# Joint Locks - How Effective?



## rudai123

Hello, I am currently taking Karate (Seido) which is going pretty well. There is a Hapkido school near me, so I did a lot of YouTube watching of Hapkido. I see that Hapkido has lots of wrist and other joint locks for takedowns and basic self defense. Obviously, what I see on YouTube is not a real situation. I wrestled in college  and don't see how many of the takedowns would actually work in a real scenario. So my question is, in the heat of an attack, do joint locks really work for self defense?


----------



## MAist25

They can be effective if done correctly. In my opinion, a joint lock done all by itself would not work. You must stun and off-balance your attacker in order to pull of a lock. If your attacker feels you attacking one of his joints, he will immediately tense up and make it impossible to take him down. You must strike him first to disrupt the signals being sent to and from the brain in order to give you that split second opening to apply a lock. Also, I believe joint locks are much more effective against static attacks, such as grabs. Dynamic attacks like punches are almost impossible to catch out of the air and apply a joint lock to, as you often see in demonstrations. But Hapkido is much more than just joint locks. There are many different strikes, kicks, throws, etc. in addition to the joint locks that HKD is famous for. So whether you are facing a static or dynamic attack, Hapkido should provide you with sufficient techniques to defend yourself, if you are going to a decent school...


----------



## WC_lun

Joint locks can and are effective with a couple of caveats,  First, a person must train agsinst someone that doesn't want to be locked.  It is the only way to learn how to flow from one thing to another, recognizing when a lock is there and when it is not.  Second, a person needs a teacher that can teach locks from an experieced perspective, not from theory.  Finally, training enough to know when a lock is the best choice for what you want accomplished, can a proper lock be applied, and where to fall back to if the lock is not successful.


----------



## dancingalone

I believe hapkido to be a highly practical martial art if trained correctly with forethought towards realism.

Aikido is a sister art to hapkido and they share the same arsenal of locks and throws.  One my fellow dans at my aikido dojo is a municipal police officer.  He commonly uses techniques practiced in class to subdue and arrest perpetrators and he often shares his practical experience when appropriate.  He has stated over and over that he has found aikido to be invaluable in his day-to-day work.  Also, I am not sure if this is still the case, but I have read that the Tokyo police also send candidates to an annual Yoshinkan aikido instructor course, so they also feel the experience was useful.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

MAist25 said:


> They can be effective if done correctly. In my opinion, a joint lock done all by itself would not work. You must stun and off-balance your attacker in order to pull of a lock...You must strike him first to disrupt the signals being sent to and from the brain in order to give you that split second opening to apply a lock. Also, I believe joint locks are much more effective against static attacks, such as grabs. Dynamic attacks like punches are almost impossible to catch out of the air and apply a joint lock to, as you often see in demonstrations. But Hapkido is much more than just joint locks. There are many different strikes, kicks, throws, etc. in addition to the joint locks that HKD is famous for. So whether you are facing a static or dynamic attack, Hapkido should provide you with sufficient techniques to defend yourself, if you are going to a decent school...





> *WC_lun
> *
> Joint locks can and are effective with a couple of caveats, First, a person must train agsinst someone that doesn't want to be locked. It is the only way to learn how to flow from one thing to another, recognizing when a lock is there and when it is not. *Second, a person needs a teacher that can teach locks from an experieced perspective, not from theory*.





> Dancingalone
> 
> I believe hapkido to be a highly practical martial art if trained correctly with forethought towards realism.



Excellent advice from the above members.  Joint locks are a specialty of mine as I use them almost on a daily basis at one level or another of resistance.  They can be instumental in ending a confrontation or controlling an individual when strikes/kicks are not desirable or appropriate.  And occassionally, it can be used to end a confrontation where a strike or kick wouldn't (due to circumstances such as the perp not feeling pain or continuing to fight even if something has been broken or dislocated) as a proper lock doesn't rely solely upon pain for compliance.  A proper lock should immobilize an individual and reduce his/her ability for specific movements.  Generally speaking, a strike should preceded a lock attempt to maximize the chance to apply the lock.  There will occassionally be times when you can go straight for the lock and this is where an experienced instructor comes into play (rather than one that teaches solely from theory).


----------



## Thesemindz

There are no magic bullets. Joint locks work, but like everything else you have to train to make them work. I find larger joint locks, like straight arm bars and hammerlocks, easier to apply against a resisting opponent. But I've taken down resisting opponents with wrist locks too. I've had students who were security professionals who have used locks I've taught them to control and subdue unruly belligerents. I've also been submitted, walked, and taken down with wrist locks while fully resisting and defending. They work, because they are designed to take advantage of the natural structure of the human body and it's vulnerabilities. But *you *will only be able to make them work if you are taught how to do them properly, practice them diligently, and train against increasing levels of resistance.

I know some great Hapkido guys, but like every other art the individual instructor is far more important than the sign over the door.


-Rob


----------



## Sukerkin

Quite so, *TMZ*.  As with all such discourses, it is much more a case of the artist rather than the art that makes the difference.

Before my bike accident I was a very experienced practitioner in Lau gar kung fu.  If I let him, a friend of mine who did Aikido could indeed enforce all manner of comedic pain and compliance with joint locks  ... but the emphasis was on the "if I let him" part because there was a considerable disparity in 'years under the belt' between us.  If I decided I wasn't going to 'let him in' then I'd intercept his moves with strikes to the encroaching limb(s).  But that doesn't mean what he knew was not good, it's just that I knew how to spoil his moves and could do it because I was more experienced than he was.

The man or woman always matters more than what it is that they study.


----------



## Thesemindz

There's also a difference between pain compliance and structural advantage. I'm a pretty tough guy. You can do certain techniques against me that _hurt_, but if I focus I can ignore the pain and fight back. Then there are other techniques that are true "locks" which immobilize the body and when fully applied can not be defended without breaking the bones and joints. Of course, if you're really, really tough, you could break your own wrist against the lock and continue to fight back, but that takes a lot more focus.


-Rob


----------



## Buka

I really like joint locks. They were first taught to me in the early seventies ("taught" being a loose definition in this case) by my buddy, Joe, a DT instructor and forty year Kenpo man. I was a stubborn young man, one of the opinion, "Oh, yeah? Show me. Make me bark like a dog." It was one of the longest afternoons of my life. Within five minutes I was yapping like a Chihuahua with it's leg caught in a trap.

Spent the better part of that summer drilling them with Joe and with my students. There were nights our arms and wrists were so sore we couldn't brush our teeth. Took a few years to feel comfortable with them. I hooked up with Wally Jay, and, man, that was something. I was back to being a Chihuahua again. Professor Jay was a trip and a half, sweetest man you ever met, but could put a world of hurt on you once his hand got to any part of you. He taught us so much.

By then I was a DT instructor and was working with a lot of cops, many of whom had strong martial backgrounds. But a lot of them had more street experience than I did. They taught me as much as I taught them. I learned - in a knock down, drag out battle you have to end the violence before you can apply the joint lock. At least, I do. I'm sure there are guys who are better at it, and much stronger than me. And sometimes strong helps.

Hooked up with the Gracies in the early nineties, the term joint lock took on an entirely new meaning. (I barked so much I was starting to crave dog food) My buddy, Harold, who was a Hapkido man I met at tournaments, was nice enough to spend some time with me and my guys as well, as did some cops I knew from another department who were Aikido men. I was getting locked up so much I sometimes couldn't open my car door. (I have to feel it when I'm crazy resisting to have faith)

My conclusions? Joint locks work great if you get, or create, an opportunity to apply them. Everyone's got their favorites, and that's probably the way it's supposed to be.


----------



## Twin Fist

i would NEVER depend on a joint lock. 

never


----------



## Buka

Twin Fist said:


> i would NEVER depend on a joint lock.
> 
> never



Quoted for truth. 
I'd never depend on a punch, a kick or throw, either.


----------



## mook jong man

I think they are effective if you have a mindset of not trying for a specific lock , but instead have about three or four different ones that you can transition to if the first is resisted .

Such as if he bends his arm put him in a vertical wrist lock , if he straightens it use an arm bar , if he moves it to the back use a hammer lock.
Just knowing the individual locks are not enough you must know how to transition through all the points of the lock flow.

There is also a lot to be said for distraction like giving the tricep a good wack with the edge of your hand before you roll the armbar on or a stamp kick to the back of the knee joint just before you put on the vertical wristlock.


