All martial arts are ruined by their hubris

[Tony Dismukes]

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.

Okay, I get you're annoyed that wab25 went over a number of details that you didn't happen to list in your breakdown, but I think most of the discussion in the last couple of pages regarding breaking structure was in response to offheherd1's question:

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

Which was in response to my comment:

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.

Which was in response to your comment:

The breaking of the structure happens. But the focal point is the wrist. It is the pain and leverage on the wrist that breaks the structure.

It sounds like we're the blind men talking about the elephant at this point.

After I made my comment, you clarified that you might break an opponent's structure first in order to get the wrist lock and then use the wrist lock to break their structure even further. That's totally reasonable. However, oftheherd1's question still needed to be addressed, because it's a very important one. The single most common flaw which keeps joint locks or takedowns from succeeding under pressure is a failure to compromise the opponent's structure while setting up the technique. (The second most common is for the practitioner to compromise their own structure in the attempt.)

I'll try to provide my own answer here shortly, although Gerry and William covered a lot of it already.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

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

The fact that even you see several different definitions is part of why we're all arguing. Are we talking about messing up balance and setting up a take-down? Are we talking about disrupting their attack in progress? Are we talking about gaining leverage to isolate joints? Are we talking about positioning the attacker in such a way they cannot retaliate? (Or something else)?

Something I tell my students over and over again is that almost no grappling technique (takedown or joint lock) is likely to succeed unless you break their structure first. (Or unless they're completely clueless or you have a massive size and strength advantage, but we're not training for that sort of situation.)

What do I mean by that?

Imagine a wrestler in his stance. Low, solid base. Spine in good alignment. Elbows glued to his ribs. Hands pointed forward. Wrists solid and straight, not bent either way. All the parts of his body are aligned to support each other for maximum power generation.

Now try to complete a wristlock, arm lock, shoulder lock or hip throw on this guy while he's got that solid base and alignment. Not going to work. He's going to easily rebuff your attempts to twist limbs in directions where you can cause pain or damage.

What you have to do is win the small battles first. Get his head turned to weaken his spinal alignment. Get his weight shifted to weaken his connection to the ground. Get him to reach a little further than he should. Get him reaching to the side. Get his elbows flared away from his side causing internal rotation of the shoulder. Get his wrist to flex just a little bit one way or another. Little things which do no damage by themselves and which he would immediately recover from if you didn't follow up. Follow them up - use one bit of compromised structure to create another. Accumulate enough little advantages - places where your opponent's structure is weakened and yours is not - and then you will be able to take someone down or break their limb.

 

[skribs]

Something I tell my students over and over again is that almost no grappling technique (takedown or joint lock) is likely to succeed unless you break their structure first. (Or unless they're completely clueless or you have a massive size and strength advantage, but we're not training for that sort of situation.)

What do I mean by that?

Imagine a wrestler in his stance. Low, solid base. Spine in good alignment. Elbows glued to his ribs. Hands pointed forward. Wrists solid and straight, not bent either way. All the parts of his body are aligned to support each other for maximum power generation.

Now try to complete a wristlock, arm lock, shoulder lock or hip throw on this guy while he's got that solid base and alignment. Not going to work. He's going to easily rebuff your attempts to twist limbs in directions where you can cause pain or damage.

What you have to do is win the small battles first. Get his head turned to weaken his spinal alignment. Get his weight shifted to weaken his connection to the ground. Get him to reach a little further than he should. Get him reaching to the side. Get his elbows flared away from his side causing internal rotation of the shoulder. Get his wrist to flex just a little bit one way or another. Little things which do no damage by themselves and which he would immediately recover from if you didn't follow up. Follow them up - use one bit of compromised structure to create another. Accumulate enough little advantages - places where your opponent's structure is weakened and yours is not - and then you will be able to take someone down or break their limb.

This may be part of the confusion. I can't speak for everyone in the discussion, but I've been talking about using a wristlock to counter a wrist grab. Someone who has grabbed me cannot be in the stance you mention (elbows tucked in, hands up). They have opened that gate (as someone said in another thread) by creating their attack and it is that which allows us to use our footwork and our pain compliance.

Yes, I agree completely that if you are against someone who is in a fighting stance (whatever that stance may be), that you will need to break their structure down before you can successfully take them down.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Something I tell my students over and over again is that almost no grappling technique (takedown or joint lock) is likely to succeed unless you break their structure first. (Or unless they're completely clueless or you have a massive size and strength advantage, but we're not training for that sort of situation.)

What do I mean by that?

