saying their technique works.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I can also find videos of dowsing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Any videos of dowsing working against a resisting offender? Or are you maybe just drawing a false equivalency?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So as an explanation. Here is evidence that when I roll dice I roll 6s
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, that's evidence that rolling those dice can produce 6's. Which is the same as a wristlock working.

See, you seem to think I (or anyone else) is saying wristlocks work a lot of the time. I haven't said that, and haven't seen anyone else say it. What I have pointed out is that they've been used successfully on quite a number of occasions. Meaning the wristlocks actually worked. You ramble on about "random chance", as if those suspects might otherwise have been randomly cuffed without any intervention. Which is pure bullocks. And you actually know it is, which makes it also dishonest.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Any videos of dowsing working against a resisting offender? Or are you maybe just drawing a false equivalency?



Dowsing doesn't work in a double blind test. 

But anecdotally it does work. There are videos of it working on you tube.

The equivalence is that the method you use to prove wrist locks work also proves dowsing works. 

And the OP is using bad science to make his case.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No, that's evidence that rolling those dice can produce 6's. Which is the same as a wristlock working.
> 
> See, you seem to think I (or anyone else) is saying wristlocks work a lot of the time. I haven't said that, and haven't seen anyone else say it. What I have pointed out is that they've been used successfully on quite a number of occasions. Meaning the wristlocks actually worked. You ramble on about "random chance", as if those suspects might otherwise have been randomly cuffed without any intervention. Which is pure bullocks. And you actually know it is, which makes it also dishonest.



Suspects have been randomly cuffed with no intervention.

This happens all the time. Police just tell you to put your hands behind your back. And people do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Suspects have been randomly cuffed with no intervention.


You talk about dogma from time to time. When you start on something like this, you are easily the most dogmatic person I've talked to about martial arts.


----------



## Anarax (Jul 27, 2019)

Great post, your analysis is insightful. I want to add something to your comment below. 



skribs said:


> I may train mostly with forms and 1-steps, while you train primarily with a heavy bag and sparring. None of us are wrong, we just have different ways of learning and applying what we learn.



The training methods we use will shape the way we'll react in an altercation. A practitioner that *only *trains forms and 1-steps and doesn't pressure test(sparring, live drills, etc) will not have be as effective in an altercation than the one who spars. Sparring doesn't have to be 100% to achieve combat effectiveness, but you need a non-compliant partner to hone your combative skills.   

The debate of "right" and "wrong" techniques seems endless and tedious. However, economy of motion and kinesology are dynamics that go beyond opinions and preferences. For example, a kicking defense technique in a style I studied was dropping back into a deep dragon stance while parring the kick down with you hands going back. That technique requires a tremendous amount of time, energy and movement to pull off, it also puts the defender in a postilion where he couldn't counter-attack. Was he wrong to do so? No. Is the technique wrong? No, but there are other kick defense techniques that require less movement, will inflict trauma to your opponent and will set you up for a counter-attack. Essentially, you can do more with less.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You talk about dogma from time to time. When you start on something like this, you are easily the most dogmatic person I've talked to about martial arts.



You don't understand dogma.

This is a police cuffing training video where suspects just do what they are told.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You talk about dogma from time to time. When you start on something like this, you are easily the most dogmatic person I've talked to about martial arts.



Conner McGregor cuffed without any intervention.






14:39


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You don't understand dogma.
> 
> This is a police cuffing training video where suspects just do what they are told.



What would you have the police do with a compliant suspect?  Choke them out and break their arm?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> What would you have the police do with a compliant suspect?  Choke them out and break their arm?



It is not the point. 

We don't know if the crooks being wrist locked are really resisting.

Some people don't. 

So police wrist lock crooks is not good evidence.


----------



## skribs (Jul 27, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is not the point.
> 
> We don't know if the crooks being wrist locked are really resisting.
> 
> ...



I have a question.  If I write a book set in a world where nobody resists arrest, do I owe you royalties for coming up with the idea?  Or is it generic enough that it could be public domain?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> I have a question.  If I write a book set in a world where nobody resists arrest, do I owe you royalties for coming up with the idea?  Or is it generic enough that it could be public domain?



Depends if it is a fantasy world where every martial arts technique works.


----------



## skribs (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Depends if it is a fantasy world where every martial arts technique works.



Is this the fantasy world where I said "every martial arts technique works"?  You know, the fantasy world where you've misquoted me and repeatedly ignored my corrections?


----------



## Martial D (Jul 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> There aren't a whole lot of moves that are widely taught that don't work. If they don't work, it's more likely that you don't know how to properly apply them. (There are moves like no-touch that are pretty much bogus, but most techniques, concepts, or training methods will work if correctly applied).



This does read like a claim that everything contained within a martial art 'works' (aside from chi balls).

For there to not be a 'whole lot' that doesn't work, given the scope of the combined syllabii of every martial art we have, would leave the greater majority of all of it as effective.


----------



## skribs (Jul 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> This does read like a claim that everything contained within a martial art 'works' (aside from chi balls).
> 
> For there to not be a 'whole lot' that doesn't work, given the scope of the combined syllabii of every martial art we have, would leave the greater majority of all of it as effective.



The important part is the last part of what I said - "if correctly applied".  That goes for not just the techniques, but the concepts and training methods as well.  If a training method is not correctly applied, then the training method is flawed.  For example, 

Techniques:  Cartwheel kick.  If you do not know how to cartwheel or how to set up this kick, it is flawed.
Concepts:  Escape a wrist grab by pulling thumb-to-thumb.  I gave the example earlier that the concept was not understood by the MMA fighters, and because the concept was not correctly applied, it did not work.
Training Methods:  1-punch drills.  If they do not escalate in resistance, then 1-punch drills are not correctly applied.  
Another key phrase is "widely taught."  Not things that are fringe techniques or "Rex Kwon Do" type of moves.

Something I have learned from watching videos from many arts, in addition to training from my own classes, is there are a lot of things that seem like they don't work until you understand them completely.  For example, the first time I saw a cross-arm Z-lock in hapkido, I thought "that's fake."  Then my Master performed the same lock on me, and I quickly realized it wasn't fake.  Over the course of my hapkido training, I've experienced several similar moments:

A technique that "doesn't work" until I learn the proper footwork.  (Using my footwork to do the dirty work for me works in most cases).
A technique that I "can't get the right grip" until I learn other ways to do it.  (For example, I couldn't get a grip on a V-lock because my chest was in the way, so I just pushed with my chest instead of my hand).
Finishing moves that "don't work" until I can learn which angles I need to be at for which grips I have.  
Every new technique that my Master teaches me is something that "doesn't work" or is "more complicated than it needs to be" or is "not as effective as an earlier technique", until I learn how to properly apply it.  In fact, today I learned some of my blue belt stuff (out of 7 belts, I'm 2 away from black belt), but I also learned several things about our white belt techniques.  It's humbling and empowering at the same time.

Coming back to your point, my original concept isn't so much about the moves themselves, but the attitudes towards them.  If I gave up on these techniques before I learned how to correctly use them, then I would not have learned them.  Or, if I would have looked at other martial arts and scoffed at their techniques, I wouldn't have learned things in these types of discussions.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> Is this the fantasy world where I said "every martial arts technique works"?  You know, the fantasy world where you've misquoted me and repeatedly ignored my corrections?



Ok. So Maby this will be explained better.

I say every technique works from head kicks to chiballs to yelling Ada kadava at people.

And those who say they don't just don't understand the technique. 

Or didn't do it in the right context. 

By your argument this statement is correct. Because your argument does not have a way to determine what works from what doesn't.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> Concepts: Escape a wrist grab by pulling thumb-to-thumb. I gave the example earlier that the concept was not understood by the MMA fighters, and because the concept was not correctly applied, it did not work.