----------



## Jenna

rudai123 said:


> Hello, I am currently taking Karate (Seido) which is going pretty well. There is a Hapkido school near me, so I did a lot of YouTube watching of Hapkido. I see that Hapkido has lots of wrist and other joint locks for takedowns and basic self defense. Obviously, what I see on YouTube is not a real situation. I wrestled in college  and don't see how many of the takedowns would actually work in a real scenario. So my question is, in the heat of an attack, do joint locks really work for self defense?


If you are a Karateka then I think this is a bit like asking yourself, do punches work, or do kicks work.  The answer is simple:  

Yes.  They will work if you punch or kick with 1. intent, 2. appropriate distance, 3. appropriate speed and power, 4. correct follow-through and 5. correct covering from a defensive point of view.  
No.  They will not work if you do not throw out your punch or kick with any appropriate level of expertise.

The question you have to ask yourself is.  Am I feeling lucky.. Sorry, I mean, do I have sufficient expertise to apply my punch / kick / lock / throw / whatever 

Good luck and best wishes with your Karate and Hapkido.  Youtube is a pile of ***** for learning anything even near the reality of most martial arts.


----------



## Cyriacus

Jenna said:


> If you are a Karateka then I think this is a bit like asking yourself, do punches work, or do kicks work.  The answer is simple:
> 
> Yes.  They will work if you punch or kick with 1. intent, 2. appropriate distance, 3. appropriate speed and power, 4. correct follow-through and 5. correct covering from a defensive point of view.
> No.  They will not work if you do not throw out your punch or kick with any appropriate level of expertise.
> 
> The question you have to ask yourself is.  Am I feeling lucky.. Sorry, I mean, do I have sufficient expertise to apply my punch / kick / lock / throw / whatever
> 
> Good luck and best wishes with your Karate and Hapkido.  Youtube is a pile of ***** for learning anything even near the reality of most martial arts.


I dunno, Jenna.
Ameri-Do-Te is pretty Street Lethal.
Its saved My LIFE Eight Times from Potential Rapists.


----------



## Jenna

Cyriacus said:


> I dunno, Jenna.
> Ameri-Do-Te is pretty Street Lethal.
> Its saved My LIFE Eight Times from Potential Rapists.


Ameri Do Te? That is the musical scale song Maria sang to the little Von Trapps in _The Sound of Music_?  Yes I should think that would deter any street attacker.  Again though, as with any defensive technique, show songs are only effective when performed with correct timing, distance and power.  Otherwise, you might as well apply your best Lady Gaga, and Lady Gaga, is just not good Kung Fu.


----------



## Cyriacus

Jenna said:


> Ameri Do Te? That is the musical scale song Maria sang to the little Von Trapps in _The Sound of Music_?  Yes I should think that would deter any street attacker.  Again though, as with any defensive technique, show songs are only effective when performed with correct timing, distance and power.  Otherwise, you might as well apply your best Lady Gaga, and Lady Gaga, is just not good Kung Fu.


No, I mean the Combat Art 

Optionally, you could make a bunch of Impressionable Youths watch Expert Village Videos about how to RNC People. Because that totally benefits Society!


----------



## Kong Soo Do

The thing to keep in mind is that a joint _*lock*_ is only a hair-breadths distance from being joint _*destruction*_.  The beautiful rolling throws don't happen in a full speed violent altercation against someone that probably doesn't know how to 'go with' the lock and break fall.  I'm specifically talking about locks that lead to a throw or takedown that isn't focused on control.  For example, an outside wrist lock takedown can easily damage the tendons and ligaments in the arm from the wrist to the elbow, and in some cases the shoulder.  One can apply force in more of a snapping motion rather than a guiding motion if necesary and applicable to the situation.  This expands the use of locking knowledge by adding an additional layer.


----------



## oftheherd1

Twin Fist said:


> i would NEVER depend on a joint lock.
> 
> never



Un ... Was that sarcasm or do you really think joint locks don't work?  They are like any other technique, properly learned and appropriately executed, they work.


----------



## seasoned

I feel that in certain situations where a level of compliance is needed, alternatives to the good old punch and kick are a good common sense tool for the tool box.........


----------



## Cyriacus

oftheherd1 said:


> Un ... Was that sarcasm or do you really think joint locks don't work?  They are like any other technique, properly learned and appropriately executed, they work.


Hes saying that you should not DEPEND on it - Not that it wouldnt work.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

When teaching firearms to High Liability professionals or civilains, I always stress to fire for effect until the threat has stopped. The same can be applied to SD in that we continue to defend ourselves until the threat has stopped. If the punch/kick/lock/throw or whatever doesn't stop the threat you immediately follow it up with the next punch/kick/lock/throw or whatever (as is appropriate) and so forth.


----------



## David43515

I only know that they`ve worked for me nearly every time I`ve used them. But I train them hard and often so that I never have to think about them. And they`re not my first choice. An experienced  (or lucky) guy can twist out of some locks if you`re not paying attention. A knocklout puch can`t be wriggled out of.


----------



## JohnEdward

As a long time traditional Japanese jujutsu technician. Who knows how to kick and punch, who has been in scraps that where not pretty, I have thought allot about this. Here is what I have come to in terms of self defense:

*Joint locks and Joint brakes
*
Joint Locks: for compliance. I have a drunk and I need a hold for compliance reasons. He is drunk easy to get the lock.  If he isn't drunk, if he is aware of the lock coming on, is strong, is moving aggressively, a strike is necessary first before the lock. No strike need if he errors, i.e. a very lousy fighter.

Joint Locks for non-compliant situations: An attacker grabs by arm to hold it, or grabs hair. A strike, if possible, followed by the technique is preferred. The other guy errors as a result of a lousy fighter, then a technique is applied. Again a strike is preferred to soften up the attacker to apply the Joint technique. 

Joint brakes: other guy has a weapon and intent on hurting or killing you. You must control the weapon. The above applies.  You must strike or he must error, providing an opportunity to apply the break.  


Personal insight:
Personally Joint locks are not the primary technique I would use. Breaks over locks primarily. Because the opportunity is specific and exacting to apply an effective lock or brake. Because it requires skill, good timing, and often a distraction such as a strike. My experience and training tells me to punch and kick first then apply the jujutsu if necessary. But in rare cases, if the window is there,  you lead in with a joint technique. You can fight all your life and maybe use one or two techniques of joint locks or brakes as described above. 

A good , and I stress good not lightly, Hapkido school isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

JohnEdward said:


> As a long time traditional Japanese jujutsu technician. Who knows how to kick and punch, who has been in scraps that where not pretty, I have thought allot about this. Here is what I have come to in terms of self defense:
> 
> *Joint locks and Joint brakes
> *
> Joint Locks: for compliance. I have a drunk and I need a hold for compliance reasons. He is drunk easy to get the lock.  If he isn't drunk, if he is aware of the lock coming on, is strong, is moving aggressively, a strike is necessary first before the lock. No strike need if he errors, i.e. a very lousy fighter.
> 
> Joint Locks for non-compliant situations: An attacker grabs by arm to hold it, or grabs hair. A strike, if possible, followed by the technique is preferred. The other guy errors as a result of a lousy fighter, then a technique is applied. Again a strike is preferred to soften up the attacker to apply the Joint technique.
> 
> Joint brakes: other guy has a weapon and intent on hurting or killing you. You must control the weapon. The above applies.  You must strike or he must error, providing an opportunity to apply the break.
> 
> 
> Personal insight:
> Personally Joint locks are not the primary technique I would use. Breaks over locks primarily. Because the opportunity is specific and exacting to apply an effective lock or brake. Because it requires skill, good timing, and often a distraction such as a strike. My experience and training tells me to punch and kick first then apply the jujutsu if necessary. But in rare cases, if the window is there,  you lead in with a joint technique. You can fight all your life and maybe use one or two techniques of joint locks or brakes as described above.
> 
> A good , and I stress good not lightly, Hapkido school isn't a bad thing.



Good post John.  Your last sentence is the crux of the whole matter, it needs to be a good Hapkido school (read realistic).  I've seen some really excellent training videos where they incorporate locking in along with appropriate striking and throwing in a very realistic manner.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of videos (and by extension schools/organizations) that offer complete junk.  Throwing a punch two feet to the side of your training partners head and then leaving it hanging there in the air for him to grab isn't good training.  Oh, perhaps for the white belt level as part of explaining the technique it is passable.  But I've seen high level Dans (5th and up) in demonstrations to other high Dans do this exact thing and everyone eating it up like it would actually work in real life.  That's bad training.  And it's bad teaching.  It always makes me think of '_Rex Kwon Do_', "Grab my wrist...the other wrist....NO!  MY other wrist".  In regards to the 'grab my wrist' method of teaching, the student needs to know WHY his wrist would be grabbed in such a manner.  What to do if the attacker grabs it in a way other than that which was trained for in the Dojang.  In otherwords, the student should understand the principle of the lock as opposed to _just_ the technique.  That way he/she can lock regardless of whether the attacker is directly in front, from the side, from behind, on the ground or whatever position the altercation happens.  This way the student doesn't have to learn 50 ways to escape a front wrist grab (read informational overload), rather they have a deeper understanding of the way the wrist to the elbow to the shoulder and down to the waist works.