Imagine a wrestler in his stance. Low, solid base. Spine in good alignment. Elbows glued to his ribs. Hands pointed forward. Wrists solid and straight, not bent either way. All the parts of his body are aligned to support each other for maximum power generation.

Now try to complete a wristlock, arm lock, shoulder lock or hip throw on this guy while he's got that solid base and alignment. Not going to work. He's going to easily rebuff your attempts to twist limbs in directions where you can cause pain or damage.

What you have to do is win the small battles first. Get his head turned to weaken his spinal alignment. Get his weight shifted to weaken his connection to the ground. Get him to reach a little further than he should. Get him reaching to the side. Get his elbows flared away from his side causing internal rotation of the shoulder. Get his wrist to flex just a little bit one way or another. Little things which do no damage by themselves and which he would immediately recover from if you didn't follow up. Follow them up - use one bit of compromised structure to create another. Accumulate enough little advantages - places where your opponent's structure is weakened and yours is not - and then you will be able to take someone down or break their limb.

That, as usual, is a great explanation, Tony.

See? I told you he'd do that.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This may be part of the confusion. I can't speak for everyone in the discussion, but I've been talking about using a wristlock to counter a wrist grab. Someone who has grabbed me cannot be in the stance you mention (elbows tucked in, hands up).

Sure they can. I'm teaching a class on how to do that very thing tonight. Maintain a good stance with elbows in tight and knees flexed. Use footwork to move in close enough to grab the opponents wrist (or preferably hand). If their hands are low, lower your stance to reach them rather than extending your arms.

I assume what you are talking about is the classic standing in natural posture with your hands by your side while an "attacker" stands opposite you (also in natural posture) and reaches out his arm to take your wrist. This is what I would refer to in technical terms as a completely incompetent, pointless "attack." Your opponent has pre-emptively compromised his own structure for no worthwhile purpose.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This may be part of the confusion. I can't speak for everyone in the discussion, but I've been talking about using a wristlock to counter a wrist grab. Someone who has grabbed me cannot be in the stance you mention (elbows tucked in, hands up). They have opened that gate (as someone said in another thread) by creating their attack and it is that which allows us to use our footwork and our pain compliance.

Yes, I agree completely that if you are against someone who is in a fighting stance (whatever that stance may be), that you will need to break their structure down before you can successfully take them down.

This - as with many things - would be much easier to be clear on if we could just lay hands on each other to explain.

I suspect - from your description - that you incorporate the necessary structure-taking for that wrist lock into the little bit of entry that's left to be done. Imagine I'm standing there and you grab my wrist. You're balanced and relaxed, spine is aligned relatively normally, and one foot is slightly forward (matching your hand). You have pretty good structure - not as good as that wrestler, but if I start a typical Z-lock (in NGA, "First Wrist Technique") you can simply extend into my counter-grip and stymie the technique. If I roll your wrist across or down (across is more common for me in that situation), I can reduce your available power, get a bend in the wrist before I start the actual lock (while your focus with that hand is still "hold on", not "stay safe"). With that small difference, I improve the chance of completing that lock, even on that static start. In a more dynamic situation, I'll probably need a bigger break in structure, but you might just give it to me by reaching out further for my wrist/sleeve.

I think we're saying the same thing, just with some different compartmentalization. Tony and I seem to use nearly identical phrasing, and probably for the same reason. I've seen people with otherwise good locking and throwing technique unable to apply it because they didn't have good entry technique, and didn't know to break (or at least look for broken) structure before doing those things. So now I emphasize that point, to avoid those issues.

So, in reply to you: yes, we appear to be saying the same thing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sure they can. I'm teaching a class on how to do that very thing tonight. Maintain a good stance with elbows in tight and knees flexed. Use footwork to move in close enough to grab the opponents wrist (or preferably hand). If their hands are low, lower your stance to reach them rather than extending your arms.

I assume what you are talking about is the classic standing in natural posture with your hands by your side while an "attacker" stands opposite you (also in natural posture) and reaches out his arm to take your wrist. This is what I would refer to in technical terms as a completely incompetent, pointless "attack." Your opponent has pre-emptively compromised his own structure for no worthwhile purpose.

It's the "classical" start used by a lot of Japanese MA, and creates some confusion for students for just the reason you mention, if it isn't explained and followed up properly.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Apologies for the click-baity title. From my own training in Taekwondo and Hapkido, and what I've seen in several different videos around the web, one theme I keep seeing in martial arts is that an art typically teaches combat only against the style taught by the art.

