All martial arts are ruined by their hubris

[oftheherd1]

In my experience, against a competent opponent you will never get the chance to apply pain and leverage on the wrist unless you break their structure first.

How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?

 

[oftheherd1]

You beat me to that one. Wrist locks are relatively easy to block out if you have structure. Lose that structure, and things open up enough to make some opportunities.

Maybe I am not understanding something, can you elaborate on that please? How do you block out the pain of wrist manipulation to the point of breaking, so you can block ... what?

 

[skribs]

How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?

I guess it depends partially on what you would consider an attack on the wrist. So once again, we're not arguing techniques, but semantics. Which its useful to establish definitions for the sake of a discussion, but they tend to be "my school is better because we teach the cross punch", "no, my school is better because we teach the reverse punch."

Not all, but most of our wrist grab techniques follow this structure:

1. Simultaneously trap the attacker's hand and step to isolate the wrist (the step can be inside or outside)
2. Use a "shock" or pain compliance hold to lower the attacker and get them off balance
3. Use footwork (usually a circular step backward) to bring the attacker down while continuing the compliance hold
4. Isolate the wrist and destroy it

Depending on the technique, sometimes Steps 2 and 3 are done at the same time.

So let's look at this from a couple perspectives. First off, do you consider trapping the attacker's hand or grabbing the wrist (without the wristlock yet) to be "attacking the wrist" or "breaking down the structure"? The step in is definitely structure, as the step combined with the trap will either give you leverage or take away your opponent's leverage, and will usually keep their free hand away from you. If you consider grabbing their wrist or trapping their hand to be "attacking the wrist" then it makes sense that it becomes step one. If you consider it to be breaking down their structure, then there you have it.

The other key word that keeps popping up is "simultaneously." On most of our techniques, we get scolded if we do trap-then-step or step-then-trap. If one happens first, your attacker can adjust to it before you do the other. So they must happen at the same time.

Going back to our first perspective, if attack and break structure happen simultaneously, then anyone saying one happens first is wrong. They happen at the same time. Same thing applies to step 2 and 3. On many techniques they happen at the same time. On some, particularly what we call a "motorcycle grip" (I think another term is z-lock), we generally go for shocking first. On others, such as a Figure 4 or a hip throw, the structure breaks down often without much or any pain compliance.

In conclusion...

• Both the pain compliance and breaking the structure are important, it's not one-or-the-other
• Which happens first depends on the technique, and they might even happen simultaneously
• We're more likely arguing over definitions than technique, which is a stupid thing to argue over on a board with scores of arts represented and every art has their own terminology (or even lineages have their own terminology)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Maybe I am not understanding something, can you elaborate on that please? How do you block out the pain of wrist manipulation to the point of breaking, so you can block ... what?

I don't have to block the pain - I block the actual lock. In many cases, with wrists, it's a matter of the right extension and changing the structure of their connection. So, if they don't break my structure as they move toward the lock, I'll disrupt their structure and prevent the lock. All techniques have weak points, obviously. The smaller the point of attack, as a general (but not absolute) rule, the smaller the movement needed to block out the lock. So, wrist locks are generally much easier to block than shoulder locks.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?

Since I'm obviously Tony, I'll respond to this, too.

If I'm moving in for a wrist lock, I'll typically use one of two methods (or a variation of one or the other). Either extend their arm away in a spiral to roll their shoulders off their base, or jam the arm in to shove their shoulders off their base. Both of those are simplifications of what happens, but you can probably follow them anyway. If I can get their shoulders out of line with their hips, I disrupt their strength and mobility, and usually manage to block off counter-attacks. At that point, their vulnerable to the locks. Without some kind of disruption, there are many fewer actual openings, since they still have movement, strength, and counter-attacks to disrupt my technique.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I guess it depends partially on what you would consider an attack on the wrist. So once again, we're not arguing techniques, but semantics. Which its useful to establish definitions for the sake of a discussion, but they tend to be "my school is better because we teach the cross punch", "no, my school is better because we teach the reverse punch."

