How Would You Rework Techniques That Have Potential?

[Buka]

A shove is not usually thought of as an actual MA technique - because it usually isn't. But, I suppose it can be when executed as you describe. There are a couple of kata containing a double palm heel to the lower and upper torso after an initial circular clearing move. These are designed as pressure point strikes, but with more follow thru and some slight forward motion, can easily be called a MA shove. What differentiates a MA shove from the common shove, is that the body stays centered over the feet, without leaning into it, and originates from the core, as you touched on, and puts you in position to take advantage of the change in engagement distance (maii) to follow up.

It's really a fantastic technique when done properly and trained. Just like any technique it's gotta' be trained. We trained it a lot.

Bob Campbell, a ninth dan in Uechi, and one of the first people I ever saw doing Martial Arts, has been living in Hong Kong for quite some time now. But he would visit back east every year or every other year. He'd always have a seminar for Uechi guys when he came. A bunch of us always went even though we weren't Uechi, but we knew a lot of those guys. We always had a blast.

About six years ago Bob showed us a technique that I had never seen - but it was the first cousin to a shove and I picked it up pretty easy. I'll see if I can describe it correctly.

You're in a right leg back stance, half way between a front stance and a side stance. Picture a right hand reverse punch, vertical fist, to mid chest or sternum.

But just as it starts - your left hand grabs your right wrist/fist (thumb beside the forefinger, not wrapped around the wrist) and with full body behind it, and with whatever step or shuffle you like, you use it like a battering ram, both arms propelling that fist with your whole body behind it.

Man, is it great. By the next day down the dojo I was having guys holding shields in front of their body and knocking them down. And not shields with inner tubes, foam shields.

To me, it's the same core principle of a two handed shove, but with a smaller, and harder, impact point. It really moves someone. And it fricken hurts, big time it hurts.

And, yeah, I know I always preach "hands up at all times". But this can be used from a relaxed stance with your hands already in position one over the other, right in front of your groin, forearms lightly on your hip points.

I hope I described it clearly. It's not as complicated as I might have made it sound.

 

[Flying Crane]

It's really a fantastic technique when done properly and trained. Just like any technique it's gotta' be trained. We trained it a lot.

Bob Campbell, a ninth dan in Uechi, and one of the first people I ever saw doing Martial Arts, has been living in Hong Kong for quite some time now. But he would visit back east every year or every other year. He'd always have a seminar for Uechi guys when he came. A bunch of us always went even though we weren't Uechi, but we knew a lot of those guys. We always had a blast.

About six years ago Bob showed us a technique that I had never seen - but it was the first cousin to a shove and I picked it up pretty easy. I'll see if I can describe it correctly.

You're in a right leg back stance, half way between a front stance and a side stance. Picture a right hand reverse punch, vertical fist, to mid chest or sternum.

But just as it starts - your left hand grabs your right wrist/fist (thumb beside the forefinger, not wrapped around the wrist) and with full body behind it, and with whatever step or shuffle you like, you use it like a battering ram, both arms propelling that fist with your whole body behind it.

Man, is it great. By the next day down the dojo I was having guys holding shields in front of their body and knocking them down. And not shields with inner tubes, foam shields.

To me, it's the same core principle of a two handed shove, but with a smaller, and harder, impact point. It really moves someone. And it fricken hurts, big time it hurts.

And, yeah, I know I always preach "hands up at all times". But this can be used from a relaxed stance with your hands already in position one over the other, right in front of your groin, forearms lightly on your hip points.

I hope I described it clearly. It's not as complicated as I might have made it sound.

I think that when you learn how to effectively move with full-body connection, then you can deliver all kinds of powerful techniques, even when those techniques aren’t really a traditional “technique.” More like improvised movements. Still really really powerful and effective.

learning the principles behind the movement opens the door to doing anything that you want with them.

 

[Buka]

I think that when you learn how to effectively move with full-body connection, then you can deliver all kinds of powerful techniques, even when those techniques aren’t really a traditional “technique.” More like improvised movements. Still really really powerful and effective.

learning the principles behind the movement opens the door to doing anything that you want with them.

Amen, brother.