In some cases, it makes sense for the sport. Obviously a wrestler needs to know how to counter wrestlers, boxers don't need to worry about kicks, and a Taekwondoist doesn't need to have a plan to deal with ankle locks. Just like how I don't expect Tom Brady to go to batting practice, Michael Jordan to work on his bicycle kick, or Tiger Woods to run passing drills. If someone has 5 years experience boxing, I should destroy them in a Taekwondo match. I should be no match for them in the boxing ring.

But I'm not looking at sports right now, I'm looking at martial arts.

One-Step Punch Defense
The self defense we learn in my Taekwondo classes, and from a lot of the videos I've seen covering more traditional versions (as opposed to "modern" or "practical" versions) of Taekwondo and Karate are one-step punches. These are trained to defend against a punch that comes in just like a punch from a poomsae or kata: step forward into front stance and throw your weight into that punch.

Now, the "practical" application of this is that you're defending against a haymaker, instead of a string of punches. Because most people who are going to sucker punch you are going to use a haymaker (and hopefully those with the mindset to train martial arts won't use them aggressively on the street). But still, if someone is using boxing style punches, half the techniques will be different when dealing with a right cross than dealing with the right reverse punch. If someone is using a more symmetrical type of punching, like Wing Chun, then the one-step drills will also fall flat.

Wing Chun
While we're on the subject of Wing Chun, most of the drills I've seen for it seem to assume the person you're fighting knows Wing Chun. I don't know that I've seen another art that has a similar style. Now, I haven't trained in the art, so this is from an outside perspective, but most of what I've seen in Wing Chun videos are how to progress through that style of fighting. Most of those drills wouldn't really even apply to another art.

It's not that other arts would beat those drills. It's that they wouldn't even apply, because the techniques appear to be counters to things I've only ever seen done in Wing Chun.

This is why I mention hubris. Obviously, the Wing Chun fighters, and especially the masters in the art, believe Wing Chun to be the best art. Since Wing Chun is the best art, if you can defend yourself against a Wing Chun fighter, you can defend yourself against any fighter. (I'm using a bit of hyperbole here, I hope you realize). But the end result is you have a martial art where most of the drills are focused on fighting against a style specific to that art.

Hapkido
Along the same lines, you have hapkido. Hapkido's primary method of submitting the enemy is with wristlocks. What does hapkido generally teach? Defenses against someone grabbing your wrist. It's not quite the same as drilling against its own techniques, but it still takes the focus of your wrist needing to be defended and your attacker's wrist being the source of his destruction.

Part of my insight into hapkido may be limited by the fact that Hapkido at my school is basically an elective addition to our Taekwondo curriculum, so we take only that which Hapkido does better than Taekwondo and focus on the grappling and joint locks. But the theme still seems to be the same. Hapkido assumes wrists are a weak link that you need to protect in yourself and attack in your enemy.

Thoughts

• This post may come across as a rant, and it maybe kind of is. It's partially tongue-in-cheek, but partially serious, too.
• I think the problem with Taekwondo is that so much sparring time is dedicated to the point-sparring kicking game (at least in KKW schools) that you don't get to do much scenario sparring or more freestyle sparring. So in this case, it may be a case of the sport interfering with the art, than a flaw in the art itself.
• Wing Chun, I obviously don't have enough experience to comment on the entirety of the curriculum, and perhaps I'm off base in my assessment of their drills. It's just an observation I've made as an outsider.
• And as to Hapkido, I did admit that we have a focused version of Hapkido to remove redundancy with our Taekwondo training, and as we advance in Hapkido we do learn more than just wrist locks and wrist grab defenses.
• But with all those caveats aside, I do believe that most martial arts do come from the mindset of "this art is the best" (otherwise, why practice it?) and then because "this art is the best" the best defense is defense against that art.
• I think this is a big reason why MMA is so popular, and even with its limitations its important - because it provides failure drills by someone outside the art, and forces martial artists to think about their techniques from another perspective.
• One reason why martial arts might primarily train against themselves is because that's what the fighters are good at. It doesn't make sense to train to fight against a boxer if none of your students are boxers. And you're not going to get good feedback at defeating a wrestling shoot if none of your training partners actually know how to shoot for the leg.

Questions

1. Does this make sense? Or is it just insane ramblings on my part?
2. How does an art "get over itself" and train to fight against other arts? Or is that up to the individual fighter to look at what he needs to learn to defeat another art?
3. Where am I wrong in my understanding of these arts and the defense drills they provide?
4. What are some other examples of a martial art primarily fighting against itself in its drills?

