3 Stages of Pain Compliance
- Thread starter Christopher Adamchek
- Start date
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,997
- Reaction score
- 8,765
D
Deleted member 39746
Guest
Time for talking is over if someone is trying to put you in a joint lock. For both parties really.
@skribs Or i could have just been exaggerating my usage of words to make a point, or chose those words to make a point. Doesn't really prove or disprove anything. (i haven't been doing any grappling to just get that out of the way)
Putting a little force into a proper joint lock, puts that force directly into the lock itself. I have seen severe injuries to people trying to do this. The best way out of a joint lock is to relax and go with it, try to get a little ahead of it... so as to release the lock.
That is apparent in your responses.
Quite the opposite. If I am going for a joint lock, it is because I have decided for whatever reason, I do not want to cause severe injury or loss of consciousness. I want to control the other person and escort them out, put them in restraints, ask them to reconsider... whatever. If I want to cause injury or loss of consciousness, then any joint lock would be merely transitory, helping me to gain the position necessary to choke / knock out the other guy.
Joint locks are great for getting people to comply with commands. If the person is beyond being able to comply, then joint locks are a waste of time, unless they are used to transition to a better position or to actually destroy that joint quickly.
jobo
Grandmaster
the three stages of pain compliance are,, ow, oooooowwwwww and ******* **** that hurts
D
Deleted member 39746
Guest
You may not wish to kill them, but as soon as force is brought out, you need to actively stop it to stop it. Not saying you cant talk while fighting* (not really talk, i don't think many people can focus that well on both to formulate good conversations) but you need to stop the force or apply it then take the following actions you deem fit. (if you are either the one being on the receiving end of a joint lock or giving one) The usage of talk in context implies no force needing to be resisted or applied. After all are you really talking your way out of it, if you have got someone in a choke hold and choking them while telling them to "stop"?
The latter part kind of enthisises the need to stop the joint lock attempt and gain distance before you take either further action offensively, decide to try and talk them down or run off. So the person applying it cannot break the joint, get into another position you dont wish them to have for what ever reason.
If any of that needs elaborating or clarifying just tell me, reading back i can see its somewhat jumbly, just cant fix it without loosing the points i was trying to make. Woes of having a bad typing structure.
Just to reiterate the point was, you need to apply the force or resist it before you can go back into the talking stage if you deem that as your follow up action. If you are on the receiving end its more vital to stop the attempt to put you in said position of vulnerability. I also dont disagree the validity of the verbal component but when actually fighting, you need to actually apply the physical or fight it off to re enforce the verbal when it comes to it. Thats the point i tried to make at the * before i broke the structure to fit it in. The usage of words can help you sometimes, not all the time though, it can also get third parties in on your side if its a extended fight.
I also had no real comment on how to actually grapple, my usage of words was for literary effect. i would personally just punch what ever i can punch to try and break out of it as that's the only method i can do.
D
Deleted member 39746
Guest
No one has died from a wrist lock, elbow lock, or other come along hold. They may get spiral fractures, torn ligaments or dislocated joints... but not killed.
You need to watch a few episodes of Cops. They give very specific instructions to the bad guys, as they are trying to put the cuffs on. Some listen some don't. Some resist until the officer gets him down and his arms in a compromising position, then they become very compliant. Others require a dog pile. But every time, clear instructions are being given to the guy resisting.
Go to a bar, and start making a fuss. Every bouncer I have ever seen, will give you plenty of advice as they man handle you out the door, about when you can return. They do this while applying their come along holds and locks. This talking, giving instruction and looking for compliance is not only possible, but happens all the time.
Sorry, but you should really get some experience before discussing this stuff. You would use the joint lock to break their structure and close distance, in order to take further action... not make more distance.
Just reiterating that this point in incorrect.
D
Deleted member 39746
Guest
If you can have a conversation with them in clear English, someone has been doing something wrong.
skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,755
- Reaction score
- 2,707
You may not wish to kill them, but as soon as force is brought out, you need to actively stop it to stop it. Not saying you cant talk while fighting* (not really talk, i don't think many people can focus that well on both to formulate good conversations) but you need to stop the force or apply it then take the following actions you deem fit. (if you are either the one being on the receiving end of a joint lock or giving one) The usage of talk in context implies no force needing to be resisted or applied. After all are you really talking your way out of it, if you have got someone in a choke hold and choking them while telling them to "stop"?
The latter part kind of enthisises the need to stop the joint lock attempt and gain distance before you take either further action offensively, decide to try and talk them down or run off. So the person applying it cannot break the joint, get into another position you dont wish them to have for what ever reason.
If any of that needs elaborating or clarifying just tell me, reading back i can see its somewhat jumbly, just cant fix it without loosing the points i was trying to make. Woes of having a bad typing structure.
Just to reiterate the point was, you need to apply the force or resist it before you can go back into the talking stage if you deem that as your follow up action. If you are on the receiving end its more vital to stop the attempt to put you in said position of vulnerability. I also dont disagree the validity of the verbal component but when actually fighting, you need to actually apply the physical or fight it off to re enforce the verbal when it comes to it. Thats the point i tried to make at the * before i broke the structure to fit it in. The usage of words can help you sometimes, not all the time though, it can also get third parties in on your side if its a extended fight.
I also had no real comment on how to actually grapple, my usage of words was for literary effect. i would personally just punch what ever i can punch to try and break out of it as that's the only method i can do.