Sorry what?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You don't understand dogma.
> 
> This is a police cuffing training video where suspects just do what they are told.


Which proves precisely what?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Conner McGregor cuffed without any intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, it appears you're arguing the cuffing can be done without the locks. Which I agree with. See, you're arguing senselessly. I never said the locks were necessary. I said they can work.

EDIT: I can show you people being KO'd without using kicks. What does that say about kicks? Nothing, really.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> This does read like a claim that everything contained within a martial art 'works' (aside from chi balls).
> 
> For there to not be a 'whole lot' that doesn't work, given the scope of the combined syllabii of every martial art we have, would leave the greater majority of all of it as effective.


I think part of the issue is defining what we mean by "work". I think this is where a lot of these get off the rails, because some folks just assume the same meaning is used, and argue what they think is said, regardless of what was meant.

Nearly every technique I've seen can work. There's a significant body of them I don't consider reliable, and another significant body (with significant overlap) that I don't think are often available. But they do work, when the circumstances are right. Do they deserve a place as a pocket technique? Probably not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Sorry what?


I didn't see any of those applied properly by the subject (Karen), even in the static version. She hadn't really learned any of them well enough to apply them (and I'm not convinced some of them are reliable). She was right, she needs a lot more practice.

And this highlights why dynamic resistance is necessary.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, it appears you're arguing the cuffing can be done without the locks. Which I agree with. See, you're arguing senselessly. I never said the locks were necessary. I said they can work.
> 
> EDIT: I can show you people being KO'd without using kicks. What does that say about kicks? Nothing, really.



It has to work better than random chance though. To be considered a move that works.

That was the point of the dice. 

Wrist locks work.
Dowsing works
Rolling a 6 works.
Dance battles work.

The hand stand kick works consistently.

That is how you identify a good technique from a bad one.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't see any of those applied properly by the subject (Karen), even in the static version. She hadn't really learned any of them well enough to apply them (and I'm not convinced some of them are reliable). She was right, she needs a lot more practice.
> 
> And this highlights why dynamic resistance is necessary.



Does the other guy appear to understand the principles of grab escapes?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It has to work better than random chance though. To be considered a move that works.
> 
> That was the point of the dice.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but you have to define both "works" and what you mean by "random chance". See, nobody is actually cuffed by random chance. Someone cuffs them. Does the wrist lock help? Dunno, and that's not a claim I made (which is why your whole dowsing and random chance statements are so funny).

As for the hand stand kicks, your confirmation bias is adorable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Does the other guy appear to understand the principles of grab escapes?


Perhaps. He seemed to execute them reasonably well. Can't really tell if he did that by good mimicry or actually understood the principles. We can't tell in those videos if he's actually teaching the principles or not.

In any case, it comes down to the same problem as previously: the person trying to do the thing doesn't seem to understand it, so they don't get to see if the technique would work or not.

To be clear, these can work, but most aren't likely to be available once someone starts dragging you. If you get a chance to create slack, they work nicely. But with the tension of the pulling, you need an entry...or just a different solution. I see them as solutions in the middle of grappling, not during dragging - reasonable hand-fighting tools.


----------



## Buka (Jul 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> This does read like a claim that everything contained within a martial art 'works' (aside from chi balls).
> 
> For there to not be a 'whole lot' that doesn't work, given the scope of the combined syllabii of every martial art we have, would leave the greater majority of all of it as effective.



Wait, what? Chi Balls don't work? 

Nooooooooooo!


----------



## Buka (Jul 28, 2019)

I haven't been around a non compliant, crazy drunk being handcuffed in, oh, eighteen, maybe nineteen hours now.

So I'll just take everybody's word for it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 28, 2019)

Buka said:


> Wait, what? Chi Balls don't work?
> 
> Nooooooooooo!


Nah, they do. Point them in someones direction to channel your chi and they'll fly backwards. Doesn't work if technology is around (radiowaves interfere with the energy particles let off by chi), so unfortunately you can't get a video of it, but trust me, it works.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 28, 2019)

Buka said:


> Wait, what? Chi Balls don't work?
> 
> Nooooooooooo!


Not if I have my big toe raised they don't.

I got special shoes for that. I'm practically invincible now.


----------



## Buka (Jul 28, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Nah, they do. Point them in someones direction to channel your chi and they'll fly backwards. Doesn't work if technology is around (radiowaves interfere with the energy particles let off by chi), so unfortunately you can't get a video of it, but trust me, it works.



I did that once, but the guy had a better base than I did so you can guess what happened. I was the one who flew backwards, right into a group of Hari Krishner. I got all Guru Rama-ed up. But I will say I do look rather spiffy in orange.


----------



## Buka (Jul 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Not if I have my big toe raised they don't.
> 
> I got special shoes for that. I'm practically invincible now.



I found that really funny. I'm picturing the shoes. Still laughing.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Not if I have my big toe raised they don't.
> 
> I got special shoes for that. I'm practically invincible now.


How much for the shoes?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, but you have to define both "works" and what you mean by "random chance". See, nobody is actually cuffed by random chance. Someone cuffs them. Does the wrist lock help? Dunno, and that's not a claim I made (which is why your whole dowsing and random chance statements are so funny).
> 
> As for the hand stand kicks, your confirmation bias is adorable.



So you used "works" as a weasel word. And can now use the vague definition to try to be sneaky.







Where I defined what I mean by "works" in my second post.

QUOTE="drop bear, post: 1969491, member: 32080"]And I think the science of this post is incorrect.

You observe a thing working it works. In martial arts you observe a thing working consistently against resistance it works.

There really is no. It should work or why is it in a martial art if it doesn't work  or it works in a situation we can't recreate for you just now. That is all pretty much irrelevant.

And we can see the issue when science is used to determine if magic is real.[/QUOTE]

The handstand kick works consistently. Where intuitively it kind of shouldn't. Which is the opposite of a conformation bias.

So the meaning of a conformation bias is.


confirmation bias
_noun_

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Perhaps. He seemed to execute them reasonably well. Can't really tell if he did that by good mimicry or actually understood the principles. We can't tell in those videos if he's actually teaching the principles or not.
> 
> In any case, it comes down to the same problem as previously: the person trying to do the thing doesn't seem to understand it, so they don't get to see if the technique would work or not.
> 
> To be clear, these can work, but most aren't likely to be available once someone starts dragging you. If you get a chance to create slack, they work nicely. But with the tension of the pulling, you need an entry...or just a different solution. I see them as solutions in the middle of grappling, not during dragging - reasonable hand-fighting tools.



Ok good. Because that probably wasn't the video OP was referring to. I just wanted to determine if people thought dewey understood the concepts. 

I imagine it was this.





Which is two trained guys who probably do understand the concepts. 

Or weasely "seem to execute them reasonably well" (And i assume the response will be "when I said that what I really meant was")

Now of course when you say these can work. We now know you mean as in about the same as any sort of random chance could work. 

Which is unhelpful in a martial skills building exercise as we would want works better than random chance.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

Honestly the whole thread was made worth it because I found that video.


----------



## skribs (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok good. Because that probably wasn't the video OP was referring to. I just wanted to determine if people thought dewey understood the concepts.
> 
> I imagine it was this.
> 
> ...



Nope, that wasn't it.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> Nope, that wasn't it.



It was Ramsey Dewey though?


----------



## skribs (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So you used "works" as a weasel word. And can now use the vague definition to try to be sneaky.
> View attachment 22380
> 
> 
> ...