And I thought I was "wordy". lol

 

[oftheherd1]

Just absorbed this-thats crazy! I cant imagine continuing after being pistol whipped, never mind shot twice on top of that

I'm told the MP said he just stood there momentarily stunned, not knowing what to do next; the man was fighting them both successfully, he had pistol whipped him, then shot him in the thigh, then in a foot, nothing worked until the man stopped to sit down and "rest."

Always made me think of the funny story of the two raccoon hunters who treed a raccoon and one hunter climbed the tree to get him. A terrible fight ensured with amusing dialog between the two hunters. At the last, the hunter in the tree implored his partner to shoot up into the tree. The one on the ground declined because he might hit his friend since he could not see up there. The hunter in the tree plaintively called out to him to just shoot, "one of us has got to have some relief!"

 

[Balrog]

One-Step Punch Defense
The self defense we learn in my Taekwondo classes, and from a lot of the videos I've seen covering more traditional versions (as opposed to "modern" or "practical" versions) of Taekwondo and Karate are one-step punches. These are trained to defend against a punch that comes in just like a punch from a poomsae or kata: step forward into front stance and throw your weight into that punch.

Now, the "practical" application of this is that you're defending against a haymaker, instead of a string of punches. Because most people who are going to sucker punch you are going to use a haymaker (and hopefully those with the mindset to train martial arts won't use them aggressively on the street). But still, if someone is using boxing style punches, half the techniques will be different when dealing with a right cross than dealing with the right reverse punch. If someone is using a more symmetrical type of punching, like Wing Chun, then the one-step drills will also fall flat.

That sounds to me like you are describing what we call one-steps. One-steps are not teaching you self-defense per se. They are a tool to help the student learn about timing, distancing and control. They get the student used to the idea of block and counter or evade and counter as they get ready to learn how to spar.

 

[oftheherd1]

Something I tell my students over and over again is that almost no grappling technique (takedown or joint lock) is likely to succeed unless you break their structure first. (Or unless they're completely clueless or you have a massive size and strength advantage, but we're not training for that sort of situation.)

What do I mean by that?

Imagine a wrestler in his stance. Low, solid base. Spine in good alignment. Elbows glued to his ribs. Hands pointed forward. Wrists solid and straight, not bent either way. All the parts of his body are aligned to support each other for maximum power generation.

Now try to complete a wristlock, arm lock, shoulder lock or hip throw on this guy while he's got that solid base and alignment. Not going to work. He's going to easily rebuff your attempts to twist limbs in directions where you can cause pain or damage.

What you have to do is win the small battles first. Get his head turned to weaken his spinal alignment. Get his weight shifted to weaken his connection to the ground. Get him to reach a little further than he should. Get him reaching to the side. Get his elbows flared away from his side causing internal rotation of the shoulder. Get his wrist to flex just a little bit one way or another. Little things which do no damage by themselves and which he would immediately recover from if you didn't follow up. Follow them up - use one bit of compromised structure to create another. Accumulate enough little advantages - places where your opponent's structure is weakened and yours is not - and then you will be able to take someone down or break their limb.

This may be part of the confusion. I can't speak for everyone in the discussion, but I've been talking about using a wristlock to counter a wrist grab. Someone who has grabbed me cannot be in the stance you mention (elbows tucked in, hands up). They have opened that gate (as someone said in another thread) by creating their attack and it is that which allows us to use our footwork and our pain compliance.

Yes, I agree completely that if you are against someone who is in a fighting stance (whatever that stance may be), that you will need to break their structure down before you can successfully take them down.

While you are both correct, skribs and I are indeed talking about defending having our wrist grabbed. As I mentioned before, in Hapkido in general, we are very much defense oriented. While we can indeed use many of our techniques offensively, we generally wait for an attack and then use a technique to defend ourselves.

 

[oftheherd1]

Sure they can. I'm teaching a class on how to do that very thing tonight. Maintain a good stance with elbows in tight and knees flexed. Use footwork to move in close enough to grab the opponents wrist (or preferably hand). If their hands are low, lower your stance to reach them rather than extending your arms.

I assume what you are talking about is the classic standing in natural posture with your hands by your side while an "attacker" stands opposite you (also in natural posture) and reaches out his arm to take your wrist. This is what I would refer to in technical terms as a completely incompetent, pointless "attack." Your opponent has pre-emptively compromised his own structure for no worthwhile purpose.

In the first paragraph, it sounds as if you are the attacker, reaching out to grab another persons wrist. If you are the attacker, what you describe is fine.

Our teaching of basic defense grabs teaches us beginning grappling, but might have had a practical use when trying to prevent someone from deploying a sword or knife if you were unarmed.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In the first paragraph, it sounds as if you are the attacker, reaching out to grab another persons wrist. If you are the attacker, what you describe is fine.

