Joint Locks - How Effective?

[Kong Soo Do]

When teaching firearms to High Liability professionals or civilains, I always stress to fire for effect until the threat has stopped. The same can be applied to SD in that we continue to defend ourselves until the threat has stopped. If the punch/kick/lock/throw or whatever doesn't stop the threat you immediately follow it up with the next punch/kick/lock/throw or whatever (as is appropriate) and so forth.

 

[David43515]

I only know that they`ve worked for me nearly every time I`ve used them. But I train them hard and often so that I never have to think about them. And they`re not my first choice. An experienced (or lucky) guy can twist out of some locks if you`re not paying attention. A knocklout puch can`t be wriggled out of.

 

[JohnEdward]

As a long time traditional Japanese jujutsu technician. Who knows how to kick and punch, who has been in scraps that where not pretty, I have thought allot about this. Here is what I have come to in terms of self defense:

Joint locks and Joint brakes

Joint Locks: for compliance. I have a drunk and I need a hold for compliance reasons. He is drunk easy to get the lock. If he isn't drunk, if he is aware of the lock coming on, is strong, is moving aggressively, a strike is necessary first before the lock. No strike need if he errors, i.e. a very lousy fighter.

Joint Locks for non-compliant situations: An attacker grabs by arm to hold it, or grabs hair. A strike, if possible, followed by the technique is preferred. The other guy errors as a result of a lousy fighter, then a technique is applied. Again a strike is preferred to soften up the attacker to apply the Joint technique.

Joint brakes: other guy has a weapon and intent on hurting or killing you. You must control the weapon. The above applies. You must strike or he must error, providing an opportunity to apply the break.


Personal insight:
Personally Joint locks are not the primary technique I would use. Breaks over locks primarily. Because the opportunity is specific and exacting to apply an effective lock or brake. Because it requires skill, good timing, and often a distraction such as a strike. My experience and training tells me to punch and kick first then apply the jujutsu if necessary. But in rare cases, if the window is there, you lead in with a joint technique. You can fight all your life and maybe use one or two techniques of joint locks or brakes as described above.

A good , and I stress good not lightly, Hapkido school isn't a bad thing.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

As a long time traditional Japanese jujutsu technician. Who knows how to kick and punch, who has been in scraps that where not pretty, I have thought allot about this. Here is what I have come to in terms of self defense:

Joint locks and Joint brakes

Joint Locks: for compliance. I have a drunk and I need a hold for compliance reasons. He is drunk easy to get the lock. If he isn't drunk, if he is aware of the lock coming on, is strong, is moving aggressively, a strike is necessary first before the lock. No strike need if he errors, i.e. a very lousy fighter.

Joint Locks for non-compliant situations: An attacker grabs by arm to hold it, or grabs hair. A strike, if possible, followed by the technique is preferred. The other guy errors as a result of a lousy fighter, then a technique is applied. Again a strike is preferred to soften up the attacker to apply the Joint technique.

Joint brakes: other guy has a weapon and intent on hurting or killing you. You must control the weapon. The above applies. You must strike or he must error, providing an opportunity to apply the break.


Personal insight:
Personally Joint locks are not the primary technique I would use. Breaks over locks primarily. Because the opportunity is specific and exacting to apply an effective lock or brake. Because it requires skill, good timing, and often a distraction such as a strike. My experience and training tells me to punch and kick first then apply the jujutsu if necessary. But in rare cases, if the window is there, you lead in with a joint technique. You can fight all your life and maybe use one or two techniques of joint locks or brakes as described above.

A good , and I stress good not lightly, Hapkido school isn't a bad thing.

