Most bad techniques are bad because you're bad at them

[drop bear]

Actually, I pointed out that we'd have to decide on a definition, because there's not a clear one implicit in the context. But go ahead and call it purposeful deceit. You know it's not, but you like doing that these days, so have fun with it.

That is why I put a definition in. So my context was clear.

It can't be accidental I keep pointing it out. And you keep relying on weasel words as argument.

 

[skribs]

That was Jojo.

Actually we're both wrong.

Sorry about that.

 

[Buka]

The key to any fight, any encounter with another human being, is adaptability. And, through proper training, the ability to adapt has to be automatic and it has to be immediate. I've tangled with some people in my day, had success with some things that I wouldn't even try on some others. I wouldn't expect they would work on them, I'd be surprised if they did. But when you try something that isn't working you just go somewhere else, you adapt.

I'm primarily a striker, but I'm also a basic grappler. If I go against a person that only has back yard knowledge of grappling, he's getting tied into knots. But if I tried the exact same things against you guys, they aren't going to work. Because you're trained, you're fit, you're used to fighting, you understand the game. Does that men I should throw out the things that I've used successfully in the field? Course not.

The video of the two MMA guys.....if they couldn't thwart the techniques that were shown they wouldn't be running an MMA gym very long. But if they were to go against my grappling instructor they would be submitted like children. But that doesn't mean those two guys aren't great at what they do.

My old BJJ gym didn't allow certain small joint manipulations while rolling. Usually. But when I started they knew I was a striker, knew some of my background. There was another Karate guy that had just started, he was from somewhere in the midwest, I forget where.
He wasn't a very likeable guy. One day they had us rolling, I think to entertain themselves. While tangled up I got him in a goose neck - a Kamakubi I think it was called. He wouldn't tap and I continued to apply pressure. I ended up breaking his wrist. I didn't hear it, but I felt it. He STILL didn't tap, I swear to God. But did have a cast on for the next several months. There are all kinds of people out there. And if something doesn't work against them, just adapt to something else. I guess it's why they call it a fight.

My point in that story is I've used a gooseneck several times since then. All successfully, I have a really good one. But not against grapplers. And I sure as heck wouldn't try it against any of you guys. But that don't mean it isn't any good.

 

[drop bear]

Show where he ever once said their inability to do the technique/using a different grip proves it works. He didn't. I'm pretty sure you know he didn't, but are creating a strawman because you REALLY want to be right in this argument you've chosen, rather than actually contributing to a discussion.

There is no straw man here.

Skribs said the technique works. But he has no evidence.

They say it doesn't and do have evidence.

The whole discussion pretty much hinges on how you determine if a technique works or doesn't.

Try it and it works. It works.

Try it and it doesn't. It doesn't.

This attempt to bad logic your way around some pretty simple concepts is what has put the holes in Skribs original post.

"Show where he ever once said their inability to do the technique/using a different grip proves it works."

1. "There aren't a whole lot of moves that are widely taught that don't work. If they don't work, it's more likely that you don't know how to properly apply them. (There are moves like no-touch that are pretty much bogus, but most techniques, concepts, or training methods will work if correctly applied)."

 

[skribs]

One day they had us rolling, I think to entertain themselves. While tangled up I got him in a goose neck - a Kamakubi I think it was called. He wouldn't tap and I continued to apply pressure. I ended up breaking his wrist. I didn't hear it, but I felt it. He STILL didn't tap, I swear to God. But did have a cast on for the next several months. There are all kinds of people out there. And if something doesn't work against them, just adapt to something else. I guess it's why they call it a fight.

We have some kids in my school that any bump or bruise and they freeze, cry, and want to go off the mat to their parents. Some of the really little ones (4-5 years old) freeze over even less.

But then there are others, that are just that stubborn. There's one girl that I'm afraid is going to get her wrist broken because she refuses to go down. There's a few kids that are hobbling and can barely walk, and you're working on jumping kicks, and then they're insulted when you make them sit down.

