I don't think I am. I know him.
I guess it was condescending to state it like that. I'm sorry then...
I guess it would be better to say that I disagree with your stance on these two things...
care to discuss the points?
Your Brother
John
Sure no problem mate, I just wanted to clarify that first. Always best to debate with a clear head right?
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.
If a technique is being performed as a throw, then its a throw, and I already advocate those for use in self-defence. When I think of lock, I think of locking the opponents movement, which to my mind is completely different from throwing them.
As for breaking, I personally don't agree with it. Not because of any moral squeamishness, but because
1. Its not something you can practice fully on someone on a regular basis, for obvious reasons. This means that since Ive never performed the action, I don't consider being able to perform it under pressure reliable. This is a personal thing, not a statement that it can't be done. Just that since I haven't actually DONE it, I don't want to rely on it. I have learned how, and Ive made sure I know and have gone over how quite a bit, but I prefer to focus on stuff I can practice reliably.
2. The legal mess. People are getting sue happy these days, so my objective in self-defence is not just to survive, but to survive hassle free afterwards if possible. And where Im from breaking something is like a mating call for criminals lawyers.
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.
I never said I didn't learn joint locks. Ive done quite a bit of practice with them, I just feel its best to use the right tool for the right job. And simple fact is, martial arts is actually low enough down of the list of effective ways of dealing with a conflict.
The "soft skills" section of self-defence, situational awareness training, verbal de-escalation, all the elements of AVOIDING a problem in the first place, take precedence.
Scrolling down the list of effective way of dealing with the problem, we still have the conclusion that the best method is getting the hell out of there. And then we figure out how martial arts training can be of the most use there, and tools like strikes and throws come to the fore.
So why learn martial at all? Well primarily because you enjoy it, which to me is the most important reason for why anyone should do it.
And secondly because its always important to have a back up plan. If trouble does occur, and can't be avoided, then being able to fight is pretty damn useful. How you fight though should still be dictated by what the most effective means of dealing with the problem are.
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.
As I said, I consider locking to be by nature restraint.And yes locking is time consuming. If you are fighting an opponent, who has even a REMOTE idea of how to fight, its going to be difficult securing a decent lock. Unless of course, you work on the assumption that you're attacker can;t fight, which to me is too risky an assumption. The sort of person who is going to actually attack you, has probably had a fair bit of practice at it.
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.
In self-defence, you want end of story. The more possible outcomes there are to something, the higher the risk of something going wrong. Thats why most self-dfence courses focus alot on gross motor based strikes. I know it seems great to have many possibilties in a fight, but the more possiblities there are the higher the risk tou yourself. Especially because of how that effects the body.
Under the effects of adrenaline, as per Hicks Law, the more reactions the body has to choose from, the longer it takes to pick one.
And since adrenaline dump also cancels out fine motor skills, an awful lot of small joint manipulation becomes near impossible to perform under that kind of pressure.
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...
I believe I already raised my points about breaking? Simple fact is, I don't trust it to be reliable since I haven't done it on someone before.
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...
See above point about breaking. Drop him to the ground, and run like hell. Which is partly the reason why I practice Free Running alot, being able to clear a twelve foot wall in about half a second is a very useful survival trait.
It very often does, which is a Wonderful tactic..
but it doesn't Need too.
Remember, I refer to locking as restraint. And for restraining someone, removing balance is imperative.
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...
For restraint work, if they still have leverage, you still have a very big problem.
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.
No its not advocating joint locks. Its advocating using the joint locks correctly when they end up being used.
: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.
Remember, Im interpeting locking as restraint work. Therefore him damaging himself, or you braining him with rock, runs contrary to that.
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?
I wasn't there, therefore I can't make any declarations about whether or not they know what they were talking about. My concept on pressure point striking is probably refferring to something slightly different than yours here. Ive been subjected to lot of Dillman like rants about their mystical effects, so when I think of the term, I don't think of standard targerts such as jaw, temple, solar plexus, groin, etc so much as the general ranting about one touch ko's.
So we're probably getting a bit of a communications error there more than anything. I just try to keep the target area fairly large, because I don't want to try and hit a small target under pressure.
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.
According the George Dillman, he doesn't even have to be touching them. Hence my distrust of the term. God that man is such a friggin charlatan.
Looking forward to discussing this with you more.