Good post John. Your last sentence is the crux of the whole matter, it needs to be a good Hapkido school (read realistic). I've seen some really excellent training videos where they incorporate locking in along with appropriate striking and throwing in a very realistic manner. Unfortunately, there are a lot of videos (and by extension schools/organizations) that offer complete junk. Throwing a punch two feet to the side of your training partners head and then leaving it hanging there in the air for him to grab isn't good training. Oh, perhaps for the white belt level as part of explaining the technique it is passable. But I've seen high level Dans (5th and up) in demonstrations to other high Dans do this exact thing and everyone eating it up like it would actually work in real life. That's bad training. And it's bad teaching. It always makes me think of 'Rex Kwon Do', "Grab my wrist...the other wrist....NO! MY other wrist". In regards to the 'grab my wrist' method of teaching, the student needs to know WHY his wrist would be grabbed in such a manner. What to do if the attacker grabs it in a way other than that which was trained for in the Dojang. In otherwords, the student should understand the principle of the lock as opposed to just the technique. That way he/she can lock regardless of whether the attacker is directly in front, from the side, from behind, on the ground or whatever position the altercation happens. This way the student doesn't have to learn 50 ways to escape a front wrist grab (read informational overload), rather they have a deeper understanding of the way the wrist to the elbow to the shoulder and down to the waist works.

 

[JohnEdward]

Good post John. Your last sentence is the crux of the whole matter, it needs to be a good Hapkido school (read realistic). I've seen some really excellent training videos where they incorporate locking in along with appropriate striking and throwing in a very realistic manner. Unfortunately, there are a lot of videos (and by extension schools/organizations) that offer complete junk. Throwing a punch two feet to the side of your training partners head and then leaving it hanging there in the air for him to grab isn't good training. Oh, perhaps for the white belt level as part of explaining the technique it is passable. But I've seen high level Dans (5th and up) in demonstrations to other high Dans do this exact thing and everyone eating it up like it would actually work in real life. That's bad training. And it's bad teaching. It always makes me think of 'Rex Kwon Do', "Grab my wrist...the other wrist....NO! MY other wrist". In regards to the 'grab my wrist' method of teaching, the student needs to know WHY his wrist would be grabbed in such a manner. What to do if the attacker grabs it in a way other than that which was trained for in the Dojang. In otherwords, the student should understand the principle of the lock as opposed to just the technique. That way he/she can lock regardless of whether the attacker is directly in front, from the side, from behind, on the ground or whatever position the altercation happens. This way the student doesn't have to learn 50 ways to escape a front wrist grab (read informational overload), rather they have a deeper understanding of the way the wrist to the elbow to the shoulder and down to the waist works.

Good comment. I too think a deeper understanding of locks is crucial. Stagnate, rote and routine practice is fine to a point in the early stages of learning. There is point when the training wheels have to come off and practice is approached toward a real understanding of joint locks and their applications.

The complexity to manipulate an unwilling person's joint placing them in a position they wish not to do is very difficult. To apply a joint lock on a sober resistant individual is very difficult without striking first or distraction. Pain and shock from a strike allows a joint lock to come on much easier and faster. A Joint lock is for control and compliance . A brake is to shut down the attack, where compliance will not work. With that said joint locks are far more complex and difficult to apply given you have to deal with resistance from start to end. The less obvious example, is the opponent's muscular and bone structure that provides natural resistance and inhibit joint locks especially those that involve twisting. The obvious of course is the person provides a counter via resistance either through contracting the muscles, positioning, or striking. A strike on the opponent insures there will be less resistance and a greater chance to apply the lock. The understanding of the anatomical design and mechanics, and manipulation of multiple joints plus the isolation a joint(s) to destroy balance if standing, or as a pin in newaza is really difficult. It is why you don't learn joint locks over night and requires deep study. In comparison to a punch that can be learned in minutes and can be effective relatively quickly. The draw back of a strike is the lack of corporal control.

Because of that, many teach a ton of escapes, I believe are wrongly base resulting in ad hoc joint locks that are poorly done and understood. And continue because of leading in with strikes first. Many stress simple joint brakes at the elbow because they are too a strike. Joint breaks go beyond that. Joint breaks are also joint locks going beyond the point of pain compliance by applying more pressure, torque, rotation etc. on the joint past what it can handle and then destroying the joint. Here again, the lack of understanding leads to poor teaching, poor technique application and scenarios.