----------



## JohnEdward

Kong Soo Do said:


> Good post John.  Your last sentence is the crux of the whole matter, it needs to be a good Hapkido school (read realistic).  I've seen some really excellent training videos where they incorporate locking in along with appropriate striking and throwing in a very realistic manner.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of videos (and by extension schools/organizations) that offer complete junk.  Throwing a punch two feet to the side of your training partners head and then leaving it hanging there in the air for him to grab isn't good training.  Oh, perhaps for the white belt level as part of explaining the technique it is passable.  But I've seen high level Dans (5th and up) in demonstrations to other high Dans do this exact thing and everyone eating it up like it would actually work in real life.  That's bad training.  And it's bad teaching.  It always makes me think of '_Rex Kwon Do_', "Grab my wrist...the other wrist....NO!  MY other wrist".  In regards to the 'grab my wrist' method of teaching, the student needs to know WHY his wrist would be grabbed in such a manner.  What to do if the attacker grabs it in a way other than that which was trained for in the Dojang.  In otherwords, the student should understand the principle of the lock as opposed to _just_ the technique.  That way he/she can lock regardless of whether the attacker is directly in front, from the side, from behind, on the ground or whatever position the altercation happens.  This way the student doesn't have to learn 50 ways to escape a front wrist grab (read informational overload), rather they have a deeper understanding of the way the wrist to the elbow to the shoulder and down to the waist works.



Good comment. I too think a deeper understanding of locks is crucial. Stagnate, rote and routine practice is fine to a point in the early stages of learning. There is point when the training wheels have to come off and practice is approached toward a real understanding of joint locks and their applications. 

 The complexity to manipulate an unwilling person's joint placing them in a position they wish not to do is very difficult. To apply a joint lock on a sober resistant individual is very difficult without striking first or distraction. Pain and shock from a strike allows a joint lock to come on much easier and faster.  A Joint lock is for control and compliance . A brake is to shut down the attack, where compliance will not work. With that said joint locks are far more complex and difficult to apply given you have to deal with resistance from start to end. The less obvious example, is the opponent's muscular and bone structure that provides natural resistance and inhibit joint locks especially those that involve twisting.  The obvious of course is the person provides a counter via resistance either through contracting the muscles, positioning, or striking.  A strike on the opponent insures there will be less resistance and a greater chance to apply the lock. The understanding of the anatomical design and mechanics, and  manipulation of multiple joints plus the isolation a joint(s) to destroy balance if standing, or as a pin in newaza is really difficult. It is why you don't learn joint locks over night and requires deep study.  In comparison to a punch that can be learned in minutes and can be effective relatively quickly. The draw back of a strike is the lack of corporal  control.

Because of that, many teach a ton of escapes, I believe are wrongly base resulting in ad hoc  joint locks that are poorly done and understood. And continue because of leading in with strikes first.  Many stress simple joint brakes at the elbow because they are too a strike.  Joint breaks go beyond that. Joint breaks are also joint locks going beyond the point of pain compliance by applying more pressure, torque, rotation etc. on the joint past what it can handle and then destroying the joint.  Here again, the lack of understanding leads to poor teaching, poor technique application and scenarios. 

Joint locks are not a walk in the park, when don't correctly you are control the entire mind and body of the opponent rendering him useless against an attack or retaliation. You really have to have an understanding of locks to pull one off. If it is a joint brake at the elbow for instance, it doesn't require as much understanding, as it is a type of strike. But to stress the joints beyond its limits via a joint lock is as difficult as a lock. When that is not deeply understood with the required knowledge for application, that modifications are done to be it easier for simulated success at the task.They are lulled into the idea joint locks are easy, and require little understanding. And that real knowledge often is replaced due to lack of knowledge by dumb-downed technique, over-focus on trite minutia, and exploitation of ineffective techniques.  

I feel a good Hapkido dojang is going to understand well Japanese jujutsu. They may step out of tradition and study Japanese jujutsu at a ryu and school. Just as some have step out for ground work.  I think that is what really is needed to elevate a Hapkido school. After all one leg of Hapkido which it stands on is Japanese Jujutsu.


----------



## JohnEdward

After re-reading my comment, my point wasn't intended to be sound insulting about learning Japanese Jujutsu. I have a mind set that is about going back to the core elements of an art and discover them.  Hapkido is not different than most arts in the regard combining other arts. Therefore, looking at the Joint lock side, the parent jujutsu art of Hapkido can provide gainful insight. Well any good jujutsu as well.  

I have seen Hapkido done very poorly by a national Korean team. It was a demonstration that was right up there with vaudeville acts of strength, and a bit of pro wrestling. Sadly it didn't impress the American audience at all. That isn't hard not to do, impress an American audience of non-martial arts.  That got me thinking that if the "top" Hapkido Koreans are this bad, the students are doomed.  What is a student to do, I realized it was to rediscover Hapkido through jujutsu.   I have always been impressed with good Hapkido. It is a good art.


----------



## Cyriacus

That reminds me of how many Interpritations of JJ there are.

You have JJ's thatre pure Grappling.
You have JJ's thatre Striking leading to Grappling.
You have JJ's that balance it.

And so forth.

Hapkido is similar in that respect.


----------



## dancingalone

JohnEdward said:


> After re-reading my comment, my point wasn't intended to be sound insulting about learning Japanese Jujutsu. I have a mind set that is about going back to the core elements of an art and discover them.  Hapkido is not different than most arts in the regard combining other arts. Therefore, looking at the Joint lock side, the parent jujutsu art of Hapkido can provide gainful insight. Well any good jujutsu as well.
> 
> I have seen Hapkido done very poorly by a national Korean team. It was a demonstration that was right up there with vaudeville acts of strength, and a bit of pro wrestling. Sadly it didn't impress the American audience at all. That isn't hard not to do, impress an American audience of non-martial arts.  That got me thinking that if the "top" Hapkido Koreans are this bad, the students are doomed.  What is a student to do, I realized it was to rediscover Hapkido through jujutsu.   I have always been impressed with good Hapkido. It is a good art.



I understand you aren't out to belittle hapkido, but I don't think it is necessary to go back to the jujutsu/Daito ryu roots for a hapkido-in to reach high levels of achievement in his martial art.  I've been on the floor with JR West from hapkido and Byung In Lee (formerly Kuk Sool Won, now doing his own thing).  They both have consummate levels of skill in their art, and I don't believe either gentlemen ever studied jujutsu.  GM West does have a connection to Hee Young Kimm, who is a high ranking judo-ka among other things.


----------



## oftheherd1

JohnEdward said:


> ...
> 
> I feel a good Hapkido dojang is going to understand well Japanese jujutsu. They may step out of tradition and study Japanese jujutsu at a ryu and school. Just as some have step out for ground work. I think that is what really is needed to elevate a Hapkido school. After all one leg of Hapkido which it stands on is Japanese Jujutsu.



When I studied Hapkido in Korea, we breifly had a student who had also studied JuJutsu.  He showed us some Jujutsu moves that were similar to some of ours.  It seemed that there were often strikes of kicks that I deemed were distractors.  Not a bad idea sometimes.  So I guess a Hapkido student would understand Jujutsu.

I don't think any training, if done properly, is wasted.  But I don't know that Hapkido gains all that much.  Of course I say that never having studied Jujutsu.  But we have ground defenses as well.  They weren't taught in my style until acheiving 1st Dan.  And I don't know how much more may be taught at Master's levels, so maybe Jujutsu has more than we Hapkidoists.

As to joint locks and breaks, what everyone has said about needing to train well is important.  I have seen times when trying to demonstrate techniques, that people resisted, and made it seem ineffective.  Some of the police where I work thought so when we were training them.  I was trying to teach them without hurting them.  I simply offered to let them grab me anywhere they wanted, and see what happened when I reacted violently with full force, as I would in a real situation.  None took me up on that.  Nor did I ever see anyone be able to resist my GM when he was demonstrating a technique. However, I don't know how many in here are Hapkido GM, but I certainly am not.