By your definition, no martial arts technique "works".  For example, if you want to prove that a hook punch works, then the person you're going up against can either:

Use a guard and strategy to counter hook punches, so the hook punches all fail
Purposefully not use that guard or strategy, so that you can see how hook punches work
The options are always failure or compliance when you set it up that way.

The reason you've been called dogmatic, is because you only accept data that supports your hypotheses.  Any data that goes against what you believe, is rejected, because it's easier to dismiss evidence than it is to change your point of view.  This is where the dogma comes in.  Confirmation bias certainly applies, because your analysis of the evidence is tainted by the point you're trying to make.  You reject any evidence that doesn't support your point of view.


----------



## skribs (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It was Ramsey Dewey though?



I think so.  He also wasn't as arrogant in the video I watched.  I may try and find it if I have time.

He's mocking women for training against the _"poisonous _wrist grab" (dripping with sarcasm).  But being grabbed by the arm and dragged somewhere, while not really dangerous by itself, usually leads to something far worse.  A woman being dragged to a secure location by an attacker is probably going to be raped and murdered.  Which means either he doesn't realize that an arm grab can lead to you being dragged somewhere, or that being dragged somewhere is dangerous.

Now, the particular video he's mocking (that you posted), the technique isn't great and the execution is horrible.  This looks like a demonstration being done by white belts, or a video made by someone who took a seminar and learned a few things, not someone who is trained in the art.  With proper footwork, their entry would be much faster, and they would need to control the arm better as they pass through.  Most white belts (and even yellow and purple belts) at my school tend to do those shuffle steps when they're first learning.  It takes a while to break that habit and use proper footwork, and it also takes a while to learn how to manipulate the arm as you transition your techniques.  These women have shown neither of those skills in the video.

And this brings me back to my point - the video (of the girls showing self defense) is bad.  It's not bad because of the technique itself, it's bad because they don't know how to properly execute the technique.  Where previously my problem with the guys is that they did not understand the concept, in this case they do.  However, they are doing the technique as it is being done in the video, which is being done poorly.

I am confident that if I tried the same thing against them with the same level of resistance, I would get much further into the technique than they did, by applying concepts I know about hapkido that are not present in either the women's video or their video.

The other thing to consider, is that even though there is mild resistance - these guys know what is coming.  If you're properly applying the principles of Hapkido (like many Asian arts) it's not just about the entry, but the setup before the entry.  If your attacker is expecting you to pull back (or even if you start by pulling back), it's easier to apply forward energy.  Just like the footwork and the arm control I mentioned above, it's something that takes training to learn.  If I can get you to pull back against me, then that helps me move forward and I'm going with your power instead of against it.

Now, could I get caught in the headlock or bear hug?  Probably.  But I could also get behind them, or at least break their grip and escape.


----------



## skribs (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It was Ramsey Dewey though?








From about 1:21 to about 2:30 or 3:00.  I misremembered it a little bit, but the effect is the same.  The girl is grabbed with her arm hanging down, while the guys apply the grab up above.  The result is the angle on the wrist is completely different, but they did not adjust the technique to account for that difference.  (_And now that I look at it again, the technique I would use is a lot simpler and quicker than the one the girl uses, but I'll come back to that_).

As a simple analogy:  let's say someone teaches me a defense against a *right *hook, by bringing up my *left *hand to my ear and letting my arm and elbow cover my jaw.  Then someone throws a *left *hook, and I bring up my *left *arm, and they hit the *right *side of my face unimpeded.  This is basically what they did - they applied a different grip and tried to use the same technique, and it just doesn't work like that.

I am going to say the same thing I said in my post above - there are better techniques than the one the girl used.  I wouldn't turn like that unless I was going to use it (for example, to push my bicep into the elbow to throw them down).  If I'm going to do an escape, I would just snap my hand out, which is surprisingly easy to do even against a strong grip, if you know how to do it correctly.  Or I would step backwards with my right leg instead of through with my left leg, so that I'm on their side instead of in front of them.

However, my goal was to show:  how *not understanding *a technique will make it *not work*.  In this case, the male fighters could not make the technique work at all, because they did not understand the concept of going away from the wrist and palm, towards the weakest point in the fingers.  They could have at least gotten further with the escape if they understood that piece.

Although, it does kind of go back to the original video.  There are things about the technique that could be improved or modified.  So even though I have problems with the technique as it was shown, does not mean the technique itself is bad.  The teaching was bad (since the pro MMA fighters messed it up), and there are things I could do better, even as just a blue belt in Hapkido.  So the video is mediocre at best, but the technique itself isn't bad.  The execution is.

To take it back to a hook punch, I don't think anyone would disagree with me when I say the hook punch is a good technique.  I also don't think you'd disagree that if I throw a hook punch by twisting my body away from the punch, with a loose fist and a bent wrist, that it would be a bad technique.  Now, if that was the only hook punch you'd ever seen, it would be easy to criticize hooks as bad.  But it's not because the hook is a bad punch, it's because that was a bad hook punch.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> By your definition, no martial arts technique "works". For example, if you want to prove that a hook punch works, then the person you're going up against can either:
> 
> Use a guard and strategy to counter hook punches, so the hook punches all fail
> Purposefully not use that guard or strategy, so that you can see how hook punches work



No. A technique can work consistently even though someone is defending it. 

This is a point i have been making is that martial arts isn't just rolling dice and hoping. 

Otherwise fights would be decided randomly. 

And that isn't the case.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> However, my goal was to show: how *not understanding *a technique will make it *not work*. In this case, the male fighters could not make the technique work at all, because they did not understand the concept of going away from the wrist and palm, towards the weakest point in the fingers. They could have at least gotten further with the escape if they understood that piece.



Ok. To prove a technique works. You have to prove it based on its own merits. Not negate evidence used to prove something else.

Speaking of dogma. People use that method to dogmatically support God.
(Abridged version you semantics)

So how was the big bang created?

I don't know

Then God created the universe.

Not knowing how the universe is created does not support God creating it any more than it supports me creating it.

So them going too far up the arm doesn't mean that the wrist escapes works. Evidence that supports the wrist escape working in some sort of reasonable experiment does.

And informally the process could be as easy as this.





Which while not a bullet proof example is still so far better than anyone has presented as yet to support wrist grab escapes.


----------



## skribs (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> No. A technique can work consistently even though someone is defending it.



False.  That's why you learn other techniques and strategies.



drop bear said:


> Ok. To prove a technique works. You have to prove it based on its own merits. Not negate evidence used to prove something else.
> 
> So them going too far up the arm doesn't mean that wrist lock works. Evidence that supports the wrist lock working in some sort of reasonable experiment does.



First off, it was an escape, not a lock.  Second, my comments on them weren't proof that it works, but an explanation for why theirs didn't work.  My own personal experience with the technique is how I know it works.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> False.  That's why you learn other techniques and strategies.
> .



Ok. And that is why I posed the link to statistics of the ADDC trials. To show that even though moves are being defended. There is consistentsy in successful attacks.



skribs said:


> First off, it was an escape, not a lock.  Second, my comments on them weren't proof that it works, but an explanation for why theirs didn't work.  My own personal experience with the technique is how I know it works.



I know it works and they did it wrong does not support your argument. Their evidence is better than yours.

And read the rest of my post. I did an after market edit job.


----------



## skribs (Jul 28, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I know it works and they did it wrong does not support your argument. Their evidence is better than yours.



The fact that they did it wrong proves their evidence is invalid.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> The fact that they did it wrong proves their evidence is invalid.



Not really. 
To make that claim someone would have to do it right.


----------



## geezer (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> The fact that they did it wrong proves their evidence is invalid.



Naw. in spite of the technical shortcomings in Ramseys demos, I personally find his "evidence" convincing here.