Not all, but most of our wrist grab techniques follow this structure:

1. Simultaneously trap the attacker's hand and step to isolate the wrist (the step can be inside or outside)
2. Use a "shock" or pain compliance hold to lower the attacker and get them off balance
3. Use footwork (usually a circular step backward) to bring the attacker down while continuing the compliance hold
4. Isolate the wrist and destroy it

Depending on the technique, sometimes Steps 2 and 3 are done at the same time.

So let's look at this from a couple perspectives. First off, do you consider trapping the attacker's hand or grabbing the wrist (without the wristlock yet) to be "attacking the wrist" or "breaking down the structure"? The step in is definitely structure, as the step combined with the trap will either give you leverage or take away your opponent's leverage, and will usually keep their free hand away from you. If you consider grabbing their wrist or trapping their hand to be "attacking the wrist" then it makes sense that it becomes step one. If you consider it to be breaking down their structure, then there you have it.

The other key word that keeps popping up is "simultaneously." On most of our techniques, we get scolded if we do trap-then-step or step-then-trap. If one happens first, your attacker can adjust to it before you do the other. So they must happen at the same time.

Going back to our first perspective, if attack and break structure happen simultaneously, then anyone saying one happens first is wrong. They happen at the same time. Same thing applies to step 2 and 3. On many techniques they happen at the same time. On some, particularly what we call a "motorcycle grip" (I think another term is z-lock), we generally go for shocking first. On others, such as a Figure 4 or a hip throw, the structure breaks down often without much or any pain compliance.

In conclusion...

• Both the pain compliance and breaking the structure are important, it's not one-or-the-other
• Which happens first depends on the technique, and they might even happen simultaneously
• We're more likely arguing over definitions than technique, which is a stupid thing to argue over on a board with scores of arts represented and every art has their own terminology (or even lineages have their own terminology)

The only part of that I'd debate is the pain compliance. I don't consider it reliable. When it works, it works well. When it fails, it typically fails catastrophically (meaning it fails completely and without warning). I work to include it in practice, because it's helpful when it works, but I make a point of not relying upon it for anything.

That might be semantics, too, though, so stick with me on this. If the pain compliance fails, I just complete my original technique. If it succeeds, the technique is cut short. Another way I could say that is, "If the pain compliance fails, I proceed to my backup technique. If it succeeds, I finish my original technique." I'm not sure those two sets of statements are significantly different.

 

[skribs]

The only part of that I'd debate is the pain compliance. I don't consider it reliable. When it works, it works well. When it fails, it typically fails catastrophically (meaning it fails completely and without warning). I work to include it in practice, because it's helpful when it works, but I make a point of not relying upon it for anything.

That might be semantics, too, though, so stick with me on this. If the pain compliance fails, I just complete my original technique. If it succeeds, the technique is cut short. Another way I could say that is, "If the pain compliance fails, I proceed to my backup technique. If it succeeds, I finish my original technique." I'm not sure those two sets of statements are significantly different.

This is why we do the pain compliance either simultaneously or in quick succession with footwork that will take the person down with our leverage. If the person fails to listen to their pain, then something will break. Then there's the double-jointed, and I haven't found a good answer there for some of our techniques.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

This is why we do the pain compliance either simultaneously or in quick succession with footwork that will take the person down with our leverage. If the person fails to listen to their pain, then something will break. Then there's the double-jointed, and I haven't found a good answer there for some of our techniques.

This brings up the issue of pain compliance for self defense. You dont know if the person is doublejointed, and depending on the state they are in, they may not care about the pain. That would lead to either you backing off if youre not prepared to break something, or them accepting the break to hurt you however theyre trying to hurt you.

 

[oftheherd1]

How do you break their structure before using attack on the wrist?

