# Should children be taught techniques for joint locking?



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2005)

I've been mulling over this for two years and I've gone back and forth on the issue.  Should joint locks be taught to children?  On one hand, I see them as any other technique in a MAists repetoire.  On the other, I see some developmental issues regarding a child's body and reasoning.  If you have any experience with this, please lend me your insight...

:asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## mantis (Oct 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've been mulling over this for two years and I've gone back and forth on the issue. Should joint locks be taught to children? On one hand, I see them as any other technique in a MAists repetoire. On the other, I see some developmental issues regarding a child's body and reasoning. If you have any experience with this, please lend me your insight...
> 
> :asian:
> 
> upnorthkyosa


 i'd say yes.
 first children are majorly exposed to the danger of attack, kidnap, and rape so they should be taught whatever it take to defend themselves.
 second, if those kids are taught those things when they are little they may be able to add to the arts when they grow. it makes them more experienced when they are at a mature age.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2005)

I posted a slightly different thread in the grappling forum in order to get some different perspectives.  I'm hoping that by posting this in the Hapkido forum, I'll be able to get a KMA perspective on joint locking and children.  I've heard arguments for and against.  My teacher does not think that children should learn joint locks because of the potential to "leave no trace".  However, the federation that we belonged to taught them to children in the form of Ho Sin Shul.  My issue with this is regarding bunkai for our hyung.  There are so many joint locks that I feel that it is almost shameful to NOT teach this stuff to them.  What do you think?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 20, 2005)

Yes, but with care because they don't have great control yet. They need to be made to practice them verrrrry slowly.


----------



## mantis (Oct 20, 2005)

Q: 
may i ask what's so special about locks that you would be extra careful, and why you would or would not teach it to kids?
i dont get it


----------



## Navarre (Oct 20, 2005)

If you're asking the difference between a lock and a strike, I think there is indeed a difference. If I miscalculate and coldcock someone with a punch or elbow strike, I leave a mark that will heal. If I really mess up a straight-lock armbar, the child had an elbow that no longer works, period. 

 Locks can be initiated in so many ways that lack of understanding can easily cause debilitating injury. A simple finger lock, because it has no give, has the potential to cause serious damage. 

 Strikes for the most part, only hurt the surface of the body when practiced in class. Not that one can't break a rib or suffer a concussion, but it's much more likely to suffer permanent injury from a lock.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> Q:
> may i ask what's so special about locks that you would be extra careful, and why you would or would not teach it to kids?
> i dont get it


There are a couple of developmental reasons why these techniques need more attention.

1.  A child's bones are not as dense as an adults.  They are more flexible and more prone to greenstick fracture.  Any technique that twists and turns small bones in particular has a greater potential for causing injury.

2.  In many ways, a child's mind lacks maturity.  The potential for abuse with joint locks is greater because they can leave no marks and pain compliance is a common application.

3.  A child lacks the bodily control that adults possess.  This is entirely developmental.  

Good question, Mantis, this forced me to lay out my concerns clearly.  Thanks.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 20, 2005)

you also risk damaging growth plates.


----------



## Navarre (Oct 20, 2005)

Sorry, not trying to be a post hog (despite my joking about it) but I remembered an example of my previous post.

 In my entire 22 years of karate training, the worst injury I have ever caused was when I cracked a rib with a kick that landed too hard. Second place was when I misjudged an elbow strike to the temple and knocked my opponent colder than my wife's sex drive.

 On the other hand, I had only been studying jujitsu for about a year when I made a grievous error. I was grappling with a newer student (about 4 month's experience) and went for a standing armbar. 

 He wasn't on good footing and was on his way to the ground, face first. We were moving at half speed and all seemed okay. I was simply flowing with his body motion and momentum, going for approximately the same arm bar once we hit the mat. 

 However, not being used to the feeling of the lock nor adept at manuevering while in motion, he tried to turn his body away from the lock. This could easily happen on the street as well because it is the natural reaction. Here though, the results were disastrous. 

 I heard the pop as his shoulder was dislocated as his body rolled away from his arm. He screamed and I released at the feeling of the sudden change in tension but it was too late. 

 He was in horrible pain and I, already a black belt with 10 years in karate, felt like the lowest sort of scum. It was an accident and he wasn't angry. Accidents happen. 

 But it illustrates how quickly and easily such injury can occur with a solid lock. No child needs to be learning the techniques to that extent, in my opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2005)

I'm seeing that it is clearly possible to teach these techniques to children.  However, ones pedagogy must clearly be adjusted.  Would you all be so kind as to share with me exactly how locks are taught to children in your art?  My teacher did not teach children so attempting to teach children is new for me.