Besides, I really _enjoy_ Ramsey's stuff. For one thing, he's _really funny_. And yeah, he's not alway's careful to get the techniques precisely right, but that's not really his point. His point is that these techniques are often _conceptually_ flawed since they do not presume a realistically violent and motivated attack by an attacker who will give full resistance.

In my style we teach various techniques to deal with wrist grabs, and I openly admit against heavy, unchoreographed resistance by a really strong and commited attacker, they aren't the best choice. In fact some are impractical as all heck. If your life depends on it, a much better choice is to immediately punch your attacker straight in the face ...not unlike what Ramsey's assisistant shows at one point.

In short, there are high percentage moves and low percentage moves. Some of those low percentage moves may be taught for legit reasons other than pure practicality, but it's important that a student understands the difference between the two.  Attempting to apply a low percentage move in a real and desperate situation is definitely a "bad technique" in my book.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> So you used "works" as a weasel word. And can now use the vague definition to try to be sneaky.
> View attachment 22380
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, I pointed out that we'd have to decide on a definition, because there's not a clear one implicit in the context. But go ahead and call it purposeful deceit. You know it's not, but you like doing that these days, so have fun with it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok good. Because that probably wasn't the video OP was referring to. I just wanted to determine if people thought dewey understood the concepts.
> 
> I imagine it was this.
> 
> ...


So, you'd rather I answer a question "yes", rather than "I'm not sure" and give some actual observation? You really think life is all black-and-white, don't you?

You usually bring some sanity to discussions, but you've just lost it in this one, man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. To prove a technique works. You have to prove it based on its own merits. Not negate evidence used to prove something else.
> 
> Speaking of dogma. People use that method to dogmatically support God.
> (Abridged version you semantics)
> ...


Show where he ever once said their inability to do the technique/using a different grip proves it works. He didn't. I'm pretty sure you know he didn't, but are creating a strawman because you REALLY want to be right in this argument you've chosen, rather than actually contributing to a discussion.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Show where he ever once said their inability to do the technique/using a different grip proves it works. He didn't. I'm pretty sure you know he didn't, but are creating a strawman because you REALLY want to be right in this argument you've chosen, rather than actually contributing to a discussion.


I dunno man. His argument basically breaks down to 'no evidence=no reason to take it too seriously' which is pretty hard to reasonably argue against.

Yet argue you guys do.

It reminds me of my perfectly normal buddy that insists his disabled little brother with downs isn't actually disabled, even though he can't be left unsupervised for more than 20 minutes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I dunno man. His argument basically breaks down to 'no evidence=no reason to take it too seriously' which is pretty hard to reasonably argue against.
> 
> Yet argue you guys do.
> 
> It reminds me of my perfectly normal buddy that insists his disabled little brother with downs isn't actually disabled, even though he can't be left unsupervised for more than 20 minutes.


I actually haven't argued against that point. I like wrist locks for what they are. I don't think they're as available as some training drills suggest. I mostly like them for the mechanics they require and the set-ups that make them usable. Those set-ups and mechanics are useful without the locks.

I've only argued that they do, in fact, work sometimes, not that they are highly useful. (Of course, work "for what" is a question that hasn't come up, so I suspect DB and I are not even talking about the same "what".)


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I actually haven't argued against that point. I like wrist locks for what they are. I don't think they're as available as some training drills suggest. I mostly like them for the mechanics they require and the set-ups that make them usable. Those set-ups and mechanics are useful without the locks.
> 
> I've only argued that they do, in fact, work sometimes, not that they are highly useful. (Of course, work "for what" is a question that hasn't come up, so I suspect DB and I are not even talking about the same "what".)


Are we not talking about the same 'what' as always? Ie; matched up against another resisting human being.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I dunno man. His argument basically breaks down to 'no evidence=no reason to take it too seriously' which is pretty hard to reasonably argue against.
> 
> Yet argue you guys do.
> 
> It reminds me of my perfectly normal buddy that insists his disabled little brother with downs isn't actually disabled, even though he can't be left unsupervised for more than 20 minutes.



The problem is, when he's given evidence, he doesn't take the evidence seriously either.  He's got a lot of excuses for why evidence doesn't count.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> The problem is, when he's given evidence, he doesn't take the evidence seriously either.  He's got a lot of excuses for why evidence doesn't count.


To be fair, I've read this thread and I've not seen anything I'd qualify as evidence wrist locks are reliably effective against resistance.

The thing is, for BJJ/MMA guys this will always be a really hard sell, as hundreds of thousands of BJJ/MMA matches have taken place, involving people from every MA background imaginable, and they just never happen, despite being perfectly legal.

Is EVERYONE just doing them wrong?


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

geezer said:


> Naw. in spite of the technical shortcomings in Ramseys demos, I personally find his "evidence" convincing here.



The case we're particularly talking about it is not convincing at all.  He's literally doing the exact opposite of the technique.



> Besides, I really _enjoy_ Ramsey's stuff. For one thing, he's _really funny_. And yeah, he's not alway's careful to get the techniques precisely right, but that's not really his point. His point is that these techniques are often _conceptually_ flawed since they do not presume a realistically violent and motivated attack by an attacker who will give full resistance.



He's an arrogant jerk.  He's not funny at all.  He also does not seem to have any concept of what the real life dangers are for women.



> In my style we teach various techniques to deal with wrist grabs, and I openly admit against heavy, unchoreographed resistance by a really strong and commited attacker, they aren't the best choice. In fact some are impractical as all heck. If your life depends on it, a much better choice is to immediately punch your attacker straight in the face ...not unlike what Ramsey's assisistant shows at one point.



And I've found that with the proper training, they are.  I'm 5'6, and most of my weight is carried around the middle.  We have a guy at our gym who is well over 6' and his arms are so big I can't even wrap my fingers around his wrists.  When I do the techniques correctly, I am able to at least escape and take control.  And yes, we do active resistance drills.  

Regardless, whether or not a "wrist grab" is effective, you don't get to choose where someone will grab you.  If someone grabs you by the wrist, you can't say "I don't know any moves that are effective here.  Can you grab me around the waist instead.  I learned a good defense against that."

That punch worked because Ramsey didn't block it.  It didn't actually break the grip, it just surprised him.  It's also going to depend on the strength of the defender - if a 5'4" petite girl is punching a 6'2" muscle-bound guy, it probably won't be that effective.  But most of the wrist escapes I've learned would work just as well in that situation.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> To be fair, I've read this thread and I've not seen anything I'd qualify as evidence wrist locks are reliably effective against resistance.
> 
> The thing is, for BJJ/MMA guys this will always be a really hard sell, as hundreds of thousands of BJJ/MMA matches have taken place, involving people from every MA background imaginable, and they just never happen, despite being perfectly legal.
> 
> Is EVERYONE just doing them wrong?



Police arrests.  Because apparently criminals don't resist arrest.

In another recent thread, the subject was eye pokes.  I posted a video of people being poked in the eye and being incapacitated for several seconds.  He was in complete denial that someone with their back turned, unable to see, and not paying attention was unable to fight.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Police arrests.  Because apparently criminals don't resist arrest.
> 
> In another recent thread, the subject was eye pokes.  I posted a video of people being poked in the eye and being incapacitated for several seconds.  He was in complete denial that someone with their back turned, unable to see, and not paying attention was unable to fight.


Some resist, some don't. Most get the same level of force used on them regardless. Generally any real resistance with cops and they bring out the tazer, or guns..and usually when suspects(not always 'criminals') are detained there is more than one cop doing it.

To me that's pretty shaky 'evidence'. Your milage may vary.

You didn't answer my question tho. Why do you suppose they seldom to never work in competition? Is it just that literally nobody is doing it right, or is it something else?