@skribs and @gpseymour and @kempodisciple I obviously used poor wording. What I meant was from the point of the defender, whose wrist has been grabbed, how does the defender break the attacker's (the one grabbing the wrist) structure before attacking the wrist in some way? I may manipulate the wrist in a way to break it, or to turn the attacker and expose his upper arm nerve points, or attack nerves in the wrist, or work against the attackers thumb and break the attacker's structure for/with a follow up move such as a throw.

Skribs comes closest to the Hapkido I learned and I think he and I are closer than we (or maybe just me) may understand, with just differences in what a Kwan founder considered more important. I'm still having problems with @gpseymour's explanations, but I think that may be the poor wording of my questions.

@kempodiscple In the Hapkido I learned, when we manipulate a wrist, arm, knee or ankle, or whatever, we expect sort of a reflexive response to movement in a certain way that is to our advantage. You are of course correct that some people don't feel as much pain for whatever reason, but most will. If they don't, we will have to be ready for a plan B. If we can simply continue the movement to break a joint, one problem solved. The attacker now only has 3 limbs to use against us. Or if we are going into a take down we will probably finish with a strong head strike.

 

[oftheherd1]

This brings up the issue of pain compliance for self defense. You dont know if the person is doublejointed, and depending on the state they are in, they may not care about the pain. That would lead to either you backing off if youre not prepared to break something, or them accepting the break to hurt you however theyre trying to hurt you.

I think I have only run across one person who was double jointed. He was not a martial artist. He had a medical condition which he was told would deteriorate as he aged until he might find himself on his back from then on.

Extraordinarily suple people I have run across, as well as those who are muscle bound. I am, or rather used to be fairly suple, especially in my wrists and shoulders. Broken bones, injuries, and age have taken their toll. None I should point out were Hapkido related.

EDIT: BTW, to me breaking the opponent's structure, in addition to what @skribs has already said, is to put him off balance, or move him in a way he doesn't want to go, or prevent him from going where he wants to go, or anything else that gives me the advantage over the attacker. Anyone who has a different definition, I would love to hear it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think I have only run across one person who was double jointed. He was not a martial artist. He had a medical condition which he was told would deteriorate as he aged until he might find himself on his back from then on.

Extraordinarily suple people I have run across, as well as those who are muscle bound. I am, or rather used to be fairly suple, especially in my wrists and shoulders. Broken bones, injuries, and age have taken their toll. None I should point out were Hapkido related.

EDIT: BTW, to me breaking the opponent's structure, in addition to what @skribs has already said, is to put him off balance, or move him in a way he doesn't want to go, or prevent him from going where he wants to go, or anything else that gives me the advantage over the attacker. Anyone who has a different definition, I would love to hear it.

Ive run across quite a few double jointed people myself. As a kid it fascinated me, and I would ask people, a lot of people would show me how they are. A quick google search had numbers from 5 to 25 percent of the population being double jointed (im guessing the variation depends on what a person is considering double jointed)

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

@skribs and @gpseymour and @kempodisciple I obviously used poor wording. What I meant was from the point of the defender, whose wrist has been grabbed, how does the defender break the attacker's (the one grabbing the wrist) structure before attacking the wrist in some way? I may manipulate the wrist in a way to break it, or to turn the attacker and expose his upper arm nerve points, or attack nerves in the wrist, or work against the attackers thumb and break the attacker's structure for/with a follow up move such as a throw.

Skribs comes closest to the Hapkido I learned and I think he and I are closer than we (or maybe just me) may understand, with just differences in what a Kwan founder considered more important. I'm still having problems with @gpseymour's explanations, but I think that may be the poor wording of my questions.

@kempodiscple In the Hapkido I learned, when we manipulate a wrist, arm, knee or ankle, or whatever, we expect sort of a reflexive response to movement in a certain way that is to our advantage. You are of course correct that some people don't feel as much pain for whatever reason, but most will. If they don't, we will have to be ready for a plan B. If we can simply continue the movement to break a joint, one problem solved. The attacker now only has 3 limbs to use against us. Or if we are going into a take down we will probably finish with a strong head strike.

