Joint Locks and Pressure Points

[Bigshadow]

Knowing how to lock someone is useful, but its important to know when its appropriate for.
Personally I figure a lock is only required in any situation where you cannot flee after there is violent contact.
In most cases the best plan for surviving conflict is get the hell out of there as fast as possible.
Sticking around and locking an aggressor runs contrary to that.
So you should only be doing it if
1 - Its your job (eg security, police)
2 - You can't leave the aggressor there (eg home, family members still there etc)
3 - You need this person intact (minimum force scenario, or sue happy rich kid. Spank for good measure)

I don't have a pre-conceived notion of when or where I will use a joint lock. I let the situation and the feeling at that moment dictate what is necessary. I think it is a bad thing to have a preconceived idea of what one will do when, because, it is often not exactly how I thought it would be and changes the dynamics enough that what I thought of doing is useless or nearly useless and something different would have been more effective.

Now with regards my actual guidelines for locking an opponent.

• Pain in not a reliable factor. Pain tolerance, adrenaline and chemical substances can skew it too much for it to ever be reliable.
• The lock must remove the opponents balance
• The lock must remove the opponents leverage
• The lock must involve a large joint. Small joint manipulation should only be used as aid to larger joing locks. For example, don't try and lock someone by the fingers or wrist. Lock the shoulder and use the fingers for added control instead.
• You cannot lock someone indefinitely. Sooner or later, they will find a way out. Even if that involves doing themself harm, just like an animal gnawing its leg off when its stuck in a bear trap.

I like how you tied balance in. Balance is extremely important! Keeping balance while breaking the attacker's balance.

Now then we get to the subject of pressure points

• Never bother with pressure point striking. Adrenaline dump renders fine motor skills useless, so pin-point striking chops shall be henceforth reserved for GI-Joe figures
• Use of pressure point during locks follows same rules as small joint manipulation, use as an aid to large joint locks, not on its own.

Any other points or suggestions about these?

I am not so sure about pressure points as you describe them. Regarding pressure points, I tend to think of sensitive places to strike. There are places that can be struck quite easily that can cause the strike to be quite a bit more painful than it would be in other parts of the general vacinity. However, if they are doped up or whatever, chances are it won't have the desired affect, other than it being just a strike, so nothing lost.


As far as trying to do the touch of death, well, I would have to see that.

 

[MJS]

John Q. Public and the ACLU has been telling LEO's that for YEARS...Now if they don't respond to a finger/joint lock (there are non-responders out there) THEN we go for the hard stuff...

I worked in Corrections for a short time and that was something that they always stressed in the academy.

Mike

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

I don't have a pre-conceived notion of when or where I will use a joint lock. I let the situation and the feeling at that moment dictate what is necessary. I think it is a bad thing to have a preconceived idea of what one will do when, because, it is often not exactly how I thought it would be and changes the dynamics enough that what I thought of doing is useless or nearly useless and something different would have been more effective.

It isn't so much when I would use them, as when I WOULDN'T. If there's multiple aggressors for example, the last thing I want is to get tangled up in a lock with someone. Or if Im unable to disable an aggressor by striking him, then odds are this is NOT someone I want to try holding down.
Locks involve being too stationary for my liking in a self-defence scenario.
My objective in self-defence survival, and the mest efficient way of doing that is drop the other guy on his *** then flee into the sunset.
Lockinh him would just leave me attached to someone who's intending me harm, and the longer Im there, more reisk of something going wrong.

I like how you tied balance in. Balance is extremely important! Keeping balance while breaking the attacker's balance.

Yep. If he gets his balance, there's no point trying to lock him, he'll be able to struggle too much.

I am not so sure about pressure points as you describe them. Regarding pressure points, I tend to think of sensitive places to strike. There are places that can be struck quite easily that can cause the strike to be quite a bit more painful than it would be in other parts of the general vacinity. However, if they are doped up or whatever, chances are it won't have the desired affect, other than it being just a strike, so nothing lost.

I prefer to target area's which will have a physical reaction thats more than simply causing pain. Strikes which will shock the central nervous system, or cause a forced reaction like a blow to the solar plexus.
Pain to me just isn't a reliable tool.