Properly learned and executed, joint locks and breaks can be very effective.  Even so, what others have said above about some people not reacting the same is true.  Some strong and/or muscle bound people can resist some techniques better than others.  One needs to be prepared for that evenuality.


----------



## JohnEdward

dancingalone said:


> I understand you aren't out to belittle hapkido, but I don't think it is necessary to go back to the jujutsu/Daito ryu roots for a hapkido-in to reach high levels of achievement in his martial art.  I've been on the floor with JR West from hapkido and Byung In Lee (formerly Kuk Sool Won, now doing his own thing).  They both have consummate levels of skill in their art, and I don't believe either gentlemen ever studied jujutsu.  GM West does have a connection to Hee Young Kimm, who is a high ranking judo-ka among other things.



I feel if a Hapkido practitioner goes back to jujutsu to get a more in-depth study, it benefits their study of Hapkido. It goes along the lines of any Chef going and looking at the techniques of French Cuisine. Or an Architect going to do a study in Europe. It helps to look at the foundation of anything as see where it comes from and has developed into. It may fill in gaps, answer questions, provide a different perspective, leading to deeper understand, or provide an Ah Ha moment. Not to say Hapkido doesn't have good effective locks. It does, but they come from jujutsu. In comparison it can be said in come cases Hapkido's joint locks and applications are more relevant than some Koryu jujutsu which where practiced and designed against just the amour samurai and their various weapons; that are practiced today for the purpose of preservation of the art. 

As far as the politics you mentioned, that is for the general's pushing or protecting their territory. It has no bearing on anyone wanting to improve or practice their arts, be it jujutsu or Hapkido. I practice Jujutsu, I see similarities. I see practitioners who could benefit from looking at jujutsu.  Jujutsu strictly focuses on jujutsu. Jujutsu really isn't an art like Hapkido. Jujutsu was a traditional a weapon, an means, a method, among many others available to the samurai. Honestly, in those days, if you look at the real old jujutsu there isn't allot of technique to learn. But, as time when on and schools developed they did a close in depth study on joint manipulation, brakes and locks, so much so it became an art.  Hapkido being a modern art, has a more global and broaden philosophy. Because it is designed for modern day applications. Just as Krav Maga is to Israel, as Hapkido was to Korea. Modern fighting systems that where built on traditional systems, and influences. So it reason to go back and look at those systems and influences to see why, for one reason, joint locks where incorporated. There had to be something of interest in jujutsu in any measure. It wasn't like the Koreans where blind to the existence of jujutsu. Just as the Japanese were not blind to Chin-na. Just as we in America where aware of Greek and Roman wrestling that is the foundation of our wrestling sport. Or our Football has with Ruby. 

I think it would be beneficial for any serious Hapkido practitioner to take a gander at jujutsu.


----------



## JohnEdward

Let me add authentic jujutsu that is practiced properly and preserved correctly would benefit any serious Hapkido practitioner.


----------



## Chris Parker

Then let me add that that depends entirely on the system, and the Hapkido practitioners desires and aims for training. I can think of a quite a number of old Japanese systems where it would just get in the way, frankly, and that's the majority of them.


----------



## JohnEdward

Chris Parker said:


> Then let me add that that depends entirely on the system, and the Hapkido practitioners desires and aims for training. I can think of a quite a number of old Japanese systems where it would just get in the way, frankly, and that's the majority of them.



Yes, a number of Japanese systems would get in the way, like those arts that incorporates jujutsu and isn't only a system of jujutsu, For example of art that incorporate jujutsu and not be an exclusive jujutsu system are Ninjutsu, Kenjutsu, etc. accordingly to the discussion. Yes, in my opinion, it behooves Hapkido practitioners to seek the out jujutsu. For some who believe Hapkido has a parent art it would be a specific jujutsu, for those who don't subscribe to that theory it then would be any good traditional jujutsu none the less.


----------



## Buka

If you're a cop, and have to wrassle and arrest dangerous people that don't want to get wrassled and arrested, joint locks take on an entirely new meaning, be they from Hapkido, Kenpo, JJJ, BJJ or whatever. 

I don't give a damn where they're from, if they work, rock on.


----------



## Chris Parker

JohnEdward said:


> Yes, a number of Japanese systems would get in the way, like those arts that incorporates jujutsu and isn't only a system of jujutsu, For example of art that incorporate jujutsu and not be an exclusive jujutsu system are Ninjutsu, Kenjutsu, etc. accordingly to the discussion. Yes, in my opinion, it behooves Hapkido practitioners to seek the out jujutsu. For some who believe Hapkido has a parent art it would be a specific jujutsu, for those who don't subscribe to that theory it then would be any good traditional jujutsu none the less.



Not exactly what I meant. If you find Takenouchi Ryu, the application of locks and holds there is very different to Hapkido, which is vastle different to Asayama Ichiden Ryu again, which is very removed from Kito Ryu, which has completely different movement to Kashima Shinryu. By looking at the mechanics of a Japanese Jujutsu system, you could be looking at methods that are directly opposed to Hapkido's movement. If you're going to suggest any of them, it would be Daito Ryu (thought to be the direct source for a lot of Hapkido), Hakko Ryu (which came out of Daito Ryu, but still starts to move away from Hapkido's approach) and it's offshoots (such as Hakko Denshin Ryu, and Hiko Ryu Taijutsu, but we're moving further away again), and possibly Aikido. The essential movement of most of the other Japanese Jujutsu systems are just too different to be of that much benefit. The Hapkido practitioner is better off going deeper into their study of their own system, honestly.


----------



## JohnEdward

Well, if your tracing linage or looking for roots or identifying the parent art then I would argue your comment.  But that isn't what am going for, we are discussing joint locks and joint brakes. I am looking at Joint locks  surveying principles, mechanics, possible modifications, alterations and deviations etc. related to joint lock effectiveness.  in relation to jujutsu the benefits of study by Hapkido practitioners. Stating again that looking at traditional jujutsu systems because they focus just on doing only jujutsu (joint locks and joint manipulation) that is what they are about. That is in terms of principles, understanding such jujutsu principles can be applied as various waza or with or without accompanying of a variety of weapons, including those ryu that use atemi. It is not to say Hapkido lacks this knowledge, but rather it is worth taking a look at jujutsu.


----------



## Chris Parker

Except that the application, entry, approach, methodology, angling, grips, even the very mechanics and aim of the action itself, can be very different. In terms of basic principles (twist a wrist, bar an elbow etc), there really isn't much more to learn by looking at the other systems other than for interests sake. And who said that jujutsu is just joint locks and joint manipulation? Some systems feature it heavily, others don't really have much at all, having a higher focus on throws, or striking, or weapon use (as part of the Jujutsu syllabus). For example, Asayama Ichiden Ryu is almost entirely joint controls, whereas Takagi Yoshin Ryu is much more focused on throws, with some joint controls in for good measure. Takenouchi Ryu features a lot of weapon use within the Jujutsu, as does Yagyu Shingan Ryu, who feature basically strikes and throws, over joint locks and controls, and so on.

I'm all for a greater amount of education, but to try the approaches of Japanese Jujutsu systems to try to add to, or enhance the Hapkido side of things seems to me to be counter-productive at best.


----------



## oftheherd1

JohnEdward - I am happy that you are so happy with your involvement and study of Jujutsu. I feel the same way about Hapkido. I am not sure I would agree Jujutsu is a direct parent of Hapkido, but frankly, I don't care. I know what the Hapkido I studied is about, what it teaches, and the attitudes supported by it, and what can be accomplished by it. That is what is important to me. 

I have never studied Jujutsu, nor am I familiar with the many arts mentioned by you or Chris Parker above. So I cannot comment on what specific advantage or disadvantage those arts might see in Hapkido or Jujutsu study, other than I believe training and learning new things is never a waste of time. I will say that that I cannot imagine how I am missing something really valuable by not studying Jujutsu. In Hapkido, I learned a good combination of blocking or deflecting, strikes, kicks, joint lock/manipulation, and throws. I learned defenses against knife, sword, and being grappled with, to include defenses against some of the previous defenses I learned. I thought it was well rounded up to the point I learned. That said, I fault no one for learning their own preferred art well. That is how it should be.