 

[Diagen]

I think jab has potential. It can be reworked by using knuckleduster instead a fist.

Maaaan, you have written in other topic "have a 1st degree black belt in American Kenpo". Every new question you ask make me more sure you lied to us or your Kenpo gym was/is garbage.

Every hand strike is good if you have good footwork, balance, and know what you're doing. Jab blinds the opponent, of course it's good. Can set up a kick or footwork changes. Can shift your weight and it's a forward straight instead, whether your opponent expects the change or not. Can trick someone into thinking your weight is in a punch but it's a jab as well, thus you can avoid their counter which might mean they're open. Always need a finisher though if you want to be effective and practical.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A shove is not usually thought of as an actual MA technique

- 1 point contact is "push/shove".
- 2 points contact in opposite directions is "throw".

If you can control your opponent's back leg, your push will become a throw.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

..

Well said. The guys I've seen with the best joint locking skills always told me "End the violence first, then apply a lock."

Trying to get a joint lock on somebody when they're in motion is like a kitten trying to catch a string.

There's also the fact that when people are angry, drunk or high - sometimes they don't feel anything.

And great point you mention about when someone pushes with one hand....where's the other one, that's what you have to worry about.

I've never much liked the way some training (heck, all the joint lock training I've seen) spends so much time focused on standing relatively still and getting the perfect lock. I use standing lock drills to teach the entry to them. So the things you do to set up for the lock are more important than whether you ever get the lock. If you end up with a grip on someone and distrupt their structure/balance, you create openings for you (and possibly close some for them) for both striking and grappling. The lock is mostly the thing we do to "finish" the sequence during training (and so we get a bit of practice on recognizing where that lock lives, at the same time). Basically, it's training for the transition from striking to grappling, and if the arm ends up in position for a lock, well, why turn down a gift?

The problem comes when our training makes us think we should target a wrist lock against a struggling opponent and that it should be relatively simple to get there.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

As far as i can ascertain for something like jointlocks, it being used to break the joint from some of the HEMA i have seen. Kind of a misnamer, should have said join breaks, but its the same thing you just apply immediate force to damage the joint as opposed to restrain it as in a lock. (id call it a joint break, some use lock to include breaks as well) There is little point in restraints unless you have a duty of care or arrest or dont want to hurt the person.

Its swords, but the first lock in this video is what i had in mind. Begs the question how exactly you safely train breaks, and what the risk of accidental brekage is, and if its eays enough to break a arm if all you have done is locks.

Because for the few times i have seen breaks demosntrated in HEMA it looks a short mishap away from them actually breaking it, they apply like slightly less pressure needed than to break the thing.

Just for fun incase you ever find yourself in a longsword duel.

I suppose in short, instead of using the hold you have to throw or restrain them, you use it to break a joint or do something else nasty like that and build that into being habit.

 

[Buka]

As far as i can ascertain for something like jointlocks, it being used to break the joint from some of the HEMA i have seen. Kind of a misnamer, should have said join breaks, but its the same thing you just apply immediate force to damage the joint as opposed to restrain it as in a lock. (id call it a joint break, some use lock to include breaks as well) There is little point in restraints unless you have a duty of care or arrest or dont want to hurt the person.

Its swords, but the first lock in this video is what i had in mind. Begs the question how exactly you safely train breaks, and what the risk of accidental brekage is, and if its eays enough to break a arm if all you have done is locks.

Because for the few times i have seen breaks demosntrated in HEMA it looks a short mishap away from them actually breaking it, they apply like slightly less pressure needed than to break the thing.

Just for fun incase you ever find yourself in a longsword duel.

I suppose in short, instead of using the hold you have to throw or restrain them, you use it to break a joint or do something else nasty like that and build that into being habit.

It really doesn't work like that.

 

[TheDojang]

This is something I’ve been wanting to ask and I figured I’d start a thread on this topic. What techniques do you believe have the potential to work on the streets, but could be reworked? For example, let’s take joint locks.

Great question. After 20+ years in TKD, then transitioning to Kenpo. I found myself reworking a LOT of techniques. Mainly due to what I felt would work for me and what wouldn't. I love all the styles I have trained in, but still felt restricted. Like with TKD, it is known for high kicks. But I have never been very flexible and no way would I kick high in a self defense situation. I also incorporated the stances from Kenpo, due to them being much shallower and easier to move with than the long stances in TKD. But each person is different. Different things work better for each person.