As far as trying to do the touch of death, well, I would have to see that.

According to an ex girlfriend, you could see that watching me in the bedroom...

 

[Drac]

I worked in Corrections for a short time and that was something that they always stressed in the academy.

Mike

We still stress that..Don't stand there attempting another pressure point/ joint lock if he didn't respond to the first one..TAKE THEM DOWN...

 

[Bigshadow]

It isn't so much when I would use them, as when I WOULDN'T. If there's multiple aggressors for example, the last thing I want is to get tangled up in a lock with someone.

I don't know... It just depends. Locks can be beneficial to keeping the attacker betwixt me and the other attacker(s). Just because someone gets a lock doesn't mean they have to keep it. It is just like anything else, it is disposable for something better.

Like I said, it all depends on what is happening at that moment and what the shape of the attack feels like. That is why I don't have a cut and dried rule about anything other than balance. Balance is pretty cut and dried. I want to have it and I want to take theirs.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I don't know... It just depends. Locks can be beneficial to keeping the attacker betwixt me and the other attacker(s). Just because someone gets a lock doesn't mean they have to keep it. It is just like anything else, it is disposable for something better.

Waaaaay back when I trained Jujitsu we trained multiple attackers and this was commonly used. Lock one and use him as a shield while attacking others

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I think a lot of it also depends on where the focus of your training is as well. If you study a style that is primarily striking with some joint work thrown in, you'll be more likely to look for opportunities to strike with the odd lock thrown in. If you study a style that puts a lot of emphasis on joint locking, you might just find yourself doing the opposite. I don't think either one is better, just different.

Jeff

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

I don't know... It just depends. Locks can be beneficial to keeping the attacker betwixt me and the other attacker(s). Just because someone gets a lock doesn't mean they have to keep it. It is just like anything else, it is disposable for something better.

Like I said, it all depends on what is happening at that moment and what the shape of the attack feels like. That is why I don't have a cut and dried rule about anything other than balance. Balance is pretty cut and dried. I want to have it and I want to take theirs.

I never particularly liked those sort of randori "stand-off" scenarios, where you use a person as a human shield. From what Ive seen of attacks involving multiple opponents it tends to be extremely aggressive, and anything which keeps you stationary will result in the opponents swarming you. If I needed to create an obstacle, I'd throw one of the attackers at another, or onto the ground in their path, and then continue attacking. Still be incredibly difficult thing to do though.

 

[DavidCC]

Never bother with pressure point striking. Adrenaline dump renders fine motor skills useless, so pin-point striking chops shall be henceforth reserved for GI-Joe figures.

I prefer to target area's which will have a physical reaction thats more than simply causing pain. Strikes which will shock the central nervous system, or cause a forced reaction like a blow to the solar plexus.
Pain to me just isn't a reliable tool.

So which is it Shotgun???

 

[Bigshadow]

and anything which keeps you stationary

Who said you have to be stationary? You can move while having someone locked up. If not, I would revisit why I couldn't move. Again, will reiterate, who says you have to keep them? It is all very fluid and dynamic.

Locks and pressure points have their place. However, they are not the end all of martial arts, they are just another set of weapons in the arsenal to be used when needed as appropriate. To discount them is like not tying your shoes... IMO.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

So which is it Shotgun???

Which part of that are you viewing as being in conflict?
Strikes such as elbow strikes to the temple or or jaw, or upper-cut to the solar plexus, are gross motor skills. With practice, they'll still function under an adrenaline dump.
Pressure points for the most part are areas sensitive to pain. Thats different from shocking the central nervous system. For example when someone is KO'd by a strike to the head, its nothing to do with pain. They've been hit hard enough to shock the brain, so it crashes.
Likewise punching the solar plexus causes the the lungs to sieze up, which has nothing to do with pain. Its just the body cannot function the way its supposed to and crashes.

So where do you see a conflict?

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Who said you have to be stationary? You can move while having someone locked up. If not, I would revisit why I couldn't move. Again, will reiterate, who says you have to keep them? It is all very fluid and dynamic.