Regarding the pain aspect, that was exactly what i was getting at. Pain compliance/pain holds work, but you have to be prepared in case they dont. That (to me) means moving so you are out of the way of any potential strikes, and having some other leverage that you can use if the initial lock fails. The issue is when people think because they have it they dont have to worry about anything from the attacker, which isnt true.

 

[skribs]

This brings up the issue of pain compliance for self defense. You dont know if the person is doublejointed, and depending on the state they are in, they may not care about the pain. That would lead to either you backing off if youre not prepared to break something, or them accepting the break to hurt you however theyre trying to hurt you.

This is where two principles come in, both of which we practice:

1. Simultaneous pain and leverage. If the pain doesn't get them, the leverage will.
2. Failure drills. When we start learning a technique the attacker complies relatively easy, but the resistance increases as your comfort with the technique improves. This increases the proficiency of the technique, but also allows the defender to recognize when a technique has failed and modify or failover to another technique.

@skribs and @gpseymour and @kempodisciple I obviously used poor wording. What I meant was from the point of the defender, whose wrist has been grabbed, how does the defender break the attacker's (the one grabbing the wrist) structure before attacking the wrist in some way? I may manipulate the wrist in a way to break it, or to turn the attacker and expose his upper arm nerve points, or attack nerves in the wrist, or work against the attackers thumb and break the attacker's structure for/with a follow up move such as a throw.

Skribs comes closest to the Hapkido I learned and I think he and I are closer than we (or maybe just me) may understand, with just differences in what a Kwan founder considered more important. I'm still having problems with @gpseymour's explanations, but I think that may be the poor wording of my questions.

@kempodiscple In the Hapkido I learned, when we manipulate a wrist, arm, knee or ankle, or whatever, we expect sort of a reflexive response to movement in a certain way that is to our advantage. You are of course correct that some people don't feel as much pain for whatever reason, but most will. If they don't, we will have to be ready for a plan B. If we can simply continue the movement to break a joint, one problem solved. The attacker now only has 3 limbs to use against us. Or if we are going into a take down we will probably finish with a strong head strike.

I'm going to throw two definitions in here to try and clarify: "control the wrist" and "attack the wrist". Control being to manipulate the wrist to break down the attacker's structure, without causing a joint lock or pain compliance. Attack to be to cause the lock or compliance.

Are you saying you need to at least control the wrist? Or are you saying you must always attack first?

 

[wab25]

Not all, but most of our wrist grab techniques follow this structure:

1. Simultaneously trap the attacker's hand and step to isolate the wrist (the step can be inside or outside)
2. Use a "shock" or pain compliance hold to lower the attacker and get them off balance
3. Use footwork (usually a circular step backward) to bring the attacker down while continuing the compliance hold
4. Isolate the wrist and destroy it

So, this set of steps here misses many, if not most, of the important parts of getting a wrist lock. The most important thing missing is the connection to the other guy. You can trap my hand, grip it very hard, and step whatever direction you want... but if you have not broken my structure and taken my balance... as @gpseymour says, there will be no pain to comply with and countering, blocking, defeating your technique will be easy. You need to connect with the other guy first. If you are connected, when you move his wrist, you will move his body and shift his weight. There are lots of ways to accomplish this off balance and structural break. Aikido and Daito Ryu are some of the best arts I have come across, that really dig into this idea.