 

[skribs]

Try it and it works. It works.

Try it and it doesn't. It doesn't.

They didn't try it, because what they tried wasn't it.

 

[drop bear]

The key to any fight, any encounter with another human being, is adaptability. And, through proper training, the ability to adapt has to be automatic and it has to be immediate. I've tangled with some people in my day, had success with some things that I wouldn't even try on some others. I wouldn't expect they would work on them, I'd be surprised if they did. But when you try something that isn't working you just go somewhere else, you adapt.

I'm primarily a striker, but I'm also a basic grappler. If I go against a person that only has back yard knowledge of grappling, he's getting tied into knots. But if I tried the exact same things against you guys, they aren't going to work. Because you're trained, you're fit, you're used to fighting, you understand the game. Does that men I should throw out the things that I've used successfully in the field? Course not.

The video of the two MMA guys.....if they couldn't thwart the techniques that were shown they wouldn't be running an MMA gym very long. But if they were to go against my grappling instructor they would be submitted like children. But that doesn't mean those two guys aren't great at what they do.

My old BJJ gym didn't allow certain small joint manipulations while rolling. Usually. But when I started they knew I was a striker, knew some of my background. There was another Karate guy that had just started, he was from somewhere in the midwest, I forget where.
He wasn't a very likeable guy. One day they had us rolling, I think to entertain themselves. While tangled up I got him in a goose neck - a Kamakubi I think it was called. He wouldn't tap and I continued to apply pressure. I ended up breaking his wrist. I didn't hear it, but I felt it. He STILL didn't tap, I swear to God. But did have a cast on for the next several months. There are all kinds of people out there. And if something doesn't work against them, just adapt to something else. I guess it's why they call it a fight.

My point in that story is I've used a gooseneck several times since then. All successfully, I have a really good one. But not against grapplers. And I sure as heck wouldn't try it against any of you guys. But that don't mean it isn't any good.

I goosneck people all the time rolling. I am notorious for it.

If I wanted to start a thread about how awesome the goosneck was I could go and get some footage of myself rolling and putting goosenecks on.

And then I could say.

Goosenecks work consistently against resistance. And I know this because I use them consistently against resistance and here is the video.

And I wouldn't have to come up with a bunch of flat earth theorys that will ultimately effect my training progression. Because i am trying to find answers using the wrong methods.

 

[drop bear]

They didn't try it, because what they tried wasn't it.

Ok.

Maybe this is a better way to put it.

Yes they did do it the right way. You are doing it wrong. Because i know.

Now we have two opposing statements. Neither of which are supported by evidence.

How do you think that question would be resolved?

 

[drop bear]

Actually we're both wrong.

Sorry about that.

No dramas.

 

[Martial D]

Define finger grab. How granular before it goes from a handgrab/wristgrab to a finger grab and becomes illegal?

1. I grab your hand, in such a way that I'm pinching the bones in the hand together, and I might have a good grip around your pinky or thumb?
2. I grab your fingers, with my hand wrapped around 3 or 4 of your fingers and squeeze them together?
3. I grab one of your fingers, or else I grab your fingers in pairs and stretch your hand in ways it shouldn't?

In unified rules grabbing 1 or two fingers or toes is illegal (small joint manipulation) 3 or more is fine.

 

[skribs]

Ok.

Maybe this is a better way to put it.

Yes they did do it the right way. You are doing it wrong. Because i know.

Now we have two opposing statements. Neither of which are supported by evidence.

How do you think that question would be resolved?

Then once again we've gone to a mirror universe. If the "right way" doesn't work, and the "wrong way" works, then you've mislabeled things.

 

[drop bear]

Then once again we've gone to a mirror universe. If the "right way" doesn't work, and the "wrong way" works, then you've mislabeled things.

Your training is wrong. And it is leading to a false positive.