Locks and pressure points have their place. However, they are not the end all of martial arts, they are just another set of weapons in the arsenal to be used when needed as appropriate. To discount them is like not tying your shoes... IMO.

Hehe you can move, but you've still the problem of time it takes, and your movement is slowed by holding on to them. I guess I just view the time it takes to sieze and lock an opponent, as time that could be better spent tossing him at someone else, or running in girlish terror.
And my terror gets pretty girlish.
Just personal opinion on it anyway mate :ultracool

 

[Bigshadow]

or running in girlish terror.

That is always an option... Who knows it could humor them into submission

Just personal opinion on it anyway mate :ultracool

That is understood. Likewise!

 

[morph4me]

Hehe you can move, but you've still the problem of time it takes, and your movement is slowed by holding on to them. I guess I just view the time it takes to sieze and lock an opponent, as time that could be better spent tossing him at someone else, or running in girlish terror.
And my terror gets pretty girlish.
Just personal opinion on it anyway mate :ultracool

My movement has never been slowed by holding on to someone, their movement has speeded up especially when I have the advantage of girlish terror to give me an extra burst of speed

 

[Don Roley]

Knowing how to lock someone is useful, but its important to know when its appropriate for.
Personally I figure a lock is only required in any situation where you cannot flee after there is violent contact.

I have to disagree.

You are using the term "lock" when I would use the term "restraint technique." One may be related to the other, but they are different animals.

Take this as a hypothetical situation. What if someone comes after you with a knife? In most situations, you would want to control the weapon. That means grabbing the knife hand if you can. What do you do when you do that? You really can't let go to strike the other guy. Use of minor joint locks like those against the fingers or wrist might be your best bet while you use the other limb to deal with everything else he throws at you.

And if you can't keep the lock on past the point he drops the knife (which is the case with many finger locks) then you are still in a hell of a lot better position than when you started.

And then they is the case of when you throw a punch and he throws up his arm to block it. I have learned rather nasty techniques of not retracting my hand but rather have it slide down the blocking arm until I get that old familiar hold on the wrist I am so in love with. Then I have another way to break through his defenses other than trying to beat them down. If they only get me to the point where he is off balance, on the way to the ground and open to my attacks, I really don't care if I need to stick around after the fight or if I can run.

So as long as we are sure that joint locks do not need to always be restraint techniques I think we will see eye to eye and we can help each other see new things. I like your idea that running is the first thing you should be thinking about if you don't need to hold the guy down some way. But I hope I made it clear that you can use joint locks even if that is the case.:cheers:

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

I have to disagree.

You are using the term "lock" when I would use the term "restraint technique." One may be related to the other, but they are different animals.

Take this as a hypothetical situation. What if someone comes after you with a knife? In most situations, you would want to control the weapon. That means grabbing the knife hand if you can. What do you do when you do that? You really can't let go to strike the other guy. Use of minor joint locks like those against the fingers or wrist might be your best bet while you use the other limb to deal with everything else he throws at you.

And if you can't keep the lock on past the point he drops the knife (which is the case with many finger locks) then you are still in a hell of a lot better position than when you started.

And then they is the case of when you throw a punch and he throws up his arm to block it. I have learned rather nasty techniques of not retracting my hand but rather have it slide down the blocking arm until I get that old familiar hold on the wrist I am so in love with. Then I have another way to break through his defenses other than trying to beat them down. If they only get me to the point where he is off balance, on the way to the ground and open to my attacks, I really don't care if I need to stick around after the fight or if I can run.

So as long as we are sure that joint locks do not need to always be restraint techniques I think we will see eye to eye and we can help each other see new things. I like your idea that running is the first thing you should be thinking about if you don't need to hold the guy down some way. But I hope I made it clear that you can use joint locks even if that is the case.:cheers:

I'd view the opponent as having a weapon as a reason not being able to flee though, so I wouldn't be against locking an opponent in those circumstances. A knife in the back makes a very convincing arguement for not leaving an opponent with a weapon.
I woundn't try locking by the hand or wrist though, because of how messy that could get. Most small joint locks leave an opponent with too much balance and leverage for my liking to perform on their own.
Instead I'd be looking to lock via the shoulder, and then elbow, so that they have limited movement, trying to bring them down to the ground face first if possible, and then lock the wrist at that point to take the knife.
Im trying to avoid being techniques specific on this because of how completely random knife-attack patterns can be, as they usually only follow the pattern of "stabby-slashy-kill-kill"

Im not saying that joint locks don't have a place in self-defence, just that in unarmed cases that striking and throwing are of more use.
Cheers mate.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

That is always an option... Who knows it could humor them into submission

Humour them? You underestimate the awesome might of my girlish terror, a spectatcle which has rendered grown men paralysed with embarassment.