One other point, I still believe that some defenses I know of in Hapkido, so probably in Jujutsu or Aikido, and who knows what other art, are within the forms of other arts (sometimes they are know, sometimes not). But is it a Hapkido or Aikido, or Jujutsu defense? Well, MA have been around a very long time. I suspect that most, if not all that we know today, was discovered and practiced by some art from many centuries ago. When we say we know of a good (insert your art) defense or move, what we really mean is that I learned this in (again insert your art). Not that it was probably just discovered in the last 100 years or so.  Nor that the art of the person being talked to is so poor that it needs my art's assistance.  I am just offering another tool if the person chooses to learn it.


----------



## JohnEdward

oftheherd1 said:


> JohnEdward - I am not sure I would agree Jujutsu is a direct parent of Hapkido, but frankly, I don't care.



Neither do I and as I said that. I find it really important to recognize the difference between an argument and a suggestion. The surveying of jujutsu in relation of joint locks just mechanical and not political. 



> I know what the Hapkido I studied is about, what it teaches, and the attitudes supported by it, and what can be accomplished by it. That is what is important to me.



There maybe some confusion so allow me to stress, *I am making a suggestion*, and* not an argument*. To avoid saying this  numerous more times, allow me to stress for future comments, * I really like good Hapkido, it is very effective.*



> I have never studied Jujutsu, nor am I familiar with the many arts mentioned by you or Chris Parker above. So I cannot comment on what specific advantage or disadvantage those arts might see in Hapkido or Jujutsu study, other than I believe training and learning new things is never a waste of time. I will say that that I cannot imagine how I am missing something really valuable by not studying Jujutsu.



Good philosophy, an open mind is very useful in martial arts, even though so many seem to have a ridged mind set. Those unwilling to see connections, relationships, similarities, development, and universalities. These types of ridged mind set can be very defensive and have tunnel vision not understanding their arts fullest potential and abilities.  They may have limited knowledge on joint locks, yet thinking there is no other knowledge beyond their own that is valuable. On the other hand the astute practitioner is the opposite and recognized the advantages, He knows his knowledge is limited and acquiring further is advantages, he never stops being a humble student. Hungry for more applicable knowledge as it is a value to him because he sees the advantages. 



> One other point, I still believe that some defenses I know of in Hapkido, so probably in Jujutsu or Aikido, and who knows what other art, are within the forms of other arts (sometimes they are know, sometimes not). But is it a Hapkido or Aikido, or Jujutsu defense?



Maybe you should find out. 



> I am just offering another tool if the person chooses to learn it.



Agreed.


----------



## dancingalone

JohnEdward said:


> I feel if a Hapkido practitioner goes back to jujutsu to get a more in-depth study, it benefits their study of Hapkido. It goes along the lines of any Chef going and looking at the techniques of French Cuisine. Or an Architect going to do a study in Europe. It helps to look at the foundation of anything as see where it comes from and has developed into. It may fill in gaps, answer questions, provide a different perspective, leading to deeper understand, or provide an Ah Ha moment. Not to say Hapkido doesn't have good effective locks. It does, but they come from jujutsu. In comparison it can be said in come cases Hapkido's joint locks and applications are more relevant than some Koryu jujutsu which where practiced and designed against just the amour samurai and their various weapons; that are practiced today for the purpose of preservation of the art.



It sounds like you are referring to the benefit of seeing the same technique yet executed and taught from a different perspective.  I agree there is value there, but I think you could get the same thing from studying with another hapkido teacher aside from your own instructor, even one of the same lineage, and perhaps preferably so depending on the student's experience level.  

Sometimes arts have sufficient changed from their roots to where analysis of the parent art might be more of an academic exercise perhaps more relevant to the seasoned master-level teacher, rather than active practitioners more interested in improving their technique.  If I were a hankido person for example, where should I look for supplementary information?  Aikido?  Hapkido?  Or all the way back to Daito-ryu?

I think Hapkido has a sufficient footprint and body of information to stand upon itself.  There is no need to explore the jujutsu connection to develop hapkido skill,  although certainly there can be value there depending on the type of hapkido practiced and the experience level of the hapkido-in.


----------



## JohnEdward

dancingalone said:


> It sounds like you are referring to the benefit of seeing the same technique yet executed and taught from a different perspective.  I agree there is value there, but I think you could get the same thing from studying with another hapkido teacher aside from your own instructor, even one of the same lineage, and perhaps preferably so depending on the student's experience level.
> 
> Sometimes arts have sufficient changed from their roots to where analysis of the parent art might be more of an academic exercise perhaps more relevant to the seasoned master-level teacher, rather than active practitioners more interested in improving their technique.  If I were a hankido person for example, where should I look for supplementary information?  Aikido?  Hapkido?  Or all the way back to Daito-ryu?
> 
> I think Hapkido has a sufficient footprint and body of information to stand upon itself.  There is no need to explore the jujutsu connection to develop hapkido skill,  although certainly there can be value there depending on the type of hapkido practiced and the experience level of the hapkido-in.



Yea, I agree. I would hope the astute student would recognize that avenue as well.  Jujutsu can be looked at as a speciality. That is all they do. Very much like a business that specialize in one thing. All a good jujutsu school does is joint locks (for sake of discussion). As a result, they have a perspective and approach to joint locks different to other arts that combine movements, like Hapkido on joint locks. This is due to the nature of each art, the desired outcome and purposes. Much greater than from Hapkido school to Hapkido school. 

Jujutsu is limited in comparison to Hapkido as jujutsu focus is only upon joint locks and principles that apply to joint locks. Keep in mind, jujutsu schools have been at it a lot longer and an extensive and focused history of development than any other arts that use joint locking.  Knowing that knowledge is a value I would think in terms of further understanding and implementing joint locks. Jujutsu translates (not directly or literally from Japanese, but figuratively) as being joint locks and manipulation experts. It is the same idea if your plumbing needs to be replaced and you are going to fix it yourself,  you don't go to an electrician to see how it is done. This applies to Hapikido as well, if you want to combine striking and joint locks, you to to the guys who have it down. You go to Hapkido. I would say to any martial artist in the striking arts, go survey boxing. It is the Sweet Science. 

It is a suggestion. It is up to the individual. I have been involved in martial arts for over 35 years.  The thing that I really come to appreciate is Miyamoto Mushashi's advise about surveying other crafts, and about the importance of learning from those crafts. I apply that to joint locks here in this thread. Broaden the old horizons. If you don't want to, I am not going to argue personal choice.  I am just sharing in a friendly manner some knowledge FWIW.


----------



## JohnEdward

If anyone is on the edge thinking about surveying a good jujutsu and interested in joint locks, let me push you over the edge, go do it. What do you have to lose?


----------



## JohnEdward

Ofthand1, I think you make good points, I didn't feel I set that correct tone in my response to you. You should find out, I would be interested to read your findings on what you said.  





> One other point, I still believe that some defenses I know of in Hapkido, so probably in Jujutsu or Aikido, and who knows what other art, are within the forms of other arts (sometimes they are know, sometimes not). But is it a Hapkido or Aikido, or Jujutsu defense?


 That is deeper of an inquiry that what i was getting at with joint locks. I think that too is reason to survey a good jujutsu.


----------



## oftheherd1

JohnEdward said:


> ...
> 
> There maybe some confusion so allow me to stress, *I am making a suggestion*, and* not an argument*. To avoid saying this numerous more times, allow me to stress for future comments, *I really like good Hapkido, it is very effective.*
> 
> *Don't worry, I never felt you were doing other than showing your belief in you MA, and suggesting others might find it interesting as well. Nothing wrong with that. Nor did I mean to belittle you art when I said "I will say that that I cannot imagine how I am missing something really valuable by not studying Jujutsu." I meant that from a Hapkido perspective, and my study of Hapkido. I did find you comment interesting, about Jujutsu only doing joint locks. I didn't know that. That would change my thought process some regarding Jujutsu being very good at joint locks. I just tend to prefer my Hapkido at this point.
> *
> Good philosophy, an open mind is very useful in martial arts, even though so many seem to have a ridged mind set. Those unwilling to see connections, relationships, similarities, development, and universalities. These types of ridged mind set can be very defensive and have tunnel vision not understanding their arts fullest potential and abilities. They may have limited knowledge on joint locks, yet thinking there is no other knowledge beyond their own that is valuable. On the other hand the astute practitioner is the opposite and recognized the advantages, He knows his knowledge is limited and acquiring further is advantages, he never stops being a humble student. Hungry for more applicable knowledge as it is a value to him because he sees the advantages.
> 
> *I agree completely. Well said.
> *...
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> JohnEdward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ofthand1, I think you make good points, I didn't feel I set that correct tone in my response to you. You should find out, I would be interested to read your findings on what you said. That is deeper of an inquiry that what i was getting at with joint locks. I think that too is reason to survey a good jujutsu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I said in another post in this thread, I don't think either Hapkido or Jujutsu can claim a centuries old direct history. I know that about Hapkido. If I think that incorrectly about Jujutsu please correct me. Therefore, I have always assumed many of the techniques we know today, including those found in forms/kata, are centuries old, and no modern art can claim to have originated them. Again I stand to be corrected by anyone who has delved in to the history of those things. I too would be interested from an academic point of view. I just don't have time at this point in my life.
Click to expand...