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Some resist, some don't. Most get the same level of force used on them regardless. Generally any real resistance with cops and they bring out the tazer, or guns..and usually when suspects(not always 'criminals') are detained there is more than one cop doing it.
> 
> To me that's pretty shaky 'evidence'. Your milage may vary.
> 
> You didn't answer my question tho. Why do you suppose they seldom to never work in competition? Is it just that literally nobody is doing it right, or is it something else?




Wrists are generally wrapped up, which adds to the difficulty.
Wrist grabs are harder to train than other grappling types.  I've been training Hapkido for over 4 years, and because this is an elective class on top of our Taekwondo curriculum, we focus almost exclusively on wrist grabs and grappling, and eschew the strikes from the curriculum (since we have Taekwondo for that).  I am barely comfortable with using wrist locks, even with 4 years of dedicated training in them.  They aren't something I would expect people to learn in a women's self defense seminar, or a 30-minute sidebar in an MMA class.
My Dad (who is also in my Hapkido class) is friends with the father of one of the former UFC title holders.  He asked this fighter why Hapkido isn't used in UFC, and the answer was "because most of the moves are illegal."
I don't think the situation comes up often in the UFC where a wrist grab technique is applicable.  Most of our wristlocks are counters to a wrist grab.  That's something that can achieve many goals in a real-world situation (i.e. a creep trying to keep a girl from leaving somewhere, someone holding you in place while their friend punches you), but is not very common in the ring.
We had a guy in our Hapkido school for a few months, who was also training BJJ and would go to grappling competitions.  He said that while he still used BJJ as a base, his training from Hapkido helped him stop most of what the others were trying to do and he was able to take gold in both Gi and No-Gi competitions.  He didn't use the wrist locks themselves, but he was able to apply the concepts he learned to basically shut down the other grapplers.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Wrists are generally wrapped up, which adds to the difficulty.
> Wrist grabs are harder to train than other grappling types.  I've been training Hapkido for over 4 years, and because this is an elective class on top of our Taekwondo curriculum, we focus almost exclusively on wrist grabs and grappling, and eschew the strikes from the curriculum (since we have Taekwondo for that).  I am barely comfortable with using wrist locks, even with 4 years of dedicated training in them.  They aren't something I would expect people to learn in a women's self defense seminar, or a 30-minute sidebar in an MMA class.
> My Dad (who is also in my Hapkido class) is friends with the father of one of the former UFC title holders.  He asked this fighter why Hapkido isn't used in UFC, and the answer was "because most of the moves are illegal."
> I don't think the situation comes up often in the UFC where a wrist grab technique is applicable.  Most of our wristlocks are counters to a wrist grab.  That's something that can achieve many goals in a real-world situation (i.e. a creep trying to keep a girl from leaving somewhere, someone holding you in place while their friend punches you), but is not very common in the ring.
> We had a guy in our Hapkido school for a few months, who was also training BJJ and would go to grappling competitions.  He said that while he still used BJJ as a base, his training from Hapkido helped him stop most of what the others were trying to do and he was able to take gold in both Gi and No-Gi competitions.  He didn't use the wrist locks themselves, but he was able to apply the concepts he learned to basically shut down the other grapplers.


Ok, I'm not going to argue with your experience. I'll hold out for some evidence. I've never trained with a good hapkido guy, but we have an aikido shodan at our club. He never gets wristlocks. I've never had a wristlock work on me, or made one work, or seen anyone else do it either(aside from ' here give me your limp arm so I can show you something').and I spar/roll almost every day with a lot of different people from a lot of different backgrounds. 

As far as wrist grabs go..single and double, over and underhand grips, we do lots of drills and escapes from there. I've never been able to get or get got in a wristlock from there before.i know this is just anecdotal but it's a large volume of it right?

At your school, do you spar/roll with full resistance, and if so, do you get wristlock submissions?  I'm sure you can understand the skepticism here, background and experience considered.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ok, I'm not going to argue with your experience. I'll hold out for some evidence. I've never trained with a good hapkido guy, but we have an aikido shodan at our club. He never gets wristlocks. I've never had a wristlock work on me, or made one work, or seen anyone else do it either(aside from ' here give me your limp arm so I can show you something').and I spar/roll almost every day with a lot of different people from a lot of different backgrounds.
> 
> As far as wrist grabs go..single and double, over and underhand grips, we do lots of drills and escapes from there. I've never been able to get or get got in a wristlock from there before.i know this is just anecdotal but it's a large volume of it right?
> 
> At your school, do you spar/roll with full resistance, and if so, do you get wristlock submissions?  I'm sure you can understand the skepticism here, background and experience considered.



I'll give you a bit of layered answer.

*Sparring in Hapkido is a little bit different than sparring in most other martial arts*.  Where most martial arts have sparring as an equal thing (i.e. you and I square off, and then we fight until one of us wins), Hapkido sparring is more of a role play, where one person is the bad guy and the other defends.  One thing I might be able to equate it to is the Referee Position in wrestling.  _(For those without experience in wrestling, this isn't the Referee, but rather the position the wrestlers are in after a stoppage on the ground, where one person is on all fours and the other person is kneeling over them)._

Typically, we use Active Resistance.  Which means as soon as the defender starts defending, the attacker tries to prevent him from doing whatever it is he is doing.  If I fail to secure my grip, I fail.  If I put myself in a compromised position, I get countered.  

In this scenario, I am usually able to make the grabs work if I do them correctly.  My Master is constantly giving me advice and corrections, such as:

If you go there, you're open to him choking you
If you don't do this, he can punch you with his free hand
It didn't work because your footwork was wrong, do it again
Your transition was wrong, let me show you (he then has me grab him and shows me how much pain he can inflict on the human body)

*In symmetrical sparring, I have not been able to make them work.  *This is because we both end up countering the wrist grabs with wrist escapes, and the end result looks either like a Wing Chun Sticky Hands drill or else a children's game.  It typically goes something like this:

I grab my opponen'ts left wrist with my right hand (what we call a straight-arm grab)
My opponent uses a circular motion to reverse the grab
I use a circular motion to reverse his grab
He uses a circular motion to reverse my grab
Repeat ad naseum
This is, in my opinion, the difference between "self defense" and "fighting".  In a fight, whether sanctioned or a street fight, both fighters have relatively similar goals and starting points.  In self defense, one person has the goal of committing a violent act on someone else, and the other person wants to survive.

My Dad told me about a guy he knew in High School, who was an amazing tennis player.  He didn't hit that fast, but he could return anything.  So he won all of his matches by attrition, he'd just keep up the defense until the other person made a mistake, at which point he would get the point.  This guy had a match once against someone similar - not a hard hitter, not a trick shotter, but could simply return anything.  That was a _loooooonnnnngggggg_ match.  

I think this was a part of our problem, that we were both using a defensive strategy is why we went nowhere.  There's also the simple fact that we were all beginner belts at the time of this story.  This was not the sparring style our Master (7th dan) suggested, but rather the one our fresh 1st-Dan black belt suggested.  So it was not a sparring style we had trained for, and we were white and orange belts.  With more experience, we could probably do better.

*Submissions - *we _kind of_ do wrist lock submissions.  Most of our submissions are enhanced by the wristlock, but not necessarily accomplished solely by the lock.  The gooseneck really stretches out the nerves in the arm, and that is what generally gets it.  Typically, our submissions will attack the elbow or shoulder.  Our grip on the wrist is mainly to line the elbow up correctly and secure the arm.