The best way to explain this is with demonstration, being able to see and feel what is going on. But, I will attempt. If you are holding you arm out, and I grab your hand, and step inside or out side, but you have not changed your posture or position of your arm... then I will not be able to apply a lock. You are still in a strong posture and your arm/wrist/hand are all in positions of power. If instead, as I touch your hand, I put a little weight into it, this will slightly shift your posture... you will need to use your toes more to remain upright. At the same time, I slightly move your hand away from your body. You are now resisting a downwards pressure and an outwards pressure. Now, as I step in, if I maintain those two pressures, this should cause the shoulder rotations that @gpseymour was talking of. At this point, your body is out of alignment, you are not centered in your balance, and the structure of you arm is broken. Now the lock can be applied causing pain, or injury or a take down... The trick is that if you apply this downward force or outward force too much, or too long, the other guy just takes a step and recovers. This is why many times these things are practiced from a reach or a punch... the other guy is giving you momentum, such that if you simply continue his motion a bit further, you will accomplish the structural break and off balance needed. (this is why it works in the dojo, but not on the street... the guy on the street is not giving you the right momentum. If you have never figured out how to generate this structural break, without that help, it won't work.)

The first two steps I would add to the 4 above would be:
0.0 Connect with the attacker
0.1 move the attackers weight in a direction of weakness (perpendicular to the line drawn connecting his heels, for example)
0.2 move the attackers joint out of the strength alignment
0.3 the combination of 0.1 and 0.2, should create a tension in the other guys body, even if slight... maintain this tension

Now you can start with step 1. Note that is you drop that tension or if at any point from now on, if the other guy is not moving, when you move, the technique is over. If the attacker is in a strong position, or can recover to a strong position... you will not have the leverage, through pain or any other means, to finish your lock. Also note that all the important bits happen before you think the pain starts or the damaging leverage. By applying the wrist lock correctly, it effects their entire structure, not just his wrist... thus it does not matter if they are flexible, double jointed, or not feeling pain right now. You are still able to effect their entire body, take them down and or damage them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is why we do the pain compliance either simultaneously or in quick succession with footwork that will take the person down with our leverage. If the person fails to listen to their pain, then something will break. Then there's the double-jointed, and I haven't found a good answer there for some of our techniques.

It sounds like we're saying more or less the same thing. The structure breaking to enable the technique can't actually be simultaneous with the technique it enables, but if it's a straight flow (which Hapkido would have a focus on), then there's no real separation between them. One starts before the other, but they overlap. That's often verbally expressed as "simultaneous", even when it isn't actually, because it's effective to think of them that way.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This brings up the issue of pain compliance for self defense. You dont know if the person is doublejointed, and depending on the state they are in, they may not care about the pain. That would lead to either you backing off if youre not prepared to break something, or them accepting the break to hurt you however theyre trying to hurt you.

If you're good at the technique, you'll feel when the leverage is working, regardless of whether the pain works or not. Some leverage won't work on double-jointed folks, and some won't work on folks with limited joint mobility. You just have to recognize it early in the application, and change to something else before they have a chance to recover.

 

[skribs]

So, this set of steps here misses many, if not most, of the important parts of getting a wrist lock. The most important thing missing is the connection to the other guy. You can trap my hand, grip it very hard, and step whatever direction you want... but if you have not broken my structure and taken my balance... as @gpseymour says, there will be no pain to comply with and countering, blocking, defeating your technique will be easy. You need to connect with the other guy first. If you are connected, when you move his wrist, you will move his body and shift his weight. There are lots of ways to accomplish this off balance and structural break. Aikido and Daito Ryu are some of the best arts I have come across, that really dig into this idea.

The best way to explain this is with demonstration, being able to see and feel what is going on. But, I will attempt. If you are holding you arm out, and I grab your hand, and step inside or out side, but you have not changed your posture or position of your arm... then I will not be able to apply a lock. You are still in a strong posture and your arm/wrist/hand are all in positions of power. If instead, as I touch your hand, I put a little weight into it, this will slightly shift your posture... you will need to use your toes more to remain upright. At the same time, I slightly move your hand away from your body. You are now resisting a downwards pressure and an outwards pressure. Now, as I step in, if I maintain those two pressures, this should cause the shoulder rotations that @gpseymour was talking of. At this point, your body is out of alignment, you are not centered in your balance, and the structure of you arm is broken. Now the lock can be applied causing pain, or injury or a take down... The trick is that if you apply this downward force or outward force too much, or too long, the other guy just takes a step and recovers. This is why many times these things are practiced from a reach or a punch... the other guy is giving you momentum, such that if you simply continue his motion a bit further, you will accomplish the structural break and off balance needed. (this is why it works in the dojo, but not on the street... the guy on the street is not giving you the right momentum. If you have never figured out how to generate this structural break, without that help, it won't work.)