----------



## Chris Parker

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, as I said in another post in this thread, I don't think either Hapkido or Jujutsu can claim a centuries old direct history. I know that about Hapkido. If I think that incorrectly about Jujutsu please correct me. Therefore, I have always assumed many of the techniques we know today, including those found in forms/kata, are centuries old, and no modern art can claim to have originated them. Again I stand to be corrected by anyone who has delved in to the history of those things. I too would be interested from an academic point of view. I just don't have time at this point in my life.



Depends on which Ryu-ha you're talking about, from a Japanese Jujutsu point of view....

Takenouchi Ryu, seen by a number to be the first Jujutsu-centric Japanese system, and source school of a number of others, originated in the 16th Century and is still going strong, being taught in three branches.

Takagi Ryu, currently being taught in a number of branches, such as Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu, Takagi Ryu, and a few more, comes from the early 17th Century.

Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu has had Jujutsu in it's syllabus from the mid 15th Century, and they have a habit of not changing things.

Sekiguchi Ryu dates from the 17th Century.

Yoshin Ryu (Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages) come from the 17th Century, and give such systems as Tenjin Shinyo Ryu, one of the source schools for modern Judo.

Kito Ryu, another source school for Judo, comes from the 17th Century (this is where most of the throws come from, as well as the Koshiki no Kata in Judo).

Kashima Shinryu, another sogo bujutsu (composite school, with a large and varied syllabus, including jujutsu), comes from the 16th Century.

Yagyu Shingan Ryu, a sogo bujutsu with a large jujutsu syllabus, covering four distinct sections in their teachings, including protecting a second person, originated in the 17th Century.

... and so on. These systems all boast direct history and transmission for up to nearly 600 years, with all of them at least 300 years old.

Once more, though, if someone is looking to a Jujutsu system for joint locks, that's far from guaranteed. Not all Jujutsu systems have much focus on joint locks, some focus far more on the use of small weapons (Takenouchi Ryu), throws (Kito Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, Sekiguchi Ryu), or striking (Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Akiyama Yoshin Ryu). Saying all Jujutsu systems focus on joint locks is a false generalisation.


----------



## oftheherd1

Chris Parker - Thanks for your above post on Jujutsu lineage. But the way you phrased it inclines me to ask if you are talking about Jujutsu going back that far or older arts from which Jujutsu borrowed techniques in a later time? I seem to recall reading here at MT that Jujutsu was not so old (Or are Jujutsu and Jiujitsu different and I have them confused?).

However similar the arts mentioned by you may be, that seems to pretty much be the case with Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do. That doesn't make any art that does so any less advantageous to learn. In fact, sometimes there are advantages to that, learning a lot of different solutions as it were. Certainly there were advantages seen by the originator of the "new" art.

Again, thanks.


----------



## Chris Parker

oftheherd1 said:


> Chris Parker - Thanks for your above post on Jujutsu lineage. But the way you phrased it inclines me to ask if you are talking about Jujutsu going back that far or older arts from which Jujutsu borrowed techniques in a later time? I seem to recall reading here at MT that Jujutsu was not so old (Or are Jujutsu and Jiujitsu different and I have them confused?).
> 
> However similar the arts mentioned by you may be, that seems to pretty much be the case with Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do. That doesn't make any art that does so any less advantageous to learn. In fact, sometimes there are advantages to that, learning a lot of different solutions as it were. Certainly there were advantages seen by the originator of the "new" art.





oftheherd1 said:


> Again, thanks.



"Jiu Jitsu" is an incorrect transliteration of "Juujuutsu/Jyujyutsu/Jujutsu". The first part "Jiu" is okay, most Japanese would put it as "Jyu" when transliterated into Romaji (Japanese with English letters), but "jitsu" is just plain wrong. It's a completely different word in Japanese, the same way that "pen" and "pin" are different words in English. Unfortunately, it was the commonly used form from the early introduction of the term, and some people have just stuck with it, with more credence being given to it by the usage of that spelling for Brasilian Jiu Jitsu. It's still wrong, though.

In terms of Jujutsu being that old, absolutely it is. If you did read that jujutsu isn't that old, whoever said that has no idea what they're talking about. In fact, the first records of combative discipline in Japan are in the Kojiki (The Record of Ancient Times), and the description is of two gods having a brawl. It includes references to grabbing and throwing, as well as striking, with the winner winning with two kicks, one to the ribs, which broke them, and one to the groin, which killed his opponent. From that point, unarmed combative arts have been common in Japan, and this legend is sited as the origin for Sumo.

The codification of Jujutsu, though, is believed to have begun with the Takenouchi Ryu. It had been a part of the syllabus of other systems beforehand, but Takenouchi Ryu was the first to specialise in Jujutsu themselves. The founding date for Takenouchi Ryu is 1532. There were older systems and teachings, but nothing really codified in that way until Takenouchi Ryu. Mind you, the main formation of many Ryu-ha (different schools) didn't really take off until the Tokugawa period (1608 onwards), when Japan settled into it's first extended period of peace for over 600 years. There had been a few systems come about before that, such as Takenouchi Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, and a number of others, but nothing like the explosion that happened afterwards, especially in Jujutsu specific systems. It should be remembered that unarmed combat had little place on a battlefield where the primary weapons were nine foot long spears and bows and arrows. That meant you just weren't close enough for such methods, although that did alter a bit later, with the advent of taking heads as evidence of your exploits. In that case, close quarter unarmed, or lightly armed methods started to come into it, but you had already pretty much done them in before you closed in, by choice.


----------



## JohnEdward

The OP puts up this question,  





> in the heat of an attack, do joint locks really work for self defense?


.

I have not taken,  seen or know every method of joint locking out there in the world. Am not a scholarly expert. But I have an open mind, and I have been doing jujutsu and being involved in martial arts for over a couple of decades.  I feel the need to explain that before I go any further.  I suggested to look at various jujutsu, as part of the answer. I also suggested it to Hapkido practitioners as it was worth looking at.  At the least for kicks and giggles.  Prefacing that  I outlined some information about joint locks and joint breaks.  To further answer the question, it depends on various things, some of which are obvious. 

1. Training and skill. If you're good and well trained you can make anything work. 
2. see number 1. 
3. The Achilles heel of joint locks some people believe is the opponent size and strength to resist. It isn't. Achilles had two heels. And so does joint locks, one joint locks realistically require time and attention. It is a mono e mono application where being attacked by many can be fatal. You can strike two people faster than you and can apply a joint lock to one person. The other weakness is joint locks can't render a person unconsciousness upon can contact like a strike or kick can. Joint locks basically control the other person's body without doing serious/ if any damage, placing the person in a position where they are vulnerable and are unable to retaliate until released.  


Yes, is the answer to the question. With the understanding that you have to be skilled and well-trained, being sloppy and of poor knowledge at anything doesn't bring good results. And knowing the weakness of joint locks provides a better understanding of their effectiveness. Which brings up another question, in comparison to other martial arts techniques where do joint lock effectiveness stand. That is for another thread.


----------



## oftheherd1

Chris Parker - Thanks for your answer. I wasn't sure on that. Any idea how much the Japanese borrowed from Chinese or Korean MA prior to the dates you have given? Not that it matters much, especially in light of a tendancy of many countries (and not just oriental) to show themselves as inventors of good things centuries before others, but just curious.  Your point is well taken as to the main weapons on the battlefield.  But I always thought unarmed tactics were probably taught at least to battlefiend leaders, as well as foot soldiers, for those times when they might lose a weapon in an opponent or have it struck from their hands.

JohnEdwards - Now you have me curious with your last post. I think of joint locks as preludes to joint breaks/hyperextensions. If I stop short of a break, it is a lock/control. Your statement "Joint locks basically control the other person's body without doing serious/ if any damage, placing the person in a position where they are vulnerable and are unable to retaliate until released." is not what I learned in Hapkido. 

I can use a joint lock as pain compliance if I choose to do so, but I always understood that it was possible, and perhaps desireable, to go past the mechanical ability of the joint to stay intact. Once a joint is broken, or at least badly sprained, that limb is taken away from the opponent. That lessens or denies the opponent's ability to continue an attack. 