Our submissions generally use a combination of our hand on the wrist, and our knee to the elbow.  There are a lot of different ones we use, depending on how we've grabbed your wrist and whether you're on your back or your stomach.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> To be fair, I've read this thread and I've not seen anything I'd qualify as evidence wrist locks are reliably effective against resistance.
> 
> The thing is, for BJJ/MMA guys this will always be a really hard sell, as hundreds of thousands of BJJ/MMA matches have taken place, involving people from every MA background imaginable, and they just never happen, despite being perfectly legal.
> 
> Is EVERYONE just doing them wrong?


First we need to distinguish between wristlocks standing and on the ground. On the ground, they can absolutely be a legitimate technique, if not a primary one. I've finished plenty of people with wristlocks on the ground.

Standing is another matter. They generally aren't even worth trying in the context of an MMA fight, with fists flying. However there is one standing wrist lock that sometimes works in grappling competition, even at high levels.





It's not a bread and butter technique, more of a surprise move. Here's an example of it working in competition:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> My Dad (who is also in my Hapkido class) is friends with the father of one of the former UFC title holders. He asked this fighter why Hapkido isn't used in UFC, and the answer was "because most of the moves are illegal."


This is not correct. The overwhelming majority of Hapkido techniques are perfectly legal in MMA. There are some exceptions, but I'd guess 95-99% of what you learn in Hapkido would be legal in MMA competition.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is not correct. The overwhelming majority of Hapkido techniques are perfectly legal in MMA. There are some exceptions, but I'd guess 95-99% of what you learn in Hapkido would be legal in MMA competition.


Unless there are a lot of finger grabs eye pokes and nut shots, because basically everything else is fair game.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Unless there are a lot of finger grabs eye pokes and nut shots, because basically everything else is fair game.



Define finger grab.  How granular before it goes from a handgrab/wristgrab to a finger grab and becomes illegal?


I grab your hand, in such a way that I'm pinching the bones in the hand together, and I might have a good grip around your pinky or thumb?
I grab your fingers, with my hand wrapped around 3 or 4 of your fingers and squeeze them together?
I grab one of your fingers, or else I grab your fingers in pairs and stretch your hand in ways it shouldn't?


----------



## wab25 (Jul 29, 2019)

This thread has been interesting... The biggest argument seems to be "what is the correct data set to use" when determining whether wrist locks work.

But, what am I to take from reading 7 pages of this? In my art, we do study wrist locks. Should I accept one data set and dismiss them? Or should I take the other data set and just practice harder? Or should I redefine "works?" Here is my take away from this thread.

You need to define for yourself, what you mean when you say "I have learned this wrist lock and can use it." Does this mean that you watched it on youtube? Does this mean you were shown for a few minutes? Does this mean you have applied it successfully against willing partners? Have you applied it against semi compliant partners? Have you applied it against full resistance? Have you applied it against full resistance against people not from your school, possibly with a different rule set? Have you used it in competition? Have you used it in a real situation on the street?

In reality, you will have different answers for each technique. If you have only ever applied them in the school, in prearranged set ups... its important to know that, before relying on that technique for something more important.

There are some wrist locks that when I say "I have learned this wrist lock," I mean I have used it in my school, in the prearranged drills, I have used it in sparring inside my school, outside my school, outside my style and with people of many different styles, under different rule sets, with full resistance. And when I say "used" I mean they "worked" by either getting the person to tap or go to the ground. There is a greater number of wrist locks, that when I say "I have learned this wrist lock," it means I can do the demos, and apply the lock in the prearranged drill, that my school uses, and that is all. It is important that I know which is which.

I take time to train with other people, in other styles, with other rules and different ways of doing randori. Once I have built a good training relationship with other folks, I will try to put in my wrist locks to see what happens. (its important to develop a good relationship, so that the people you train with understand that you are testing yourself and your training, not trying to take cheap shots or make anyone look bad... except maybe yourself) I have had way more wrist locks fail, than succeed. But, instead of getting frustrated, I go back to the drawing board, and try to figure out what I am doing wrong. For some locks, I have figured out pretty decent ways to set them up and apply them. Others, I am still working on. Still others.... well lets say I still get countered a lot.

Here is the real kicker though. You can read what I said about trying out wrist locks and conclude that wrist locks suck and I shouldn't waste time trying to learn them. But the point still stands. You should be able to take out every instance where I said "wrist lock" and put in "straight right," "double leg take down," "rear naked choke" and "round house kick to the head." Whatever it is that you train, you need to try multiple forms of resistance, against multiple people, from different schools, different rules. So that when you say "I have learned to do X," you understand when and where you were able to be successful with that technique and how much more you need to test that technique. Your "go to bag of techniques" should be the one's you know that you have tested the most. 

Every technique is going to start with the "I saw it on youtube" or "I was shown it in class once." They all then move through the various drill, repetition, scenario set up and randori type situations in your school. Then it is on the student to get out of the house and try those in different places, with different people, with more and more resistance. (yes, you may need to go outside your school to do this. Your instructor may not help you with this... but its your training, not his.) If you don't get out and pressure test what you learn... that is also valuable information for you to know and for those who you may teach this stuff to, to know.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

wab25 said:


> For some locks, I have figured out pretty decent ways to set them up and apply them. Others, I am still working on. Still others.... well lets say I still get countered a lot.



In some cases, it's a continued training thing.

In some cases, the technique itself as you learned it may not be particularly useful, but the things you learned from that technique can be applied.  For example, there are some wrist locks that I don't have quite down yet, but learning how manipulating the wrist affects the shoulders and balance has been a godsend for other take-downs. 

In some cases, the technique you're learning is more of a niche or situational technique, but when it comes up it's very useful.  An example here would be ankle locks.  They're not something you generally seek to employ, but if someone is going to kick you or give you their leg, why not take advantage of it?

In some cases, the technique will fail, but you can apply the mirror technique and succeed.  If you had started with the mirror technique and that failed, you can apply the original technique and succeed.  It's the same concept as that Bill Wallace video, where he does a roundhouse kick to the body until his opponent can block it, then a roundhouse to the head until that's blocked, goes back and forth until the opponent figures out how to block both, and then throws in a hook kick.  If I go for an inside lock and it's resisted, that outward resistance makes it easy to apply an outward lock.

And in some cases, the technique is simply bad and you should try something else.  I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen.  I'm arguing that in most cases, when you can't make a technique work, it's because of the above cases:

Need more training
Need to understand the concept
Need to use it in the right context
Need to use the right set-up


----------



## wab25 (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> And in some cases, the technique is simply bad and you should try something else. I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen. I'm arguing that in most cases, when you can't make a technique work, it's because of the above cases:
> 
> Need more training
> Need to understand the concept
> ...



I would add cases:
5. Need to use it against more and more resistance.
6. Need to use it against more people who do not "know when to fall down."


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I would add cases:
> 5. Need to use it against more and more resistance.
> 6. Need to use it against more people who do not "know when to fall down."



One of my favorite things is the intermediate students in our Taekwondo program, who do what I've come to call "Active Compliance."  Or the advanced students who are helping demonstrate a technique.  I'm trying to explain how to secure the grab and the kid is already flipping over.

I have to stop and tell them "just go where I make you go".


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Police arrests.  Because apparently criminals don't resist arrest.
> 
> In another recent thread, the subject was eye pokes.  I posted a video of people being poked in the eye and being incapacitated for several seconds.  He was in complete denial that someone with their back turned, unable to see, and not paying attention was unable to fight.



That was Jojo.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I pointed out that we'd have to decide on a definition, because there's not a clear one implicit in the context. But go ahead and call it purposeful deceit. You know it's not, but you like doing that these days, so have fun with it.



That is why I put a definition in. So my context was clear. 

It can't be accidental I keep pointing it out. And you keep relying on weasel words as argument.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> That was Jojo.



Actually we're both wrong.

Sorry about that.