Which is why I am absolutely AGAINST this 'one size fits all crap'. What works for one easily could be wrong for another. In my teaching, the ONLY thing I stick strictly too is forms. But I show the different applications of each move.

When it comes to self defense, we work techniques 1 way, but quickly modify them to fit the person. For if the technique doesn't become natural and feel natural, then it does the student no good. I also use someone I trust and after practicing the technique, I have them go full force. Qhile I dont necessarily go full force with my counter, it let's me see 90% of the time what will and won't work. And I do this with one of my instructors, which is a good site bigger than me.

Sorry, I tend to ramble at times. Basically put. Do what feels natural and don't be afraid to experiment.

You can respect tradition without conforming to it.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

It really doesn't work like that.

What exactly, i posted many statements in there and im going to need more to work on than that. for needed clarification, as far as i recall arm bars are restriants as opposed to breaks. And i was thinking of arm bars when writing that.

 

[Buka]

What exactly, i posted many statements in there and im going to need more to work on than that. for needed clarification, as far as i recall arm bars are restriants as opposed to breaks. And i was thinking of arm bars when writing that.

I need to figure out how to post a YouTube video and pictures to illustrate a point about certain joint locks. Fairly common ones that have some uncommon weaknesses.

I'll get back to you, brother. Thanks for the patience.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I need to figure out how to post a YouTube video and pictures to illustrate a point about certain joint locks. Fairly common ones that have some uncommon weaknesses.

I'll get back to you, brother. Thanks for the patience.

I just copied and pasted the URL's and it embedded fine for me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As far as i can ascertain for something like jointlocks, it being used to break the joint from some of the HEMA i have seen. Kind of a misnamer, should have said join breaks, but its the same thing you just apply immediate force to damage the joint as opposed to restrain it as in a lock. (id call it a joint break, some use lock to include breaks as well) There is little point in restraints unless you have a duty of care or arrest or dont want to hurt the person.

Its swords, but the first lock in this video is what i had in mind. Begs the question how exactly you safely train breaks, and what the risk of accidental brekage is, and if its eays enough to break a arm if all you have done is locks.

Because for the few times i have seen breaks demosntrated in HEMA it looks a short mishap away from them actually breaking it, they apply like slightly less pressure needed than to break the thing.

Just for fun incase you ever find yourself in a longsword duel.

I suppose in short, instead of using the hold you have to throw or restrain them, you use it to break a joint or do something else nasty like that and build that into being habit.

All locks, if taken beyond the lock, become breaks/tears. The "lock" is taking a joint to the point where it cannot go further without injury. So, not really a misnomer.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

All locks, if taken beyond the lock, become breaks/tears. The "lock" is taking a joint to the point where it cannot go further without injury. So, not really a misnomer.

I like to, and prefer naming it based on intent. If you plan on breaking you should call it a break as you can joint lock for restriant with no intention of breaking or damaging the joint. and purposely breaking the joint takes less time in some situations.

Although, i dont know if the arm bar commonly seen in BJJ is a restraint or not. I know you can put pressure to break the joint but i think it takes a couple of seconds of force to do it from when i last saw a BJJ lock to break. I cant recall if thats because the person was resiting or not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I like to, and prefer naming it based on intent. If you plan on breaking you should call it a break as you can joint lock for restriant with no intention of breaking or damaging the joint. and purposely breaking the joint takes less time in some situations.

Although, i dont know if the arm bar commonly seen in BJJ is a restraint or not. I know you can put pressure to break the joint but i think it takes a couple of seconds of force to do it from when i last saw a BJJ lock to break. I cant recall if thats because the person was resiting or not.

Using them as a restraint is simply stopping before damage occurs, using either pain or mechanical leverage (or both) to keep them in place. With all locks I'm familiar with, taking them beyond the submission (sometimes availalbe as a restraint) point always takes less time - you have to slow down at the point of restraint to avoid the damage.