Our teaching of basic defense grabs teaches us beginning grappling, but might have had a practical use when trying to prevent someone from deploying a sword or knife if you were unarmed.

Yeah, that was a response to skribs claiming that an attacker who is grabbing your wrist can’t be coming in with the kind of solid structure which needs to be broken before a wrist lock (or arm lock, throw, whatever) can be applied.

If you only train to defend against incompetent attacks, then you’ll never develop a really solid technical defense. Learn to defend against an attacker who knows what he’s doing and the results are much better.

 

[oftheherd1]

This - as with many things - would be much easier to be clear on if we could just lay hands on each other to explain.

That should have been said several pages ago.. Thanks!

I suspect - from your description - that you incorporate the necessary structure-taking for that wrist lock into the little bit of entry that's left to be done. Imagine I'm standing there and you grab my wrist. You're balanced and relaxed, spine is aligned relatively normally, and one foot is slightly forward (matching your hand). You have pretty good structure - not as good as that wrestler, but if I start a typical Z-lock (in NGA, "First Wrist Technique") you can simply extend into my counter-grip and stymie the technique. If I roll your wrist across or down (across is more common for me in that situation), I can reduce your available power, get a bend in the wrist before I start the actual lock (while your focus with that hand is still "hold on", not "stay safe"). With that small difference, I improve the chance of completing that lock, even on that static start. In a more dynamic situation, I'll probably need a bigger break in structure, but you might just give it to me by reaching out further for my wrist/sleeve.

I think we're saying the same thing, just with some different compartmentalization. Tony and I seem to use nearly identical phrasing, and probably for the same reason. I've seen people with otherwise good locking and throwing technique unable to apply it because they didn't have good entry technique, and didn't know to break (or at least look for broken) structure before doing those things. So now I emphasize that point, to avoid those issues.
So, in reply to you: yes, we appear to be saying the same thing.

Again, if I grab your wrist, I am the attacker. You, as the defender may use any of a number of defenses, including a Z-lock, or goose-neck, or whatever you wish to call it. We would probably use something simple also breaking structure. But that is a great technique, especially as a come-along hold. Oh, and a particular aspect of our mind set is that normally breaking an opponent's structure is not only to aid in completing a technique, but putting our opponent's body in a position that he can't attack us. I am sure you and Tony understand that concept, and probably employ it as well. Some MA do not.

 

[oftheherd1]

And I thought I was "wordy". lol

I always thought I was the worst at wordiness. Do no try to usurp my title please.

 

[skribs]

Yeah, that was a response to skribs claiming that an attacker who is grabbing your wrist can’t be coming in with the kind of solid structure which needs to be broken before a wrist lock (or arm lock, throw, whatever) can be applied.

If you only train to defend against incompetent attacks, then you’ll never develop a really solid technical defense. Learn to defend against an attacker who knows what he’s doing and the results are much better.

There's a couple things to keep in mind:

1. I'm only an orange belt in the art. Higher up we learn to adapt our techniques to more situations.
2. If someone is going to grab you on the street, they may not be trying to tackle you and get you into an armbar. They may be grabbing you so they can push you around and intimidate you into giving them money (or something along those lines). Once they realize you're resisting, they may resort to other tactics, such as punches or a takedown.

 

[oftheherd1]

Yeah, that was a response to skribs claiming that an attacker who is grabbing your wrist can’t be coming in with the kind of solid structure which needs to be broken before a wrist lock (or arm lock, throw, whatever) can be applied.

If you only train to defend against incompetent attacks, then you’ll never develop a really solid technical defense. Learn to defend against an attacker who knows what he’s doing and the results are much better.

I understand that. I may have been to terse in some of my replies. But we normally break structure in order to be able to complete the technique and protect ourselves.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That should have been said several pages ago.. Thanks!



Again, if I grab your wrist, I am the attacker. You, as the defender may use any of a number of defenses, including a Z-lock, or goose-neck, or whatever you wish to call it. We would probably use something simple also breaking structure. But that is a great technique, especially as a come-along hold. Oh, and a particular aspect of our mind set is that normally breaking an opponent's structure is not only to aid in completing a technique, but putting our opponent's body in a position that he can't attack us. I am sure you and Tony understand that concept, and probably employ it as well. Some MA do not.

Absolutely. I think we're all saying pretty much the same thing. I know from my brief time playing with Tony that he definitely looks at ways to break structure that both create openings for him and block responses for his opponent. And I teach the same, probably in a way that would look familiar to someone in Hapkido.