Lock to Throw or Lock to Strike?

[KyleShort]

There are in essence three reasons to lock a joint in my experience. 1) to detain the opponent 2) to set them up for a throw 3) to set them up for power striking. Over time I have found that my interest leans more towards #3. For the purpose of the question that is about to follow, let's forget about #1. Instead I'd like to frame this question in the context of life threatening, possible multiple assailant encounters.

If you happen upon a joint lock while blending/clinching with your opponent, would you perfer or be more inclined to use that joint lock to throw/takedown the opponent, or to position them in such a way that allows you to easily execute a power strike?

For example, if you have parried a punch and find that you can easily apply a wrist turn (kote gaeshi), do you follow that into something like a 4 corner throw, or would you simply pull them low and off balance and drop an elbow or round kick to the face? In both cases the goal will be to dammage the oponnent (using the ground or your body).

 

[Andrew Green]

I prefer to put them on the ground before attempting any kind of lock.

My experience says standing locks tend to fall apart in live situations...

 

[Paul B]

An elbow strike is contained in your kote gaeshi. If your using the lock with both hands,close your ma-ai and lift one elbow. Voila! Elbow strike with your whole body's momentum behind it. Useful for "stubborn" people. A little pull in and down lines up their head appropriately. Head coming down,elbow coming up=nice little strike without sacrificing your lock.


That being said I like to use a strike before and after a lock when practicing. It tends to "move their mind" if you will. Give them 3 things to think about instead of just one,which is your lock and how to get around it.

 

[KyleShort]

Actually I fully agree with that. Note that I said that if you happen upon a lock (luck)...applying locks when they are on the ground and you are standing is much easier. Also I agree that in a dynamic situation, standing locks are tough. This is why I prefer #3...if I happen upon a lock I will probably only use it to move the oponent off balance and simultaneously strike and drop the lock. At least, this is the only way that I have been able to use a lock against a resisting oponent in the past.

 

[Paul B]

DOH! Read the WHOLE post...:whip: Yeah, I see that..now.

I do agree with striking as a disruption or to aid in securement of a lock. Why do you feel that you would drop it as soon as you strike? Unless you mean "drop" in the "apply" sense?It offers a means of control,where a strike would be a one time shot,and then you would have to change your angle to get another one in. The lock would offer a means to keep the attacker where you want him,with all the openings exposed for your discretion.

At our Dojang we have a little thing we do, where we use a disruption strike to open,secure the lock,feed another strike and then pin/immobilize or just go for the "break".

I do agree that securing a "stand-up" lock is hard on a resisiting opponent,but when you get to know your way around,the lock you were going for leads to the next upon failure. We call this "linking" or "chaining". Sorry if this is all regurgitation for you.:lol:

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Actually I fully agree with that. Note that I said that if you happen upon a lock (luck)...applying locks when they are on the ground and you are standing is much easier. Also I agree that in a dynamic situation, standing locks are tough. This is why I prefer #3...if I happen upon a lock I will probably only use it to move the oponent off balance and simultaneously strike and drop the lock. At least, this is the only way that I have been able to use a lock against a resisting oponent in the past.

you said in your post that applying a lock in a "dynamic" situation is tough....yes and no. this all depends on how you train. when first learning the basic locks, i teach them from a static position, the uke or receiver of the technique simply grabs tori, he then executes a series of locks starting with ikkyo on through to kote gaeshi. once the student develops a working knowledge and a degree of proficiency, you move onto execution in a dynamic situation. locks are meant to be applied in a dynamic situation, applying a lock should be as easy as striking your opponent, but applying a lock will not be as fast or as effective as a strike. a problem that most new students run into though is this, they tend to use a lock or control in a situation that doesnt work for a lock or control. such as when an opponent is resisting. when a lock is applied to an opponent, he should never feel like he is moving into it, as well as with striking, the opponent shouldnt see the strike, so much as feel the effect of it.
i have noticed in the past that when students train their striking arts, they will use them more, when training locks or kicking the same thing. the idea is to develop a sense of freedom when fighting and not get stuck on completing a technique. if you get into a situation and create a plan, and that plan fails, it leaves you faltering. if you go into a situation with no plan, but with an open mind, your plan cannot be ruined.

shawn

 

[bdparsons]

Good Discussion.

I may be misinterpreting something here, but to assume locking an individual is solely for purpose of detaining them is a misnomer. Another option not mentioned here is to Lock to Disable.

The process of joint manipulation to detain is using hyper-extension and hyper-flexion to selectively apply and release pressure to "persuade" an opponnent to behave accordingly, even if it means setting them up for a strike which is many times a viable option..

The process of joint manipulation to disable is to take the hyper-extension or hyper-flexion to the level at which structural damge to the joint occurs in the form of torn ligaments, muscles & tendons; even to the point of joint seperation and dislocation.

While things such as arc, angle and pressure are important in both detaining and disabling, the difference lies in time and results. Frankly in the multi-attacker scenario mentioned time spent detaining an attacker is time spent losing. By the same token to use disabling manipulation takes no more time, in fact often less time, than locking and then striking, multi-tasking if you will. It's quicker, more powerful and frees up the defender to move on to the next threat. The results speak for themselves. Can the attacker continue to use their joint effectively after they are released?