----------



## Buka (Jul 29, 2019)

The key to any fight, any encounter with another human being, is adaptability. And, through proper training, the ability to adapt has to be automatic and it has to be immediate. I've tangled with some people in my day, had success with some things that I wouldn't even try on some others. I wouldn't expect they would work on them, I'd be surprised if they did. But when you try something that isn't working you just go somewhere else, you adapt.

I'm primarily a striker, but I'm also a basic grappler. If I go against a person that only has back yard knowledge of grappling, he's getting tied into knots. But if I tried the exact same things against you guys, they aren't going to work. Because you're trained, you're fit, you're used to fighting, you understand the game. Does that men I should throw out the things that I've used successfully in the field? Course not.

The video of the two MMA guys.....if they couldn't thwart the techniques that were shown they wouldn't be running an MMA gym very long. But if they were to go against my grappling instructor they would be submitted like children. But that doesn't mean those two guys aren't great at what they do.

My old BJJ gym didn't allow certain small joint manipulations while rolling. Usually. But when I started they knew I was a striker, knew some of my background. There was another Karate guy that had just started, he was from somewhere in the midwest, I forget where.
He wasn't a very likeable guy. One day they had us rolling, I think to entertain themselves. While tangled up I got him in a goose neck - a Kamakubi I think it was called. He wouldn't tap and I continued to apply pressure. I ended up breaking his wrist. I didn't hear it, but I felt it. He STILL didn't tap, I swear to God. But did have a cast on for the next several months. There are all kinds of people out there. And if something doesn't work against them, just adapt to something else. I guess it's why they call it a fight. 

My point in that story is I've used a gooseneck several times since then. All successfully, I have a really good one. But not against grapplers. And I sure as heck wouldn't try it against any of you guys. But that don't mean it isn't any good.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Show where he ever once said their inability to do the technique/using a different grip proves it works. He didn't. I'm pretty sure you know he didn't, but are creating a strawman because you REALLY want to be right in this argument you've chosen, rather than actually contributing to a discussion.



There is no straw man here.

Skribs said the technique works. But he has no evidence.

They say it doesn't and do have evidence.

The whole discussion pretty much hinges on how you determine if a technique works or doesn't.

Try it and it works. It works.

Try it and it doesn't. It doesn't.

This attempt to bad logic your way around some pretty simple concepts is what has put the holes in Skribs original post.

"Show where he ever once said their inability to do the technique/using a different grip proves it works."


"There aren't a whole lot of moves that are widely taught that don't work. If they don't work, it's more likely that you don't know how to properly apply them. (There are moves like no-touch that are pretty much bogus, but most techniques, concepts, or training methods will work if correctly applied)."


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

Buka said:


> One day they had us rolling, I think to entertain themselves. While tangled up I got him in a goose neck - a Kamakubi I think it was called. He wouldn't tap and I continued to apply pressure. I ended up breaking his wrist. I didn't hear it, but I felt it. He STILL didn't tap, I swear to God. But did have a cast on for the next several months. There are all kinds of people out there. And if something doesn't work against them, just adapt to something else. I guess it's why they call it a fight.



We have some kids in my school that any bump or bruise and they freeze, cry, and want to go off the mat to their parents.  Some of the really little ones (4-5 years old) freeze over even less.

But then there are others, that are just that stubborn.  There's one girl that I'm afraid is going to get her wrist broken because she refuses to go down.  There's a few kids that are hobbling and can barely walk, and you're working on jumping kicks, and then they're insulted when you make them sit down.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Try it and it works. It works.
> 
> Try it and it doesn't. It doesn't.



They didn't try it, because what they tried wasn't it.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

Buka said:


> The key to any fight, any encounter with another human being, is adaptability. And, through proper training, the ability to adapt has to be automatic and it has to be immediate. I've tangled with some people in my day, had success with some things that I wouldn't even try on some others. I wouldn't expect they would work on them, I'd be surprised if they did. But when you try something that isn't working you just go somewhere else, you adapt.
> 
> I'm primarily a striker, but I'm also a basic grappler. If I go against a person that only has back yard knowledge of grappling, he's getting tied into knots. But if I tried the exact same things against you guys, they aren't going to work. Because you're trained, you're fit, you're used to fighting, you understand the game. Does that men I should throw out the things that I've used successfully in the field? Course not.
> 
> ...



I goosneck people all the time rolling. I am notorious for it. 

If I wanted to start a thread about how awesome the goosneck was I could go and get some footage of myself rolling and putting goosenecks on. 

And then I could say.

Goosenecks work consistently against resistance. And I know this because I use them consistently against resistance and here is the video. 

And I wouldn't have to come up with a bunch of flat earth theorys that will ultimately effect my training progression. Because i am trying to find answers using the wrong methods.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> They didn't try it, because what they tried wasn't it.



Ok.

Maybe this is a better way to put it.

Yes they did do it the right way. You are doing it wrong. Because i know. 

Now we have two opposing statements. Neither of which are supported by evidence.

How do you think that question would be resolved?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Actually we're both wrong.
> 
> Sorry about that.



No dramas.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Define finger grab.  How granular before it goes from a handgrab/wristgrab to a finger grab and becomes illegal?
> 
> 
> I grab your hand, in such a way that I'm pinching the bones in the hand together, and I might have a good grip around your pinky or thumb?
> ...


In unified rules grabbing 1 or two fingers or toes is illegal (small joint manipulation) 3 or more is fine.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok.
> 
> Maybe this is a better way to put it.
> 
> ...



Then once again we've gone to a mirror universe.  If the "right way" doesn't work, and the "wrong way" works, then you've mislabeled things.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Then once again we've gone to a mirror universe.  If the "right way" doesn't work, and the "wrong way" works, then you've mislabeled things.



Your training is wrong. And it is leading to a false positive.

They did it the right way.

Imagine this was a no touch demonstration.






Now I can watch that video and say obviously they were doing it wrong which is why it didn't work. And it works for me fine. Because of some little technical detail. (Let's use he did not raise his big toe)

Doe this mean no touch works?


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Your training is wrong. And it is leading to a false positive.
> 
> They did it the right way.
> 
> Imagine this was a no touch demonstration.



Imagine you're in a room.  Three sides of the room have reinforced concrete walls 3 feet thick.  The fourth side of the room is open to the outside.

You want to leave the room.  So you walk into one of the concrete walls.  It doesn't move.  How do you escape this room?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Imagine you're in a room.  Three sides of the room have reinforced concrete walls 3 feet thick.  The fourth side of the room is open to the outside.
> 
> You want to leave the room.  So you walk into one of the concrete walls.  It doesn't move.  How do you escape this room?



Wrist lock the room until it lets you go.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Wrist lock the room until it lets you go.



I'm assuming you're being facetious because you saw my point.  

The point is, these guys basically did the equivalent of walking into that concrete wall.
Now, I, having experience with similar techniques saw them do this, and said "they could walk through the open wall."

To which you tell me that they tried walking and proved it's false.  And walking into the concrete wall is correct.  But I have no evidence that walking through the open wall would lead to an escape, so I'm wrong.

This is basically how the conversation has gone.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm assuming you're being facetious because you saw my point.
> 
> The point is, these guys basically did the equivalent of walking into that concrete wall.
> Now, I, having experience with similar techniques saw them do this, and said "they could walk through the open wall."
> ...



Yes. That is basically it.

If we remove bias and look at your situation clinically.

You would actually have to walk through that open wall to prove your theory.

Otherwise your argument is. You know you are right and so don't have to prove it.

Which is dogma.

Which is how that no touch guy got punched in the face. He knew there was that escape. But had not proved it successfully. 