----------



## Navarre (Oct 20, 2005)

** Sorry, this is also posted in your other thread. They seem to be the same thread, essentially, so I'm not sure where the posts should go. **

 I think kids can, and should, get over the panic reaction. They need to maintain as much composure as their maturity level will allow should they be assaulted on the street. The more they are introduced to the feeling of contact the less likely it will overwhelm them.

  However, it is clearly a matter of degree. Locking a choke down on a kid is not necessary. At that age they already feel powerless against the adult. It is better to allow them to acclimate slowly; slower than we expect adults to. 

  I would start by working on simple body contact. Let them realize that someone does not hurt me simply by grabbing my collar. Many ppl are already panicking at this point but they shouldn't. 

  The grab isn't the problem, it's the attack that comes right behind it. And, with a small amount of experience, we welcome the grab because it gives us a handle to his body and a sense of his movements. 

  From there I would work on simple escapes, not locks. Show them how to turn out of a wrist grab or apply simple thumb pressure against a grab to the collar. Show them how body movement, turning to the angle, can both protect the body and set up for escape.

  As we move into actual locks, again, they should not be fully locked only drawn into position. Reinforce a technique over and over. Although variety in the arsenal is preferable, at this age they will initiate a move better by repetition.

  My goals with children are primarily to reduce the panic reaction of body contact, instill the idea of escape, and to reinforce a small but solid arsenal of techniques.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 20, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm seeing that it is clearly possible to teach these techniques to children. However, ones pedagogy must clearly be adjusted. Would you all be so kind as to share with me exactly how locks are taught to children in your art? My teacher did not teach children so attempting to teach children is new for me.


 One instructor whose class i recently visited insisted that all beginners--many of whom were in their teeens, so older than I think we mean here--count one one thousand, two one thousand, thre one thousand as they do a lock to insure that it goes on slowly.Allowing them only to "set" it but not lock it--i.e., just get the position--is another possibility.


----------



## The Kai (Oct 21, 2005)

If you are going to teach the art, teach it.  If the student is not right for the art, do not teach them..


----------



## Navarre (Oct 21, 2005)

I think that may be oversimplifying the situation, Kai. I agree that we shouldn't "cater" to individuals or cheapen the art. However, there is little doubt that martial arts can be a valuable component of anyone's life. The art is not only about the techniques. 

To be able to bring a child into the art and work with them allows that child to grow into what they can become.  It would be analagous to saying that if 6 yr olds can't do algebra they shouldn't be allowed in school. Of course they should; learning at the pace and with material that is appropriate for them so they can advance to the algebra concepts.


----------



## The Kai (Oct 21, 2005)

A kid that can't do algebra should not be allowed in algebra school!

If you don't feel that someone is mature enough to learn the art where do you stop. If you would not teach a bully because of that would you teach someone to young to handle the resposibilty, someone to young to mentally comprehend and physiaclly atr risk by some of the techniwues?
Obviously a neck crank is a dangerous techique
However is not a side kick to the head (the most common picture of the martial artist) risky as well
So you Safety up the art so no feels threatened
Slimpify the art so a 5year old can understand it
Sell out, sell out

Martial Ballet anyone?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2005)

Master Itosu taught the pinan forms to grade school children.  Many accuse him of _selling out_, yet in those forms there are techniques that dislocate, break and kill.  Those are deadly forms...and he taught them to children.  Am I incorrect in my assumption that he would not have done so if he did not see worth in it?  I believe that there is worth and the only difference is our approach to teaching...children are not adults and therefore learn differently.

If kids want to train in my art, I want them to learn the full art and not some watered down version.  However, I want to be darn sure that the way I teach does not inadvertently cause injury.  As of now, there are two children who train in my dojang.  Both are ten years old and they have been there from the beginning.  They both are very serious about Tang Soo Do, they are self motivated, they practice regularly, and listen attentively.  I look to them as templates for the type of child I want to teach.  

Tang Soo Do has given them something special and I respect them for applying themselves so diligently.  I want to show my respect by teaching them as best as I can.


----------



## The Kai (Oct 21, 2005)

Were the Pinan forms taught with the Bunkai intact or a serious of movements?  Were the kids being prepared for going to war?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Were the Pinan forms taught with the Bunkai intact or a serious of movements? Were the kids being prepared for going to war?


Good questions.  I do not know the answers.  And I would very much like to know the answers.  :asian:


----------



## The Kai (Oct 21, 2005)

From all acounts the kids were taught the forms with little understanding of Bunkai, I can't cite sources but this is what I've heard. 