Joint locks are not a walk in the park, when don't correctly you are control the entire mind and body of the opponent rendering him useless against an attack or retaliation. You really have to have an understanding of locks to pull one off. If it is a joint brake at the elbow for instance, it doesn't require as much understanding, as it is a type of strike. But to stress the joints beyond its limits via a joint lock is as difficult as a lock. When that is not deeply understood with the required knowledge for application, that modifications are done to be it easier for simulated success at the task.They are lulled into the idea joint locks are easy, and require little understanding. And that real knowledge often is replaced due to lack of knowledge by dumb-downed technique, over-focus on trite minutia, and exploitation of ineffective techniques.

I feel a good Hapkido dojang is going to understand well Japanese jujutsu. They may step out of tradition and study Japanese jujutsu at a ryu and school. Just as some have step out for ground work. I think that is what really is needed to elevate a Hapkido school. After all one leg of Hapkido which it stands on is Japanese Jujutsu.

 

[JohnEdward]

After re-reading my comment, my point wasn't intended to be sound insulting about learning Japanese Jujutsu. I have a mind set that is about going back to the core elements of an art and discover them. Hapkido is not different than most arts in the regard combining other arts. Therefore, looking at the Joint lock side, the parent jujutsu art of Hapkido can provide gainful insight. Well any good jujutsu as well.

I have seen Hapkido done very poorly by a national Korean team. It was a demonstration that was right up there with vaudeville acts of strength, and a bit of pro wrestling. Sadly it didn't impress the American audience at all. That isn't hard not to do, impress an American audience of non-martial arts. That got me thinking that if the "top" Hapkido Koreans are this bad, the students are doomed. What is a student to do, I realized it was to rediscover Hapkido through jujutsu. I have always been impressed with good Hapkido. It is a good art.

 

[Cyriacus]

That reminds me of how many Interpritations of JJ there are.

You have JJ's thatre pure Grappling.
You have JJ's thatre Striking leading to Grappling.
You have JJ's that balance it.

And so forth.

Hapkido is similar in that respect.

 

[dancingalone]

After re-reading my comment, my point wasn't intended to be sound insulting about learning Japanese Jujutsu. I have a mind set that is about going back to the core elements of an art and discover them. Hapkido is not different than most arts in the regard combining other arts. Therefore, looking at the Joint lock side, the parent jujutsu art of Hapkido can provide gainful insight. Well any good jujutsu as well.

I have seen Hapkido done very poorly by a national Korean team. It was a demonstration that was right up there with vaudeville acts of strength, and a bit of pro wrestling. Sadly it didn't impress the American audience at all. That isn't hard not to do, impress an American audience of non-martial arts. That got me thinking that if the "top" Hapkido Koreans are this bad, the students are doomed. What is a student to do, I realized it was to rediscover Hapkido through jujutsu. I have always been impressed with good Hapkido. It is a good art.

I understand you aren't out to belittle hapkido, but I don't think it is necessary to go back to the jujutsu/Daito ryu roots for a hapkido-in to reach high levels of achievement in his martial art. I've been on the floor with JR West from hapkido and Byung In Lee (formerly Kuk Sool Won, now doing his own thing). They both have consummate levels of skill in their art, and I don't believe either gentlemen ever studied jujutsu. GM West does have a connection to Hee Young Kimm, who is a high ranking judo-ka among other things.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

I feel a good Hapkido dojang is going to understand well Japanese jujutsu. They may step out of tradition and study Japanese jujutsu at a ryu and school. Just as some have step out for ground work. I think that is what really is needed to elevate a Hapkido school. After all one leg of Hapkido which it stands on is Japanese Jujutsu.

When I studied Hapkido in Korea, we breifly had a student who had also studied JuJutsu. He showed us some Jujutsu moves that were similar to some of ours. It seemed that there were often strikes of kicks that I deemed were distractors. Not a bad idea sometimes. So I guess a Hapkido student would understand Jujutsu.

I don't think any training, if done properly, is wasted. But I don't know that Hapkido gains all that much. Of course I say that never having studied Jujutsu. But we have ground defenses as well. They weren't taught in my style until acheiving 1st Dan. And I don't know how much more may be taught at Master's levels, so maybe Jujutsu has more than we Hapkidoists.