Four options.
Lock to Detain
Lock to Throw
Lock to Strike
Lock to Disable

Choose wisely.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[8253]

In the situation you described, in a life or death situation, or multiple opponent situation, I believe that if I am able to get a lock on someones wrist I believe that I would(If the opportunity presents itself) break the arm at the joint. This would be more likely to either remove the threat of death, or disable one of the multiple opponents. Better chances of survival. Unfortuanately in a fight, it is very hard to lock someone up. But it gives an excellent opportunity to end the fight more quickly if the chance does come.

 

[KenpoNoChikara]

I'd be more comfortable with a lock and strike, but I also like takedowns. My throws need some work

 

[ppko]

lock to strike most deffinatelly:whip: that is always the funnest:btg:

 

[Brother John]

There are in essence three reasons to lock a joint in my experience. 1) to detain the opponent 2) to set them up for a throw 3) to set them up for power striking. Over time I have found that my interest leans more towards #3. For the purpose of the question that is about to follow, let's forget about #1. Instead I'd like to frame this question in the context of life threatening, possible multiple assailant encounters.

What about #4: to Break and/or hyper-extend the joint so that the attacker can not use it to continue an assault upon you or yours. ???

Works for me...
THEN follow up with your 1-2 &/or 3. (Personally I like 4, 2-3)

Your Brother
John

 

[pete]

stand-up locks are usually dissolved for two reasons:

1. the lock is applied to a single joint, and does not control the opponents center, and

2. there is always a counter to a lock, and the counters are easier when either you are not controling the opponents whole body and/or you are not using your whole body to control him (ie, just using the strength of your arms and hands).

also... locks are dependant on the attacker being locked remaining connected to the ground. virtually all locks will dissolve during a takedown, and must be reapplied to continue once he's down.

pete.

 

[KyleShort]

Great feedback!

Regarding number 4...I agree and actually I think that is implicit given the boundry conditions of the scenario (life & death survival - no mercy per se). Whether I am going after #2 or #3, the lock would likely result in a dissabling result on the joint. This is why I did not list a 4th option =)

The question comes down to efficacy. Ultimately the goal is to dissable and get out...key to that is your ability to run away without the opponent able to chase you =) This is why I eliminated #1 as an option, because as soon as you let up, they can come after you.

So assuming your lock will probably result in a break or torsion injury, what will more effectively result in dissabling the opponent?...tossing them on their noggin or using the lock to put them in a standing prone position (off balance) and taking a hard shot at a vital area? In the real world I have only applied a lock in party situations, with drunken aggressors. In every case #1 applied. The few times that I have actually had to defend myself in a violent encounter was all striking and or running. I have thrown someone against a wall, resulting in a knock out, so I know that works too.

I don't have experience locking in a violent confrontation, thus the reason I question the board =) So my presumption is that a throw would be highly effective at dissabling an opponent, but perhaps not as fast as using a strike such as a pulling the opponent forward over their lead leg and issuing an uppercut to their chin (understanding the danger that poses to their cervical/atlas vertbrae).

Paul
I guess I was thinking a bit more violently. After applying the strike, my hope is that there would be no need to continue to lock the opponent. If the temporary lock gives you even a few seconds opening to your opponent, you can take out an eye, knee, trachea etc. At which point I assume that you could run. If I wanted to control an opponent, I probably would not issue as visciuous a strike as I have suggested, at which point holding the lock would be paramount.

 

[Tydive]

Kyle,

Never assume that the opponent will go down even after a "disabeling" lock extension and strike. I was in a fight were I broke 4 of the guys ribs, dislocated his shoulder, hyperextended his elbow and broke his nose... he kept on fighting. I got lucky and was able to break distance then run. After a couple blocks I was out of range and he went down. He was not on drugs, he was just really tough. Oh, and I did not get off too easy either.

 

[OUMoose]

I would have to agree with what a couple have said. If the altercation has escalated to the point where I'm in trapping/grappling range with no way out, I'm not locking for submission OR locking to setup impacting. The joints would be broken in addition to liberal application of striking to create an escape path, or at least distance to re-evaluate the situation.

 

[MJS]

Depends on the situation...but either one would be fine with me.

Mike

 

[Paul B]

Ahhh..I see. Well if you're talking about going 0-90mph,then yes,I would lock to break. Or would that be lock to throw and break?:wink2: Then I would run to safety.

Again,when "having" to resort to absolutes,you really can't say what you would do for any situation,but the key is to train for every situation imaginable,no?

 

[KyleShort]

Again,when "having" to resort to absolutes,you really can't say what you would do for any situation,but the key is to train for every situation imaginable,no?

Certainly Paul. At the same time, I think you should always seek more bang for your buck. So in the interest of whittling away extraneous technique, or prioritizing my personal training, I like to understand what will work better a greater percentage of the time when given a host of options. In this case I would guess that this is less a matter of effectiveness and more a matter of personal expression (given the varied response on this thread).

For me I guess that equates to 'hit'. If I happen upon a lock, I would probably use it to make my striking more effective.

Thanks again for the input!

-Kyle

 

[Bod]

I'd prefer to lock to throw. The only distance at which I can get a lock reliably and continue safely if it fails is at throwing range. I find it hard enough locking a resisting opponent without throwing in training, so I figure they'll probably go down or - be helped down - if I do get a lock on.

The most common way for people to escape a lock is to wriggle free while turning their back to you. I like to keep closing resulting in a throw.

 

[TigerWoman]

Since this is a self-defense situation, it wouldn't be a throw...that would just prolong the fight and not my best area-grappling. So if an assailant grabs my shoulder or lapel, I would round kick his knee, then lock his elbow and break it. Without a knee and an arm, he's going to be hurting. TW