 

[Drac]

Humour them? You underestimate the awesome might of my girlish terror, a spectatcle which has rendered grown men paralysed with embarassment.

LOL...

 

[MJS]

I'd view the opponent as having a weapon as a reason not being able to flee though, so I wouldn't be against locking an opponent in those circumstances. A knife in the back makes a very convincing arguement for not leaving an opponent with a weapon.
I woundn't try locking by the hand or wrist though, because of how messy that could get. Most small joint locks leave an opponent with too much balance and leverage for my liking to perform on their own.
Instead I'd be looking to lock via the shoulder, and then elbow, so that they have limited movement, trying to bring them down to the ground face first if possible, and then lock the wrist at that point to take the knife.
Im trying to avoid being techniques specific on this because of how completely random knife-attack patterns can be, as they usually only follow the pattern of "stabby-slashy-kill-kill"

Im not saying that joint locks don't have a place in self-defence, just that in unarmed cases that striking and throwing are of more use.
Cheers mate.

Its always good to hear other viewpoints on this topic. Thanks for your thoughts.

For me, I've had good luck with locks. One thing that is key, is to always keep the pressure on. Doing this, the person should be moving where you want them to go. This is another reason why I like the lock flow, as it allows you to transition from one to the next, in the event something goes wrong.

Mike

 

[Brother John]

Personally I figure a lock is only required in any situation where you cannot flee after there is violent contact.

Again: this may go to prove the point that no-ones ever really taught you joint locks. The term "Lock" does make it sound like something you are going to use to KEEP someone still for a while. Some locks are good for that. But the term "Lock" merely denotes that you've taken a joint to the point that it can no longer articulate...in other words, it's in YOUR control now. I prefer the term "joint manipulation" because of this. Joint manipulations are some of the best ways to effect a throw and/or sweep/takedown. The difference between a joint "lock" and a joint "Break" or rupture, is a matter of a centimeter or so. So really it's not always about "Holding" them as it is disabling one of their limbs. Also a joint lock causes the opponent to move in a certain way, whether by pain compliance or through mechanical force, and this can open up some of the best finishing strikes and like I said before: takedowns/sweeps/throws...etc. OFTEN a well applied joint 'lock' IS it's own throw, causing them to dump quickly.

In most cases the best plan for surviving conflict is get the hell out of there as fast as possible.

Sure is!!!
BUT: if this is your reasoning for not learning/practicing joint locks then why the heck even study martial arts at all? Why not just practice quick sprints and running in a zig-zag pattern? Because if this is your rationale for not learning joint locks, it's just as applicable for not learning ANY feature of the martial arts: Kicks, strikes, throws, escapes, chokes...etc.

Sticking around and locking an aggressor runs contrary to that.

further evidence that no one has ever taught you joint locks!
You think that in order to make use of a joint lock I need to "Stick around", like it's time consuming.
Joint locks are quick! Often in the blink of an eye, one moment they have control of their limb.....the next...YOU do. I don't see how that's NOT effective combat. When you have control of one of their limbs you have a profound impact on their ability to move the rest of their body.
...and it's not 'time consuming' at all. Sometimes, it's a real time saver.

3 - You need this person intact

Actually, you made a good point with this one....but in favor of joint locks, but again, you didn't go far enough.
Joint locks have a greater range of possible outcomes than mere striking does. When you strike, you smash...end of story. When you lock, you control...if it needs to go to the next level....you UP the pain with the flick of your wrist.....Need another level? Press further and disrupt the joint completely. I can use joint locks to keep a persons physical integrity intact, or to maim them! Greater level of control through a greater range of options.