As to joint locks and breaks, what everyone has said about needing to train well is important. I have seen times when trying to demonstrate techniques, that people resisted, and made it seem ineffective. Some of the police where I work thought so when we were training them. I was trying to teach them without hurting them. I simply offered to let them grab me anywhere they wanted, and see what happened when I reacted violently with full force, as I would in a real situation. None took me up on that. Nor did I ever see anyone be able to resist my GM when he was demonstrating a technique. However, I don't know how many in here are Hapkido GM, but I certainly am not.

Properly learned and executed, joint locks and breaks can be very effective. Even so, what others have said above about some people not reacting the same is true. Some strong and/or muscle bound people can resist some techniques better than others. One needs to be prepared for that evenuality.

 

[JohnEdward]

I understand you aren't out to belittle hapkido, but I don't think it is necessary to go back to the jujutsu/Daito ryu roots for a hapkido-in to reach high levels of achievement in his martial art. I've been on the floor with JR West from hapkido and Byung In Lee (formerly Kuk Sool Won, now doing his own thing). They both have consummate levels of skill in their art, and I don't believe either gentlemen ever studied jujutsu. GM West does have a connection to Hee Young Kimm, who is a high ranking judo-ka among other things.

I feel if a Hapkido practitioner goes back to jujutsu to get a more in-depth study, it benefits their study of Hapkido. It goes along the lines of any Chef going and looking at the techniques of French Cuisine. Or an Architect going to do a study in Europe. It helps to look at the foundation of anything as see where it comes from and has developed into. It may fill in gaps, answer questions, provide a different perspective, leading to deeper understand, or provide an Ah Ha moment. Not to say Hapkido doesn't have good effective locks. It does, but they come from jujutsu. In comparison it can be said in come cases Hapkido's joint locks and applications are more relevant than some Koryu jujutsu which where practiced and designed against just the amour samurai and their various weapons; that are practiced today for the purpose of preservation of the art.

As far as the politics you mentioned, that is for the general's pushing or protecting their territory. It has no bearing on anyone wanting to improve or practice their arts, be it jujutsu or Hapkido. I practice Jujutsu, I see similarities. I see practitioners who could benefit from looking at jujutsu. Jujutsu strictly focuses on jujutsu. Jujutsu really isn't an art like Hapkido. Jujutsu was a traditional a weapon, an means, a method, among many others available to the samurai. Honestly, in those days, if you look at the real old jujutsu there isn't allot of technique to learn. But, as time when on and schools developed they did a close in depth study on joint manipulation, brakes and locks, so much so it became an art. Hapkido being a modern art, has a more global and broaden philosophy. Because it is designed for modern day applications. Just as Krav Maga is to Israel, as Hapkido was to Korea. Modern fighting systems that where built on traditional systems, and influences. So it reason to go back and look at those systems and influences to see why, for one reason, joint locks where incorporated. There had to be something of interest in jujutsu in any measure. It wasn't like the Koreans where blind to the existence of jujutsu. Just as the Japanese were not blind to Chin-na. Just as we in America where aware of Greek and Roman wrestling that is the foundation of our wrestling sport. Or our Football has with Ruby.

I think it would be beneficial for any serious Hapkido practitioner to take a gander at jujutsu.

 

[JohnEdward]

Let me add authentic jujutsu that is practiced properly and preserved correctly would benefit any serious Hapkido practitioner.

 

[Chris Parker]

Then let me add that that depends entirely on the system, and the Hapkido practitioners desires and aims for training. I can think of a quite a number of old Japanese systems where it would just get in the way, frankly, and that's the majority of them.

 

[JohnEdward]

Then let me add that that depends entirely on the system, and the Hapkido practitioners desires and aims for training. I can think of a quite a number of old Japanese systems where it would just get in the way, frankly, and that's the majority of them.

Yes, a number of Japanese systems would get in the way, like those arts that incorporates jujutsu and isn't only a system of jujutsu, For example of art that incorporate jujutsu and not be an exclusive jujutsu system are Ninjutsu, Kenjutsu, etc. accordingly to the discussion. Yes, in my opinion, it behooves Hapkido practitioners to seek the out jujutsu. For some who believe Hapkido has a parent art it would be a specific jujutsu, for those who don't subscribe to that theory it then would be any good traditional jujutsu none the less.