Basically, any lock can be used for restraint if the structure is right (I've seen them taught without that structure, and they're unlikely to work for anything) and the subject is (as someone said earlier) aware of and wants to avoid the pain/damage that follows. Some also have significant mechanical (leverage) advantage that allows them to be used in some situations where there's no response to the pain/threat of damage.

 

[KenpoMaster805]

Welcome to MT

 

[Argus]

Be careful about reworking techniques that you don't fully understand.

In my own experience as well as observations of others:

1. Many people don't have the technique down well enough in the first place to use it under pressure, and then after pressure testing it (going from essentially 0 to 100) conclude "it doesn't work." Youtube is especially bad about this, essentially everyone claiming nothing works. You have to gradually increase intensity to really make a given technique reliable under pressure

2. When increasing intensity, your training partner has to be semi cooperative, and semi uncooperative, and you have to learn how to flow into the next thing if the technique fails. Look, if you tell me to resist and I know and am expecting what you are going to do, OF COURSE I CAN RESIST AND SHUT IT DOWN EVERY TIME! You can shut down any technique if you know it's coming. So you need to either mix things up, or have your partner sometimes be semi-resisting (but not shutting you down out of anticipating your technique) and sometimes shutting it down (so you know how to change and flow into something else when this happens in reality, as it will with any technique)

3. Make sure you understand the context of when and how the technique is meant to be applied. And keep an open mind... At first, you might think a technique is never applicable and just needs to be modified to be effective. Then, you might find a use that actually makes sense. Then, you might find more and more situations over the years, as you broaden your training and perspective, where the technique is in fact very functional. If you had just thrown it out from the beginning, you'd never have gotten there.

Now, all that said, depending on your art, the practical knowledge of that technique's application may have been long lost and somewhat misinterpreted over the years. This is sort of common with some arts. In that case, you may have been taught a slightly wrong version of the technique that will need tweaking and reinterpreting. But do your due diligence with the first three as well, in case you are missing the obvious, as is most often the case.

It's perfectly okay to keep a tool in the toolbox that you admit to not knowing or understanding. Don't be too quick to throw it out or reinterpret it. You might come to understand it with training and experience years later. That's totally natural and fine. There's a strange human tendency to want to judge and explain everything rather than just being okay with not yet knowing/understanding.

 

[_Simon_]

Be careful about reworking techniques that you don't fully understand.

In my own experience as well as observations of others:

1. Many people don't have the technique down well enough in the first place to use it under pressure, and then after pressure testing it (going from essentially 0 to 100) conclude "it doesn't work." Youtube is especially bad about this, essentially everyone claiming nothing works. You have to gradually increase intensity to really make a given technique reliable under pressure

2. When increasing intensity, your training partner has to be semi cooperative, and semi uncooperative, and you have to learn how to flow into the next thing if the technique fails. Look, if you tell me to resist and I know and am expecting what you are going to do, OF COURSE I CAN RESIST AND SHUT IT DOWN EVERY TIME! You can shut down any technique if you know it's coming. So you need to either mix things up, or have your partner sometimes be semi-resisting (but not shutting you down out of anticipating your technique) and sometimes shutting it down (so you know how to change and flow into something else when this happens in reality, as it will with any technique)

3. Make sure you understand the context of when and how the technique is meant to be applied. And keep an open mind... At first, you might think a technique is never applicable and just needs to be modified to be effective. Then, you might find a use that actually makes sense. Then, you might find more and more situations over the years, as you broaden your training and perspective, where the technique is in fact very functional. If you had just thrown it out from the beginning, you'd never have gotten there.

Now, all that said, depending on your art, the practical knowledge of that technique's application may have been long lost and somewhat misinterpreted over the years. This is sort of common with some arts. In that case, you may have been taught a slightly wrong version of the technique that will need tweaking and reinterpreting. But do your due diligence with the first three as well, in case you are missing the obvious, as is most often the case.

It's perfectly okay to keep a tool in the toolbox that you admit to not knowing or understanding. Don't be too quick to throw it out or reinterpret it. You might come to understand it with training and experience years later. That's totally natural and fine. There's a strange human tendency to want to judge and explain everything rather than just being okay with not yet knowing/understanding.

So very well said! Awesome post!