Are you saying Jujutsu only wants to control with a joint lock?


----------



## zDom

JohnEdward said:


> 1. Training and skill. If you're good and well trained you can make anything work.
> 2. see number 1.
> 3. The Achilles heel of joint locks some people believe is the opponent size and strength to resist. It isn't. Achilles had two heels. And so does joint locks, one joint locks realistically require time and attention. It is a mono e mono application where being attacked by many can be fatal. You can strike two people faster than you and can apply a joint lock to one person. The other weakness is joint locks can't render a person unconsciousness upon can contact like a strike or kick can. Joint locks basically control the other person's body without doing serious/ if any damage, placing the person in a position where they are vulnerable and are unable to retaliate until released.
> 
> 
> Yes, is the answer to the question. With the understanding that you have to be skilled and well-trained, being sloppy and of poor knowledge at anything doesn't bring good results. And knowing the weakness of joint locks provides a better understanding of their effectiveness. Which brings up another question, in comparison to other martial arts techniques where do joint lock effectiveness stand. That is for another thread.




1. Eh?

2. See number 1.

3. Resistance is futile. =)

Seriously, I can't speak for all hapkido kwans, but I know in Moo Sul Kwan we train with the presumption that our attacker WILL BE bigger and stronger. Our techniques use physics and physiology to stack the deck in our favor rather than making it a contest of "Stronger Guy Controls the Joint."

Most techniques are actually worse on the attacker if they resist, are more effective against muscled up people. It is the skinny little girls whose joints can fold in any direction that are the least vulnerable.

And then, there is always the option of suddenly going WITH the resistance to carry them into another technique. 

But the destruction of a joint doesn't take any longer, really, than any other martial art technique.

Regarding rendering a person unconscious: not all people go unconscious. Some people will expire before losing consciousness. But the destruction of a joint is very likely to cause someone to go into shock (in addition to making that body part unusable and a source of pain a mental distress).


----------



## JohnEdward

oftheherd1 said:


> JohnEdwards - Now you have me curious with your last post.  I think of joint locks as preludes to joint breaks/hyperextensions.  If I stop short of a break, it is a lock/control.  Your statement "Joint locks basically control the other person's body without doing serious/ if any damage, placing the person in a position where they are vulnerable and are unable to retaliate until released."  is not what I learned in Hapkido.
> 
> I can use a joint lock as pain compliance if I choose to do so, but I always understood that it was possible, and perhaps desireable, to go past the mechanical ability of the joint to stay intact.  Once a joint is broken, or at least badly sprained, that limb is taken away from the opponent.  That lessens or denies the opponent's ability to continue an attack.
> 
> Are you saying Jujutsu only wants to control with a joint lock?



We see eye to eye, there is a difference between a lock and a brake. I am not a hair splitting type of guy, so as far as hyper exertions, sprains, minor tendon and muscle tears, anything outside the server damage to a joint is a result of a joint lock. Joint locks are just what it says it is, a locking of the joint preventing mobility without destroying the joint. 

A joint break is a result of either an impact strike upon the joint or a joint that fails as a result of a great pressure placed on the joint as a the result of an applied joint lock.  That is too much pressure placed upon the joint being locked in a position, making the joint fail. 

Of the jujutsu I have learned and the surveys of other jujutsu, such as some posted by Chris, and I am speaking in Koryu terms, a joint locks are used to isolate an attacker's weapon or a strike. Control the body placing it in such a position that a blade weapon can be used to finish the opponent. That over the centuries has evolved, especially the post-Samurai era. Some jujutsu schools developed throwing methods off a joint lock, other applied joint locks to other situations besides the battlefield.  That isn't to say all schools went that route - generally. Some jujutsu schools during the Samurai era developed joint locks for compliance reasons for indoor purposes, and for arresting purposes to allow for securing a prisoner, for example. While other schools did include joint brakes for various reasons as well.   I don't know every single jujutsu ryu or ryu-ha, there could be other reasons for a ryu using joint locks or brakes. 

Hapkido being more of a modern one tackled the problem of not able to carry a weapon openly to work in coordination with a joint lock, thus stressing the use of joint brakes. Just as some other legitimate jujutsu schools did as well. A joint brake can end a fight very quickly without killing someone. Which killing with a bladed weapon once a joint lock was applied in the samurai era was a preferred result more times than not. Joint brakes then were not stressed as in Hapkido. 

Joint locks in Jujutsu have various purposes and specialties for controlling the body. You have to look at the goal and purpose for the practitioner using a lock. Early jujutsu schools use joint locks to control the opponents body, usually to isolate weapons or strike threat, to work in conjunction offensively with a bladed weapon. Later as circumstances dictated, it may not have been advantageous to kill an opponent, but rather to arrest them, so some schools worked joint locks to only control the body under those circumstances. Or, if indoors where a sword is not easily wheeled or customarily accessible a joint lock would be used to prevent an attack and then interrogate attacker - remember you want to know which enemy sent the ninja to kill you, right? . Or if you're a samurai and your are jumped and someone grabs your arm to prevent you from drawing it, or tries to draw your sword, you would use jujutsu to prevent that.   There are some schools that have jujutsu techniques that an object is used to lock the joint.  There are some jujutsu schools who use strikes with an empty hand or with a weapon before a joint lock, both old and new. 

Would I say Jujutsu "only" wants to control with a joint lock? no. Not "only."  I would say look into various jujutsu schools because jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system.


----------



## JohnEdward

zDom said:


> But the destruction of a joint doesn't take any longer, really, than any other martial art technique.
> 
> Regarding rendering a person unconscious: not all people go unconscious. Some people will expire before losing consciousness. But the destruction of a joint is very likely to cause someone to go into shock (in addition to making that body part unusable and a source of pain a mental distress).



I mean, I don't want to mislead people and you made a good point, i.e. joint lock applied to a lapel grab done properly is quick. The time it takes to lock the joint. That is true. I was more thinking of along the lines of the amount of time from start to finish.  The opponent grabs the lapel to the strike (optional), to the positioning of the opponent to a submissive controlled position.  I know in Hapkido (and in some jujutsu schools) that isn't always the case, cause once the lock is on a throw or another strike follows in lieu of the submissive controlled position of the opponent. I mean it takes longer to go from start to finish with the idea you want to pin or control the opponent. I didn't detail that out like I should have. 

Yes, I agree, a joint lock can be applied very fast, comparable to a strike. Especially, if you have it down pat. 

I agree with shock as a result of joint lock and or brake. That does counter the weakness of joint locks not able to place a person unconscious. And where I was going with that, and should have detailed that out more. Is when in a conflict an untrained striker can get a lucky punch in and knock someone out cold in a blink of an eye. In a conflict that is very desirable for some and in some circumstances. Especially those circumstances when attacked by multiple attackers, or a person who charges you not intend to grab you, but rather firing of a slew of punches. It was under those implied circumstances that I was directing my comment at.


----------



## Buka

Would it be a safe assumption that all of us who replied to this thread have actually used joint locks against people in self defense?


----------



## Cyriacus

Buka said:


> Would it be a safe assumption that all of us who replied to this thread have actually used joint locks against people in self defense?



I for one have - Albeit, the Recipient was so Doped up He looked like He was having trouble Walking, let alone swinging His Hands.
Hence the less Volatile Response.


----------



## Buka

I don't mean to imply that it is necessary to have an opinion, nor an opinion that is right. I, for one, have never disarmed someone with a knife (outside of training) but I train in it and have strong opinions.  I'm sure we all do. 

One of my instructors, Joe Maffei, was teaching a self defense seminar and asked a large group of about fifty young fighters, "How many of you have ever been in a street fight?"
Thirty hands shot up.
Then he asked, "How many of you ever got your *** kicked really bad?"
Four hands shot up.
He said, "You four are the only ones who know anything about a street fight."

I think he was right. But I'm wondering if that applies to joint locking as well. Maybe the failing part is as important a learning tool as anything else. I don't know, maybe I think too much.


----------



## Cyriacus

Buka said:


> I don't mean to imply that it is necessary to have an opinion, nor an opinion that is right. I, for one, have never disarmed someone with a knife (outside of training) but I train in it and have strong opinions.  I'm sure we all do.
> 
> One of my instructors, Joe Maffei, was teaching a self defense seminar and asked a large group of about fifty young fighters, "How many of you have ever been in a street fight?"
> Thirty hands shot up.
> Then he asked, "How many of you ever got your *** kicked really bad?"
> Four hands shot up.
> He said, "You four are the only ones who know anything about a street fight."
> 
> I think he was right. But I'm wondering if that applies to joint locking as well. Maybe the failing part is as important a learning tool as anything else. I don't know, maybe I think too much.