 

[Buka]

If you're a cop, and have to wrassle and arrest dangerous people that don't want to get wrassled and arrested, joint locks take on an entirely new meaning, be they from Hapkido, Kenpo, JJJ, BJJ or whatever.

I don't give a damn where they're from, if they work, rock on.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yes, a number of Japanese systems would get in the way, like those arts that incorporates jujutsu and isn't only a system of jujutsu, For example of art that incorporate jujutsu and not be an exclusive jujutsu system are Ninjutsu, Kenjutsu, etc. accordingly to the discussion. Yes, in my opinion, it behooves Hapkido practitioners to seek the out jujutsu. For some who believe Hapkido has a parent art it would be a specific jujutsu, for those who don't subscribe to that theory it then would be any good traditional jujutsu none the less.

Not exactly what I meant. If you find Takenouchi Ryu, the application of locks and holds there is very different to Hapkido, which is vastle different to Asayama Ichiden Ryu again, which is very removed from Kito Ryu, which has completely different movement to Kashima Shinryu. By looking at the mechanics of a Japanese Jujutsu system, you could be looking at methods that are directly opposed to Hapkido's movement. If you're going to suggest any of them, it would be Daito Ryu (thought to be the direct source for a lot of Hapkido), Hakko Ryu (which came out of Daito Ryu, but still starts to move away from Hapkido's approach) and it's offshoots (such as Hakko Denshin Ryu, and Hiko Ryu Taijutsu, but we're moving further away again), and possibly Aikido. The essential movement of most of the other Japanese Jujutsu systems are just too different to be of that much benefit. The Hapkido practitioner is better off going deeper into their study of their own system, honestly.

 

[JohnEdward]

Well, if your tracing linage or looking for roots or identifying the parent art then I would argue your comment. But that isn't what am going for, we are discussing joint locks and joint brakes. I am looking at Joint locks surveying principles, mechanics, possible modifications, alterations and deviations etc. related to joint lock effectiveness. in relation to jujutsu the benefits of study by Hapkido practitioners. Stating again that looking at traditional jujutsu systems because they focus just on doing only jujutsu (joint locks and joint manipulation) that is what they are about. That is in terms of principles, understanding such jujutsu principles can be applied as various waza or with or without accompanying of a variety of weapons, including those ryu that use atemi. It is not to say Hapkido lacks this knowledge, but rather it is worth taking a look at jujutsu.

 

[Chris Parker]

Except that the application, entry, approach, methodology, angling, grips, even the very mechanics and aim of the action itself, can be very different. In terms of basic principles (twist a wrist, bar an elbow etc), there really isn't much more to learn by looking at the other systems other than for interests sake. And who said that jujutsu is just joint locks and joint manipulation? Some systems feature it heavily, others don't really have much at all, having a higher focus on throws, or striking, or weapon use (as part of the Jujutsu syllabus). For example, Asayama Ichiden Ryu is almost entirely joint controls, whereas Takagi Yoshin Ryu is much more focused on throws, with some joint controls in for good measure. Takenouchi Ryu features a lot of weapon use within the Jujutsu, as does Yagyu Shingan Ryu, who feature basically strikes and throws, over joint locks and controls, and so on.

I'm all for a greater amount of education, but to try the approaches of Japanese Jujutsu systems to try to add to, or enhance the Hapkido side of things seems to me to be counter-productive at best.

 

[oftheherd1]

JohnEdward - I am happy that you are so happy with your involvement and study of Jujutsu. I feel the same way about Hapkido. I am not sure I would agree Jujutsu is a direct parent of Hapkido, but frankly, I don't care. I know what the Hapkido I studied is about, what it teaches, and the attitudes supported by it, and what can be accomplished by it. That is what is important to me.

I have never studied Jujutsu, nor am I familiar with the many arts mentioned by you or Chris Parker above. So I cannot comment on what specific advantage or disadvantage those arts might see in Hapkido or Jujutsu study, other than I believe training and learning new things is never a waste of time. I will say that that I cannot imagine how I am missing something really valuable by not studying Jujutsu. In Hapkido, I learned a good combination of blocking or deflecting, strikes, kicks, joint lock/manipulation, and throws. I learned defenses against knife, sword, and being grappled with, to include defenses against some of the previous defenses I learned. I thought it was well rounded up to the point I learned. That said, I fault no one for learning their own preferred art well. That is how it should be.