They did it the right way.

Imagine this was a no touch demonstration.

Now I can watch that video and say obviously they were doing it wrong which is why it didn't work. And it works for me fine. Because of some little technical detail. (Let's use he did not raise his big toe)

Doe this mean no touch works?

 

[skribs]

Your training is wrong. And it is leading to a false positive.

They did it the right way.

Imagine this was a no touch demonstration.

Imagine you're in a room. Three sides of the room have reinforced concrete walls 3 feet thick. The fourth side of the room is open to the outside.

You want to leave the room. So you walk into one of the concrete walls. It doesn't move. How do you escape this room?

 

[drop bear]

Imagine you're in a room. Three sides of the room have reinforced concrete walls 3 feet thick. The fourth side of the room is open to the outside.

You want to leave the room. So you walk into one of the concrete walls. It doesn't move. How do you escape this room?

Wrist lock the room until it lets you go.

 

[skribs]

Wrist lock the room until it lets you go.

I'm assuming you're being facetious because you saw my point.

The point is, these guys basically did the equivalent of walking into that concrete wall.
Now, I, having experience with similar techniques saw them do this, and said "they could walk through the open wall."

To which you tell me that they tried walking and proved it's false. And walking into the concrete wall is correct. But I have no evidence that walking through the open wall would lead to an escape, so I'm wrong.

This is basically how the conversation has gone.

 

[drop bear]

I'm assuming you're being facetious because you saw my point.

The point is, these guys basically did the equivalent of walking into that concrete wall.
Now, I, having experience with similar techniques saw them do this, and said "they could walk through the open wall."

To which you tell me that they tried walking and proved it's false. And walking into the concrete wall is correct. But I have no evidence that walking through the open wall would lead to an escape, so I'm wrong.

This is basically how the conversation has gone.

Yes. That is basically it.

If we remove bias and look at your situation clinically.

You would actually have to walk through that open wall to prove your theory.

Otherwise your argument is. You know you are right and so don't have to prove it.

Which is dogma.

Which is how that no touch guy got punched in the face. He knew there was that escape. But had not proved it successfully.

He walked through the open wall and something he didn't expect happened.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Are we not talking about the same 'what' as always? Ie; matched up against another resisting human being.

But what are we asking it to do?

Here's what I mean. A wrist lock does work, if applied well. What do I mean by "work"? It restrains movement at least for a bit, protects from a punch (and sometimes a grab) from the other side, helps break structure, etc.

Is it reliable? That's a different question. I consider them reliable against passive resistance, and only techniques of opportunity in most other cases. I'm more likely to find an opportunity for one grappling someone who's trying to grab (as with sleeve/hand grip fighting), or when struggling over a hand that's holding a weapon. From strikes? They're probably only useful as recovery from a screw-up in most cases. Do they help with cuffing? Dunno - I don't have to cuff people. I just know I see folks who cuff people actually manage to lock wrists (affecting structure and movement).

That brings us back to the question of what we are evaluating it about. If I'm expecting it to be an easy application against a jab, I'm going to take a lot of jabs to the face trying to prove that. If I expect it to stop someone who's fighting back hard, I'm probably going to get put on my butt while I'm trying to figure out how to get the lock on. If I expect it to buy some time and control, break structure, etc. when it's available, then I'm probably not going to be disappointed, except that I won't find it available as often as other techniques.

So, what work are we asking if it can do when we say, "Does it work?" I don't think that's the same question as, "Can I do it often?"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

First we need to distinguish between wristlocks standing and on the ground. On the ground, they can absolutely be a legitimate technique, if not a primary one. I've finished plenty of people with wristlocks on the ground.

Standing is another matter. They generally aren't even worth trying in the context of an MMA fight, with fists flying. However there is one standing wrist lock that sometimes works in grappling competition, even at high levels.