So wait a second. His Opinion is, that unless you Lose, you know nothing about Street Fighting?

...So, if I go out and pick a Fight, then let Myself Lose, ill know more about 'real' Street Fighting?


----------



## JohnEdward

Buka said:


> Would it be a safe assumption that all of us who replied to this thread have actually used joint locks against people in self defense?



A NO FISH STORY ZONE

Self-defense situations:

*Low level threat w/o weapon: *Yes (compliance)
*Medium level threat with knife:* Yes (weapon control)
*High level threat with gun:* No (hope to never be)

And a host of other situations against individuals with whom I know and didn't know, I had no previous contact, not threatening injury or serious harm. Just a threat to the ego.   As well as teaching it and practicing it for many years.


----------



## jks9199

Moderator Note:

Several posts discussing history and influences on martial arts have been moved to a new thread, Martial Arts History & Influences, in the General Martial Arts forum.  I hope folks will take a look at what promises to be an interesting and enlightening conversation.

jks9199
Super Moderator


----------



## Buka

Cyriacus said:


> So wait a second. His Opinion is, that unless you Lose, you know nothing about Street Fighting?
> 
> ...So, if I go out and pick a Fight, then let Myself Lose, ill know more about 'real' Street Fighting?



I may have misquoted him. He may have said "You four know MORE about a street fight than anyone here." (It was a long time ago, my memory is sketchy.
However, I believe either statement to be truth.

And, no, if you go out and pick a fight etc.  First, I don't think you would go out and pick a fight. And I don't know anyone who would let themselves lose on purpose. But when the unfortunate happens, and you lose, you learn more about fighting and more about yourself than you do when you win easily and quickly. The unfortunate part of fighting in self defense, is the bad guy never takes the same classes as we take. He doesn't know how he's supposed to go down, or stand still and let us transition to a second move. When we train, our psyche has a certain expectation on what a "real" fight is supposed to look and feel like, because we repeat the steps continuously, and our opponent in training (our dojomate) repeats his role, pretty much the same every time.

But self defense never works that way. When we suddenly find it different for the first time, there is a mental hesitation because we can't find all the cues we're used to using in the dojo. The opponent, during that hesitation, is usually whaling away, creating more damage to us. He is also using more strength and aggression than we are used to in training, this causes (usually) more hesitation in our heads.

It's why, in my opinion, self defense training needs to be limited to basics, and to principles, as opposed to techniques.

Also, that statement I said Joe made, about "You four are the only ones that know about streetfighting"...that came at the very opening of a training camp. It was immediately followed by, what I think is a great drill to go along with that statement. 

He had everyone lined up, just like in class. Then had everyone run in place, real fast, knees high, every thirty seconds he'd clap and you had to drop and do five fast pushups, then leap up to run in place again. He did it until everyone was breathing hard and sweating. I'd ay about twenty minutes. Then he yelled us our instructions - "spin in place, real fast." Se we spun in place for thirty seconds (or however long, I don't know) then he had us reverse and spin the other way. Then he said "Grab the person next to you, drag them down and control them with punches and locks!"

Everyone, out of breath and dizzy as hell, grabbed each other and fought to the ground. Holy crap what a mess we were. And it was hard and to tell you the truth, it was kind of frightening. We went one for about one minute.

Then as we caught our breath and sat there, he said, "Often, that is what a self defense situation is like. You're winded, dizzy and scared, and the person you're fighting is as strong as you, as tough as you and as determined as you."

He wasn't just whistling Dixie.


----------



## Cyriacus

Buka said:


> I may have misquoted him. He may have said "You four know MORE about a street fight than anyone here." (It was a long time ago, my memory is sketchy.
> However, I believe either statement to be truth.
> 
> And, no, if you go out and pick a fight etc.  First, I don't think you would go out and pick a fight. And I don't know anyone who would let themselves lose on purpose. But when the unfortunate happens, and you lose, you learn more about fighting and more about yourself than you do when you win easily and quickly. The unfortunate part of fighting in self defense, is the bad guy never takes the same classes as we take. He doesn't know how he's supposed to go down, or stand still and let us transition to a second move. When we train, our psyche has a certain expectation on what a "real" fight is supposed to look and feel like, because we repeat the steps continuously, and our opponent in training (our dojomate) repeats his role, pretty much the same every time.
> 
> *This is just it though.
> Say some Black Belt is accosted by Three Guys, and they Attack Him; Assuming Two are Unarmed, and One has a Knife; And theyre both well Built and Fit, and bigger than Him. The Black Belt beats the **** out of them.
> **A White Belt is walking down the Street, and Three Guys beat the **** out of Him.
> **The White Belt now knows more about Street Fighting than the Black Belt?*
> 
> But self defense never works that way. When we suddenly find it different for the first time, there is a mental hesitation because we can't find all the cues we're used to using in the dojo. The opponent, during that hesitation, is usually whaling away, creating more damage to us. He is also using more strength and aggression than we are used to in training, this causes (usually) more hesitation in our heads.
> 
> *Usually, this is why it can be good to have someone to punch you in the Ribs during Sparring if you arent constantly exchanging. The Mental Hesitation, I believe, is mostly caused by People Sparring, rather than Fighting with Rules. If you cut out all of the nonsensical stuff, and force People to stand and Fight in Sparring, it produces a better outcome.
> **As for Aggression; Were I for one am now, Power is ridiculously Important. If youre not generating sufficient Power in every single Strike for your Rank, you can stay at that Rank until that changes. And do lots, and lots, of Pushups. Your first thought might be "some people dont care about rank". It isnt that kind of Rank - The Incentive is not a colorful Belt, but rather what comes with the next level of Progression. The MCMAP (Marine Corpse Martial Arts Program) does something similar. Seven Weeks - If you do not Progress through each level of the Program within Seven Weeks, you Failed. Difference is, you dont Fail if you dont cut it. You just dont get to progress to the next level of the Program.*
> 
> It's why, in my opinion, self defense training needs to be limited to basics, and to principles, as opposed to techniques.
> 
> *I completely Agree.*
> 
> Also, that statement I said Joe made, about "You four are the only ones that know about streetfighting"...that came at the very opening of a training camp. It was immediately followed by, what I think is a great drill to go along with that statement.
> 
> He had everyone lined up, just like in class. Then had everyone run in place, real fast, knees high, every thirty seconds he'd clap and you had to drop and do five fast pushups, then leap up to run in place again. He did it until everyone was breathing hard and sweating. I'd ay about twenty minutes. Then he yelled us our instructions - "spin in place, real fast." Se we spun in place for thirty seconds (or however long, I don't know) then he had us reverse and spin the other way. Then he said "Grab the person next to you, drag them down and control them with punches and locks!"
> 
> Everyone, out of breath and dizzy as hell, grabbed each other and fought to the ground. Holy crap what a mess we were. And it was hard and to tell you the truth, it was kind of frightening. We went one for about one minute.
> 
> *Ive done something similar to that - But with... I dont remember how to spell it now. That thing where you Push up, then Jump back up as you push up.
> *
> Then as we caught our breath and sat there, he said, "Often, that is what a self defense situation is like. You're winded, dizzy and scared, and the person you're fighting is as strong as you, as tough as you and as determined as you."
> 
> *Yep.
> **Which is why Training to be Powerful and Fast will ultimately give you an Advantage. Being able to use your Hands, Wrists, Arms, Elbows, Shoulders, Head, Thighs, Knees, Shins, Insteps, and Feet as Weapons helps as well. More in the sense that youre not limited to only the use of your Hands supported by piss weak grappling (As in, Untrained Grappling).*
> 
> He wasn't just whistling Dixie.



We seem to be drawing the same Conclusion, just from different Pretexts.


----------



## Buka

Cyriacus said:


> We seem to be drawing the same Conclusion, just from different Pretexts.



I believe we are, brother.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Buka said:


> Would it be a safe assumption that all of us who replied to this thread have actually used joint locks against people in self defense?



I don't know how many others have, but I can offer that I have in more altercations than I care to remember.  It gives you a unique insight into what works and what doesn't.  I've found that the 'no-flash' and 'no frills' works the best in the vast majority of situations due to adrenaline and loss of manual dexterity under duress (read gross motor skills).  The flashier something is, the higher % it won't work on a determined attacker/resister actively trying to defeat your actions.


----------