_ When I started 25 years ago adults were not trained much in the bunkai of kata.  Kata was a proformance art, sparring was thought of sparring.  Nowadays along with Bukai being explored like crazy, the line between sparring and Kata gets blurrier by the day_

So even Itosu taught the art with the idea to get the young ones ready to fight, and as basic training for the war, not as fighting per se.   Remeber he sold the idea to the school board before or during WWII to build strong youth.

Teach them joint locks, well if they are to be a template (which they sound great so far) teach them everything-then you'll know what you know


----------



## Navarre (Oct 21, 2005)

Kai, 

I take notice of your cut at me in my Meet and Greet thread where you seemed to make assumptions about my perspective even though I had made no such statement to prompt the post.


I don't agree with your stance on this issue either. However, I have stated my opinion clearly.

It has almost always been my experience that one is seldom likely to change their opinion about anything they consider important. This holds true especially with politics and religion. 

This is why I have not posted in the threads about gay marriage and such. Those threads run indefinitely yet nothing is resolved. Most ppl want to state and defend their own opinion but almost never change their actual viewpoint.

Any serious martial artist would hold martial arts in as high a regard as politics, probably even religion. Therefore, I would not try to persuade you to change your mind. To do so would turn this thread into a debate about "who's right".

I find your approach to be simplistic. You find mine to be a sell out. I shall be content to leave it at that and allow others to make up their own minds.


----------



## Navarre (Oct 21, 2005)

I want to publicly apologize to Kai for part of my post. It *was not* he who directed a personally negative comment toward me in the Meet and Greet forum. I was mistakenly thinking of another user. I'm at work most of the time I'm on the board (which is why I'm on like 8 hrs a day!) and got confused. I should have checked my facts first. I apologize, Kai, for blaming you for anything in that regard.

As for the technique question, I still hold my original view...as most likely will you. Perhaps my algebra analogy was taken incorrectly. I didn't mean that children should be in algebra school (whatever that is) if they couldn't do algebra. 

I was instead meaning that children start learning simpler math at an earlier age so that they develop a foundation upon which they can learn algebra when older. In this way they prepare their mind to handle the concepts. It is also important to note that their cognitive brain development is not yet ready to handle algebra if they are too young.

In the same manner, I feel that younger students need to develop their skills in stages. This is similar to adults. We don't expect adults to spar before they know any stances or know how to strike.

This is why I suggested that children start with understanding principles of body contact, angled movement, and escape before advancing to potentially injurous locks. As they internalize these concepts, regardless of age, they will be ready to progress toward more advanced techniques.

So, my point is that they should be taught with greater forethought and in a more controlled manner than an adult, not that they should not be taught the "true" techniques.  I do not see this as "selling out", only applying an awareness of childhood development to the teaching curriculum.

If you still feel this is selling out, I respect your opinion and we are most likely back to the "agree to disagree" position. ... My apologies again for any unjustified remarks.


----------



## kempo-vjj (Oct 21, 2005)

I have both a 9 and 10 year old along with myself working locking techs. At white belt they learn the ikijo, nikijo, sankijo (sp). With nikijo they learn application of the armbar and takedown, with sankijo they learn armbar and a rollout throw. Have they been hurt? Yes. Once or twice. Usually its sankijo that they get hurt with. First they are shown by the instructor how to and how it feels, and to go slow!!! When one gets hurt though it is when one has been playing then all of a sudden the other applies the lock to the unready one. Locks are important in overpowering the stronger opponent, in which case is most child vs adult scenarios. On another point no chokes or weapons until 14 I think. Except stick work of course since we work that also into open hand work. We also do not spar much so everything is kinda static at lower belts with slow takedowns.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 21, 2005)

The Kai said:
			
		

> Were the Pinan forms taught with the Bunkai intact or a serious of movements? Were the kids being prepared for going to war?


 I'm sur ethe teaching of the bunkai is delayed. That's the analogy...like only setting the locks, they can learn the basics and the movements first, and then concetrate on applications in later years. It makes sense to me--a progression, like learning arithmetic before algebra, algebra before calculus, calculus before analysis...


----------



## howard (Oct 22, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> you also risk damaging growth plates.


 Indeed you do.  People under 18, or whose skeletal development is not yet complete, should avoid full-on joint locks.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Oct 22, 2005)

If we're teaching HKD, then yes. People can be suprised what children can learn. They in my experiance can learn better then adults. BUT it takes the ability to impart knowledge and do it well. My 5-8yo's have no problems and I think that speaks of itself.


----------