It's not a bread and butter technique, more of a surprise move. Here's an example of it working in competition:

Do you know a Japanese name for that? (In NGA, it's an application to Lift-Up.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This thread has been interesting... The biggest argument seems to be "what is the correct data set to use" when determining whether wrist locks work.

But, what am I to take from reading 7 pages of this? In my art, we do study wrist locks. Should I accept one data set and dismiss them? Or should I take the other data set and just practice harder? Or should I redefine "works?" Here is my take away from this thread.

You need to define for yourself, what you mean when you say "I have learned this wrist lock and can use it." Does this mean that you watched it on youtube? Does this mean you were shown for a few minutes? Does this mean you have applied it successfully against willing partners? Have you applied it against semi compliant partners? Have you applied it against full resistance? Have you applied it against full resistance against people not from your school, possibly with a different rule set? Have you used it in competition? Have you used it in a real situation on the street?

In reality, you will have different answers for each technique. If you have only ever applied them in the school, in prearranged set ups... its important to know that, before relying on that technique for something more important.

There are some wrist locks that when I say "I have learned this wrist lock," I mean I have used it in my school, in the prearranged drills, I have used it in sparring inside my school, outside my school, outside my style and with people of many different styles, under different rule sets, with full resistance. And when I say "used" I mean they "worked" by either getting the person to tap or go to the ground. There is a greater number of wrist locks, that when I say "I have learned this wrist lock," it means I can do the demos, and apply the lock in the prearranged drill, that my school uses, and that is all. It is important that I know which is which.

I take time to train with other people, in other styles, with other rules and different ways of doing randori. Once I have built a good training relationship with other folks, I will try to put in my wrist locks to see what happens. (its important to develop a good relationship, so that the people you train with understand that you are testing yourself and your training, not trying to take cheap shots or make anyone look bad... except maybe yourself) I have had way more wrist locks fail, than succeed. But, instead of getting frustrated, I go back to the drawing board, and try to figure out what I am doing wrong. For some locks, I have figured out pretty decent ways to set them up and apply them. Others, I am still working on. Still others.... well lets say I still get countered a lot.

Here is the real kicker though. You can read what I said about trying out wrist locks and conclude that wrist locks suck and I shouldn't waste time trying to learn them. But the point still stands. You should be able to take out every instance where I said "wrist lock" and put in "straight right," "double leg take down," "rear naked choke" and "round house kick to the head." Whatever it is that you train, you need to try multiple forms of resistance, against multiple people, from different schools, different rules. So that when you say "I have learned to do X," you understand when and where you were able to be successful with that technique and how much more you need to test that technique. Your "go to bag of techniques" should be the one's you know that you have tested the most.

Every technique is going to start with the "I saw it on youtube" or "I was shown it in class once." They all then move through the various drill, repetition, scenario set up and randori type situations in your school. Then it is on the student to get out of the house and try those in different places, with different people, with more and more resistance. (yes, you may need to go outside your school to do this. Your instructor may not help you with this... but its your training, not his.) If you don't get out and pressure test what you learn... that is also valuable information for you to know and for those who you may teach this stuff to, to know.

Love this. And part of the process is deciding which techniques - even if they feel great when they work - don't seem worthy of a spot in your go-to toolset. I don't discard those (so long as the mechanics are sound) -they're for studying principles and mechanics, and sometimes yield some interesting recoveries when playing with resistance.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes. That is basically it.

If we remove bias and look at your situation clinically.

You would actually have to walk through that open wall to prove your theory.

Otherwise your argument is. You know you are right and so don't have to prove it.

Which is dogma.

Which is how that no touch guy got punched in the face. He knew there was that escape. But had not proved it successfully.

He walked through the open wall and something he didn't expect happened.

What you've missed in your dogmatic approach is that an improper test doesn't disprove anything. Hitting a wall with a baseball bat and not breaking it doesn't prove a bat can't break a window. (Note that there's no claim that it proves anything - just your claim that it DISproves something.)