This reads like someone who read a bunch of articles and wrote a persuasive speech for speech class, but who has never had actual training in martial arts, self defense, or de-escalation.
dvcochran
Grandmaster
You may not wish to kill them, but as soon as force is brought out, you need to actively stop it to stop it. Not saying you cant talk while fighting* (not really talk, i don't think many people can focus that well on both to formulate good conversations) but you need to stop the force or apply it then take the following actions you deem fit. (if you are either the one being on the receiving end of a joint lock or giving one) The usage of talk in context implies no force needing to be resisted or applied. After all are you really talking your way out of it, if you have got someone in a choke hold and choking them while telling them to "stop"?
The latter part kind of enthisises the need to stop the joint lock attempt and gain distance before you take either further action offensively, decide to try and talk them down or run off. So the person applying it cannot break the joint, get into another position you dont wish them to have for what ever reason.
If any of that needs elaborating or clarifying just tell me, reading back i can see its somewhat jumbly, just cant fix it without loosing the points i was trying to make. Woes of having a bad typing structure.
Just to reiterate the point was, you need to apply the force or resist it before you can go back into the talking stage if you deem that as your follow up action. If you are on the receiving end its more vital to stop the attempt to put you in said position of vulnerability. I also dont disagree the validity of the verbal component but when actually fighting, you need to actually apply the physical or fight it off to re enforce the verbal when it comes to it. Thats the point i tried to make at the * before i broke the structure to fit it in. The usage of words can help you sometimes, not all the time though, it can also get third parties in on your side if its a extended fight.
I also had no real comment on how to actually grapple, my usage of words was for literary effect. i would personally just punch what ever i can punch to try and break out of it as that's the only method i can do.
If I understand you line of thinking, you are saying that when sparring talking is inappropriate. But the conversation has migrated to joint locks/holds for defensive tactics and confining someone. For a number of reasons you have to talk to the person you are taking down. The least of which is trying to minimize injury. I remember times I was struggling with someone to get them in a position to cuff them. Often times their mind was altered and not working normally so verbal ques were very necessary. Usually have to repeat everything several times before they actually heard it. This is an example where the line of actually resisting gets really fine. They are juiced up and their mind is not working very well. You start cuffing them and their mind cannot process what is going on and responds with unexpected actions, not at all hearing what you are telling them to do. Then panic sets in and they get defensive, a natural response. It gets pretty grey sometimes identifying the line between resisting and just being drunk, stupid and defensive. Much like telling a 5 year old to pick up their toys.
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,962
- Reaction score
- 1,067
Just reading through the following responses, I think that there is a disconnect on what "force" is in some ways.
If you have had training in Law Enforcement/Corrections, your department or agency will have a "use of force continuum" in some way that defines the different levels of resistance and different levels of responses to control that resistance. The terms vary, but most are very similar conceptually. In all of the ones I have seen (haven't seen them all so if someone has experience with one that differs greatly, I would love to learn about it). Pain compliance and joint locks are used for the lower levels of force. They are NOT used when someone is actively trying to punch and kick you. BUT, verbal directions are always a part of everything we do in all levels of force.
If you have had training in Law Enforcement/Corrections, your department or agency will have a "use of force continuum" in some way that defines the different levels of resistance and different levels of responses to control that resistance. The terms vary, but most are very similar conceptually. In all of the ones I have seen (haven't seen them all so if someone has experience with one that differs greatly, I would love to learn about it). Pain compliance and joint locks are used for the lower levels of force. They are NOT used when someone is actively trying to punch and kick you. BUT, verbal directions are always a part of everything we do in all levels of force.
I like to think of it as a tools in a toolbox. As the level of force rises you can use more tools along with the tools allowed for the lower threats levels.
Compliant - tools : verbal instructions, soft escort and restraint techniques
Passive Resistance - tools: add joint manipulation, takedowns, and strikes to extremities
Assaultive Resistance - tools: add strikes to all areas, chokes, baton strikes, oc spray, and taser
Lethal force - tools: deadly weapon
skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,755
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Not necessarily. The "don't grab me" could be implied.
The three stages of pain compliance -
The first stage is where you're shown a new technique in the dojo, a pain compliance technique. This is called the "this is very cool, hurts, too, I felt it, what a great thing" phase
The second stage of a pain compliance technique is when you get to show it to someone else and you think, "this works pretty good" phase.
The third stage of a pain compliance technique is when you try and apply it to a crazy man who has never actually been to your dojo. This is called the "whoa, sheet!" phase.
The first stage is where you're shown a new technique in the dojo, a pain compliance technique. This is called the "this is very cool, hurts, too, I felt it, what a great thing" phase
The second stage of a pain compliance technique is when you get to show it to someone else and you think, "this works pretty good" phase.
The third stage of a pain compliance technique is when you try and apply it to a crazy man who has never actually been to your dojo. This is called the "whoa, sheet!" phase.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,997
- Reaction score
- 8,765
Not always.
I might be trying to elicit a response. Say nose pressure would be a simple one I use for either bite defense or to get a choke sunk in.
Is that compliance?
Compliance is the action of complying with a request or command.
I would characterize that as using pain to elicit a specific response.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
Tai Chi's Push Hands Law of Primal Unity- Latest: windwalker099
-
-
-
-
-