The first two steps I would add to the 4 above would be:
0.0 Connect with the attacker
0.1 move the attackers weight in a direction of weakness (perpendicular to the line drawn connecting his heels, for example)
0.2 move the attackers joint out of the strength alignment
0.3 the combination of 0.1 and 0.2, should create a tension in the other guys body, even if slight... maintain this tension

Now you can start with step 1. Note that is you drop that tension or if at any point from now on, if the other guy is not moving, when you move, the technique is over. If the attacker is in a strong position, or can recover to a strong position... you will not have the leverage, through pain or any other means, to finish your lock. Also note that all the important bits happen before you think the pain starts or the damaging leverage. By applying the wrist lock correctly, it effects their entire structure, not just his wrist... thus it does not matter if they are flexible, double jointed, or not feeling pain right now. You are still able to effect their entire body, take them down and or damage them.

I'm going to go on a rant here, because this whole discussion can be summed up this way: this thread is a prime example of people trying to poke holes in what isn't said.

This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum. I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented. But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.

There's the assumption that because it wasn't said, the poster doesn't know it. If a poster talks about a punch and doesn't mention the proper fist, obviously he doesn't know how to make a fist and must be told. If a poster talks about a block and doesn't mention any other application of that technique, obviously he's just a pleb that only knows techniques and stuck in his learning. If a poster talks about a hip throw and doesn't mention that he ate a good breakfast, it's important to remind him that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. If a poster is talking about a joint lock and doesn't mention the exact position each of your limbs must be relative to yourself, the sun, and each of the other 7 or 8 planets (what is Pluto now, anyway?), then obviously you know nothing.

Well, there are tons of details that go into each individual technique, and some of those details get left out. Because people don't have time to list every single muscle and every single joint and every single minor movement in a technique. But then someone has to be all high and mighty and say "oh, you didn't say this, this is important," and turn their nose up so the rest of the forum can see how smart they are; how much they know about martial arts because they caught that missing piece.

Then the poster has to say, "no, I know that" and explain that they have a different term, or they simply omitted it because it wasn't necessary, or it's something that's so ingrained in their muscle memory they don't even think about it anymore. But no, that's not good enough. The commenter has to have the poster acknowledge that they're right, that they know better and they pointed out your mistake. It can't be that the poster knew the detail and just didn't make it into the post. It has to be that the poster didn't know at all. Because the poster has no proof of whether or not they knew it before it was pointed out in the thread, they get defensive and backpedal, and then there's a huge argument over something that everyone agrees on.

This is the problem. I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with how the techniques work. We just have different ways of describing them. And we've been arguing for four fracking pages about something we all agree with! If you got us all into a room together and actually worked through what we're talking about, I'm sure everyone would say "oh, yeah, that's what I meant."

And there'd still be someone saying "well that's not really what you meant, but now that I've shown you, I'm glad you understand."

I'm sick and tired of arguing over things we agree on. There's plenty of things we disagree on that are waiting to be debated until the cows come home. But we're stuck arguing semantics, stuck arguing over things unsaid, stuck arguing over meaningless distinctions, when we could be arguing over things that actually matter.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@skribs and @gpseymour and @kempodisciple I obviously used poor wording. What I meant was from the point of the defender, whose wrist has been grabbed, how does the defender break the attacker's (the one grabbing the wrist) structure before attacking the wrist in some way? I may manipulate the wrist in a way to break it, or to turn the attacker and expose his upper arm nerve points, or attack nerves in the wrist, or work against the attackers thumb and break the attacker's structure for/with a follow up move such as a throw.