One other point, I still believe that some defenses I know of in Hapkido, so probably in Jujutsu or Aikido, and who knows what other art, are within the forms of other arts (sometimes they are know, sometimes not). But is it a Hapkido or Aikido, or Jujutsu defense? Well, MA have been around a very long time. I suspect that most, if not all that we know today, was discovered and practiced by some art from many centuries ago. When we say we know of a good (insert your art) defense or move, what we really mean is that I learned this in (again insert your art). Not that it was probably just discovered in the last 100 years or so. Nor that the art of the person being talked to is so poor that it needs my art's assistance. I am just offering another tool if the person chooses to learn it.

 

[JohnEdward]

JohnEdward - I am not sure I would agree Jujutsu is a direct parent of Hapkido, but frankly, I don't care.

Neither do I and as I said that. I find it really important to recognize the difference between an argument and a suggestion. The surveying of jujutsu in relation of joint locks just mechanical and not political.

I know what the Hapkido I studied is about, what it teaches, and the attitudes supported by it, and what can be accomplished by it. That is what is important to me.

There maybe some confusion so allow me to stress, I am making a suggestion, and not an argument. To avoid saying this numerous more times, allow me to stress for future comments, I really like good Hapkido, it is very effective.

I have never studied Jujutsu, nor am I familiar with the many arts mentioned by you or Chris Parker above. So I cannot comment on what specific advantage or disadvantage those arts might see in Hapkido or Jujutsu study, other than I believe training and learning new things is never a waste of time. I will say that that I cannot imagine how I am missing something really valuable by not studying Jujutsu.

Good philosophy, an open mind is very useful in martial arts, even though so many seem to have a ridged mind set. Those unwilling to see connections, relationships, similarities, development, and universalities. These types of ridged mind set can be very defensive and have tunnel vision not understanding their arts fullest potential and abilities. They may have limited knowledge on joint locks, yet thinking there is no other knowledge beyond their own that is valuable. On the other hand the astute practitioner is the opposite and recognized the advantages, He knows his knowledge is limited and acquiring further is advantages, he never stops being a humble student. Hungry for more applicable knowledge as it is a value to him because he sees the advantages.

One other point, I still believe that some defenses I know of in Hapkido, so probably in Jujutsu or Aikido, and who knows what other art, are within the forms of other arts (sometimes they are know, sometimes not). But is it a Hapkido or Aikido, or Jujutsu defense?

Maybe you should find out.

I am just offering another tool if the person chooses to learn it.

Agreed.

 

[dancingalone]

I feel if a Hapkido practitioner goes back to jujutsu to get a more in-depth study, it benefits their study of Hapkido. It goes along the lines of any Chef going and looking at the techniques of French Cuisine. Or an Architect going to do a study in Europe. It helps to look at the foundation of anything as see where it comes from and has developed into. It may fill in gaps, answer questions, provide a different perspective, leading to deeper understand, or provide an Ah Ha moment. Not to say Hapkido doesn't have good effective locks. It does, but they come from jujutsu. In comparison it can be said in come cases Hapkido's joint locks and applications are more relevant than some Koryu jujutsu which where practiced and designed against just the amour samurai and their various weapons; that are practiced today for the purpose of preservation of the art.

It sounds like you are referring to the benefit of seeing the same technique yet executed and taught from a different perspective. I agree there is value there, but I think you could get the same thing from studying with another hapkido teacher aside from your own instructor, even one of the same lineage, and perhaps preferably so depending on the student's experience level.

Sometimes arts have sufficient changed from their roots to where analysis of the parent art might be more of an academic exercise perhaps more relevant to the seasoned master-level teacher, rather than active practitioners more interested in improving their technique. If I were a hankido person for example, where should I look for supplementary information? Aikido? Hapkido? Or all the way back to Daito-ryu?

I think Hapkido has a sufficient footprint and body of information to stand upon itself. There is no need to explore the jujutsu connection to develop hapkido skill, although certainly there can be value there depending on the type of hapkido practiced and the experience level of the hapkido-in.