He walked through the open wall and something he didn't expect happened.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Are we not talking about the same 'what' as always? Ie; matched up against another resisting human being.


But what are we asking it to do?

Here's what I mean. A wrist lock does work, if applied well. What do I mean by "work"? It restrains movement at least for a bit, protects from a punch (and sometimes a grab) from the other side, helps break structure, etc.

Is it reliable? That's a different question. I consider them reliable against passive resistance, and only techniques of opportunity in most other cases. I'm more likely to find an opportunity for one grappling someone who's trying to grab (as with sleeve/hand grip fighting), or when struggling over a hand that's holding a weapon. From strikes? They're probably only useful as recovery from a screw-up in most cases. Do they help with cuffing? Dunno - I don't have to cuff people. I just know I see folks who cuff people actually manage to lock wrists (affecting structure and movement).

That brings us back to the question of what we are evaluating it about. If I'm expecting it to be an easy application against a jab, I'm going to take a lot of jabs to the face trying to prove that. If I expect it to stop someone who's fighting back hard, I'm probably going to get put on my butt while I'm trying to figure out how to get the lock on. If I expect it to buy some time and control, break structure, etc. when it's available, then I'm probably not going to be disappointed, except that I won't find it available as often as other techniques.

So, what work are we asking if it can do when we say, "Does it work?" I don't think that's the same question as, "Can I do it often?"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> First we need to distinguish between wristlocks standing and on the ground. On the ground, they can absolutely be a legitimate technique, if not a primary one. I've finished plenty of people with wristlocks on the ground.
> 
> Standing is another matter. They generally aren't even worth trying in the context of an MMA fight, with fists flying. However there is one standing wrist lock that sometimes works in grappling competition, even at high levels.
> 
> ...


Do you know a Japanese name for that? (In NGA, it's an application to Lift-Up.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2019)

wab25 said:


> This thread has been interesting... The biggest argument seems to be "what is the correct data set to use" when determining whether wrist locks work.
> 
> But, what am I to take from reading 7 pages of this? In my art, we do study wrist locks. Should I accept one data set and dismiss them? Or should I take the other data set and just practice harder? Or should I redefine "works?" Here is my take away from this thread.
> 
> ...


Love this. And part of the process is deciding which techniques - even if they feel great when they work - don't seem worthy of a spot in your go-to toolset. I don't discard those (so long as the mechanics are sound) -they're for studying principles and mechanics, and sometimes yield some interesting recoveries when playing with resistance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yes. That is basically it.
> 
> If we remove bias and look at your situation clinically.
> 
> ...


What you've missed in your dogmatic approach is that an improper test doesn't disprove anything. Hitting a wall with a baseball bat and not breaking it doesn't prove a bat can't break a window. (Note that there's no claim that it proves anything - just your claim that it DISproves something.)


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> What you've missed in your dogmatic approach is that an improper test doesn't disprove anything. Hitting a wall with a baseball bat and not breaking it doesn't prove a bat can't break a window. (Note that there's no claim that it proves anything - just your claim that it DISproves something.)



Ok. We have two videos as evidence. One where Skribs claims without evidence the technique was done wrong. And without evidence that he can do it right.

Another where they specifically addressed that argument and yet techniques still did not work live.

Your metaphors rely on the assumption the technique works. There is an open doorway and a window to be broken by a bat.

We could find out without experiment that someone could walk through a doorway or break a window. And so could easily discount a bad experiment by walking through a door or breaking a window.

But there is no evidence in this case that the technique works.

Which is the difference between assumption and reality pretty much.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> But what are we asking it to do?
> 
> Here's what I mean. A wrist lock does work, if applied well. What do I mean by "work"? It restrains movement at least for a bit, protects from a punch (and sometimes a grab) from the other side, helps break structure, etc.
> 
> ...


I'd settle for 'once in a while' even, but I can't even really give you that. Sure, once you get one you can break down someone's posture with it, but when does that ever happen? Maybe as often as a cartwheel kick ko, or flipping a coin and having it land on the edge?

If works=fluky 1 in a million shots can happen, then 'works' becomes  fairly worthless term to describe anything coherent then doesn't it?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I'd settle for 'once in a while' even, but I can't even really give you that. Sure, once you get one you can break down someone's posture with it, but when does that ever happen? Maybe as often as a cartwheel kick ko, or flipping a coin and having it land on the edge?
> 
> If works=fluky 1 in a million shots can happen, then 'works' becomes  fairly worthless term to describe anything coherent then doesn't it?


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. We have two videos as evidence. One where Skribs claims without evidence the technique was done wrong. And without evidence that he can do it right.
> 
> Another where they specifically addressed that argument and yet techniques still did not work live.
> 
> ...



Sorry you can't accept my description as evidence. I'm still coming back to it being your lack of understanding on how it works.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Sorry you can't accept my description as evidence. I'm still coming back to it being your lack of understanding on how it works.



Perhaps that is the case.Perhaps not.

If the people that have tried these techniques are just walking into walls, why not show the door instead of simply insisting it's there.(which is highly unpersuasive)

If you tell me armbars are crap, or straight punches don't work, I can easily disprove that with hours and hours of video or people getting smacked with straight punches and getting their arms stretched out while fully fighting back. If such evidence is not existent, questions need to be (rightly) asked.


----------



## skribs (Jul 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> If the people that have tried these techniques are just walking into walls, why not show the door instead of simply insisting it's there.(which is highly unpersuasive)



I did leave a comment on the video.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 30, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I'd settle for 'once in a while' even, but I can't even really give you that. Sure, once you get one you can break down someone's posture with it, but when does that ever happen? Maybe as often as a cartwheel kick ko, or flipping a coin and having it land on the edge?
> 
> If works=fluky 1 in a million shots can happen, then 'works' becomes  fairly worthless term to describe anything coherent then doesn't it?


I think I'm not making my point. "Works" and "is reliable/consistently available" aren't really the same thing. In full-resistance situations, most wristlocks aren't going to be very available (leaving out the gooseneck and the one Tony posted), but used early or as a transition (rather than the lock being the focus) or on the ground (where they are much harder to escape), they can work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 30, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Perhaps that is the case.Perhaps not.
> 
> If the people that have tried these techniques are just walking into walls, why not show the door instead of simply insisting it's there.(which is highly unpersuasive)
> 
> If you tell me armbars are crap, or straight punches don't work, I can easily disprove that with hours and hours of video or people getting smacked with straight punches and getting their arms stretched out while fully fighting back. If such evidence is not existent, questions need to be (rightly) asked.


You can actually find variations of some of those wrist escapes in stand-up grappling competitions. Some of the grip-fighting principles are the same. But you won't find them often used, because the people in those competitions know how easy those grips are to escape, so they use grips that are much more dependable. So you what you see will usually be more advanced variations of the same principles.


----------



## geezer (Jul 30, 2019)

At various times in the course of this thread people keep dissing "No-touch masters". Maybe you mean _offensive_ no touch masters? I personally have offended many people without touching them. And enjoyed it! Jobo, Drop Bear... am I alone? But I digress. Back to the topic. Here's one authentic _defensive_ no-touch master who's technique has inspired me ever since I was a kid:


----------



## geezer (Jul 30, 2019)

Hey, as long as I'm rambling on, here's another idea for a thread: What defines a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial art? 

...for example, in the Wing Chun I trained you might respond to a situation with several approaches, all of which might be effective, but they are _not _equally good from a WC perspective. Even techniques that work really well. For example WC (VT/WT?etc.) generally places very high value on efficiency and economy of motion. So if you end a fight with a big, massive haymayker punch or round kick, no matter how effective, that's not "good" Wing Chun. 

So rather than derail this boring argu.. er _thread!_ ...I'll start a new one.


----------