Pain in not a reliable factor. Pain tolerance, adrenaline and chemical substances can skew it too much for it to ever be reliable.

That's true. But you'd be amazed how seldom adrenaline is sufficient to overcome all pain, and not everyone who fights is hopped up on some street drug... pain is applicable and useable more often than it is not. Besides, again you show that you think joint locks only cause pain...
I don't need them to "Feel" the joint lock for it to be 100% useful to me and my tactics. If I break a drug freaks wrist and then later he tries to punch me with that hand....because he doesn't feel the break.......his punch isn't nearly the threat it could have been. And when he tries to grab me with that hand?? Nope, it just won't work....because the mechanical element of his hand just won't work. If I disrupt his shoulder? Same thing, much less effective in Everything! If I break his elbow? Punches? no.. nothing more than flinging a dangly limb at me. Grabs? no...limp noodle.
If I disrupt his knee....my chances for your favorite tactic, runing, to be effective just trippled. Easily.
Pain? I don't need no stinking pain...
What about your tactics for an advancing aggressor who's on some street drugs, crazed out of his gord? I see you do MMA, including Kyukoshinkai...
would you strike him? Kick him? Would he "feel" it?
It's much easier to break a joint with a joint lock than to cause that level of damage with strikes...

The lock must remove the opponents balance

It very often does, which is a Wonderful tactic..
but it doesn't Need too.

The lock must remove the opponents leverage

That's one of the main points of all joint locks. It mechanically takes control of a limb, thus they lose their leverage with that limb and often others.
...but if it doesn't, I can still use it to my advantage...

The lock must involve a large joint. Small joint manipulation should only be used as aid to larger joing locks. For example, don't try and lock someone by the fingers or wrist. Lock the shoulder and use the fingers for added control instead.

That's a wonderful tactic, the multi-joint joint lock, but then you'd be advocating joint locks. The fine joint locks are good for heightening control, and only good as a set up when used alone....but they do work. I know, I've used them in actual confrontations and so have some of my students.
They work.

You cannot lock someone indefinitely. Sooner or later, they will find a way out. Even if that involves doing themself harm, just like an animal gnawing its leg off when its stuck in a bear trap.

:barf: ...hahaha....I like that. HEY...if they want to permanently damage themselves to get out of a lock...more POWER too'm. Who in the world wants to "lock someone indefinitely". It's a Fight, we're not moving in with them so that we can maintain a lock. That's funny.
Would you rather face a four legged wolf or a three legged wolf? Besides, I'd have had LOTS of time...while he was gnawing his own leg off, to grab my gun/knife and or large rock and do him TONS of permanent damage.

as you said: On to pressure points.

Never bother with pressure point striking. Adrenaline dump renders fine motor skills useless, so pin-point striking chops shall be henceforth reserved for GI-Joe figures

Actually, most don't need you to be THAT exact. If this were the case, then targetting at all with your strikes/kicks would be useless and you should just say "Kicking high, middle, low...". Most of the pressure-points or nerves are in bundles or groups, if you strike that area, you affect one or more. Period. I do it all the time, in the heat of the moment, while in motion. I've also targeted very specific ones...and hit them dead on while in motion with a resistive opponent.
The use of pressure points in striking was very important to Lots of prominent martial artists down through time, including Gichin Funakoshi....a very practical/pragmatic martial artist who said in one of his books: "Never strike unless to a kyusho, or it is a wasted strike." (Kyusho being one term for what we generally call a "Pressure Point") Chojun Miyagi, founder of Goju Ryu Karate-Do, felt the same way. MANY traditional styles of Jujutsu make consistent use of pressure points in their moves, to great effect. Do you figure these folks didn't know what they were talking about?

Use of pressure point during locks follows same rules as small joint manipulation, use as an aid to large joint locks, not on its own.

I don't remember Anyone suggesting that you even could use pressure points "on their own"..
what would that even look like? Just walk up and poke them?
Sounds like "Chun", from the movie Remo Williams.

Pressure point use IS something that must be used in conjuction or rather through the medium of your art. Anything else doesn't even make sense.

Your Brother
John