Skribs comes closest to the Hapkido I learned and I think he and I are closer than we (or maybe just me) may understand, with just differences in what a Kwan founder considered more important. I'm still having problems with @gpseymour's explanations, but I think that may be the poor wording of my questions.

@kempodiscple In the Hapkido I learned, when we manipulate a wrist, arm, knee or ankle, or whatever, we expect sort of a reflexive response to movement in a certain way that is to our advantage. You are of course correct that some people don't feel as much pain for whatever reason, but most will. If they don't, we will have to be ready for a plan B. If we can simply continue the movement to break a joint, one problem solved. The attacker now only has 3 limbs to use against us. Or if we are going into a take down we will probably finish with a strong head strike.

If you're having trouble understanding my explanations, wait a bit. @Tony Dismukes will probably say it better (and in fewer words).

Part of the difference might be "attacking the wrist". To me, that's the technique - the thing that's applying pain or damage to the wrist. But you might be including the point before that, where you've attached to it (grabbed wrist/hand/whatever), and put them (or allowed them to put themselves) into position for the technique. If you include that part (what I refer to as the entry to the technique) then that would explain the difference in our descriptions. Let me use a technique I'm pretty sure we share, and which is likely done fairly similarly (and others will probably understand, as well): kote gaeshi (in NGA: Front Wrist Throw). So, if I get ahold of a hand/wrist and simply apply kote gaeshi while you are standing upright, turning your hand back at or across your forearm (some differences among styles on that), you can easily block that by putting your elbow in the path of the throw, extending your arm to put my elbow behind the plane of my body, or a number of other small adjustments. However, if I - during my entry to the technique - extend your arm down in a spiral to draw your shoulder forward then to the outside before reversing the wrist, the technique has a much better chance of working. In NGA's Classical form (the short, one-step introduction to a technique), that entry is part of the "technique", but I see them as separate things - modular and interchangeable between techniques.

Does that help, or do we have to wait for Tony?

 

[oftheherd1]

Ive run across quite a few double jointed people myself. As a kid it fascinated me, and I would ask people, a lot of people would show me how they are. A quick google search had numbers from 5 to 25 percent of the population being double jointed (im guessing the variation depends on what a person is considering double jointed)

I especially like the definitions at the end of the article at Why Are Some People Double-Jointed? where they mention those with particularly shallow sockets (for ball and socket joints), can dislocate and as far as I know, re-locate the ball portion of the joint.. That is how I usually think when I hear the term double-jointedness. Thanks to you, I guess I will have to modify and call that a specialized form of double jointedness.

Regarding the pain aspect, that was exactly what i was getting at. Pain compliance/pain holds work, but you have to be prepared in case they dont. That (to me) means moving so you are out of the way of any potential strikes, and having some other leverage that you can use if the initial lock fails. The issue is when people think because they have it they dont have to worry about anything from the attacker, which isnt true.

Well, maybe I just need to get out more, but I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't affected painfully from a properly applied wrist manipulation. Maybe it will happen yet.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

EDIT: BTW, to me breaking the opponent's structure, in addition to what @skribs has already said, is to put him off balance, or move him in a way he doesn't want to go, or prevent him from going where he wants to go, or anything else that gives me the advantage over the attacker. Anyone who has a different definition, I would love to hear it.

That's a reasonable definition. To me, it's anything that messes up their balance or physical structure (takes head or shoulders off the top of their hips, bends the spine, etc.). It could (and often does) also include putting them in a position that takes away offensive and reactive options. A simple example is from a cross-hand wrist grip: roll your hand under theirs and reach over to grab their wrist. If you do this without breaking their structure, they can easily still pull you. If you - during the roll and grab - extend their hand away from them and downward so it moves their shoulder, you reduce their ability to pull you.