Pressure Points

[Steven232]

Generally Speaking, I would say that preasure points are effective, but you would have know a bit more than just the points. I mean, just knowing a set of preasure points is not going to get you far, you probly have to have another system of selfdefense aswell. But for the most part, when i'm being driven in the ground by a boshiken to the upper part of my waist line, my eyes are wide open, and i'm in excruciating (sp) pain.
That's just my uneducated opinion.
Steve

 

[Zujitsuka]

Here is a great book on Chin Na:

PRACTICAL CHIN NA: A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE ART OF SEIZING AND LOCKING, by Zhao Da Yuan (translated by Tim Cartmell).

Just a sidebar about applying Chin Na techniques...

Gou Ronin had a great point - no one is going to just let you grab them and apply a joint lock on them. Soften them up first with a nice hard strike or kick...then break their arm.

You must have your fundamental strikes, kicks, and footwork down in order to set up the optimum conditions for applying a Chin Na technique -- distracting pain and the element of surprise.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Zujitsuka

Gou Ronin had a great point - no one is going to just let you grab them and apply a joint lock on them. Soften them up first with a nice hard strike or kick...then break their arm.

More important than the pain and distraction in my opinion is the motion. This is the bane of all beginners: They learn a wrist escape only to find it doesn't work on their friends in the usual static demonstration situation. Get them moving--break their balance--and things are much better. The joint locks will flow much more smoothly. The pain certainly helps but the off-balancing and the motion is what really does it, to my mind.

Off-balancing is such an important part of so many techniques in so many arts, but too few arts (or perhaps I should say instructors) emphasize the fact that it's a component of many if not most techniques. I'm glad I did some judo and some aikido so as to gain an appreciation of that fact.

 

[Zujitsuka]

Great point Arnisador. I agree that a person must be in motion to achieve the best results with a Chin Na technique. However, you must still preface your techniques with good 'ol fashion pain. Once you deck your opponent, you can close the gap and apply a Chin Na technique or break his balance for a throw.

A good example of moving when applying a Chin Na is this:

When applying an outside wrist turn (kote gaeshi in Japanese), you will get the best results when turning your body 180 degrees while pushing the wrist down and right or left (depending on the direction of your turn). This will drop your opponent.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Zujitsuka
I agree that a person must be in motion to achieve the best results with a Chin Na technique. However, you must still preface your techniques with good 'ol fashion pain. Once you deck your opponent, you can close the gap and apply a Chin Na technique or break his balance for a throw.

Yes, I think that there are at least four components to the set-up to a joint lock: Pain and the accompanying loss of focus/decrease in resistance/interruption of their attack; off-balancing that is disconcerting and that hinders an effective response/escape; motion for the simple reason that, as Newton's First Law of Motion tells us, things in motion tend to remain in motion and things at rest tend to remain at rest (that is, just as it's harder to start pushing a stalled car than it is to keep it rolling once you've started, it's easier to put on a lock if the body part and perhaps the whole body is already moving); and finally distraction to keep the person from realizing they're being put in a lock until it's too late, possibly due to the pain, possibly due to the off-balancing, possibly due to the motion from a technique that spins a person into a lock, and possibly due to the old "Look out behind you!" trick. (One musn't underestimate the utility of these ploys!)

A solid punch could easily accomplish all four of these at once; an aikidoka might spin the person around into the lock, which is a different way of accomplishing at least most of these goals; either way, this is what one wants to do first.

Speaking for myself, however, I still believe that getting the arm in motion is the most important of these components. I'd like to have all four, but if I had to order them by importance I'd say motion, off-balancing, pain, distraction. Of course, this is no doubt strongly influenced by the type of locks I'm imagining applying.

 

[Zujitsuka]

Well said Arnisador.

 

[Icepick]

I've been staggered by Mr. Dillman at a seminar, where he grabbed by wrist and struck my neck. I believe it works, but again, I was a willing guinea pig.

Some thoughts for discussion from www.straightblastgym.com:
Frequently asked question:
I don’t see what the difference is between what you teach, and NHB training. What about Self Defense! Some of us just want to go home to our families and don’t care about brawling it out in a ring.
Answer, posted online:
This is a question that is becoming so common I thought I would try and address it as simply as possible.
The idea that there is such a thing that is "self defense" training is in and of itself yet another in a long line of martial arts myths.
Let me explain. What works in "sport" is what works against resisting opponents. Much of what is passed of as to "deadly" for sport, is simply technique which will not work against resisting opponents. Obviously there are some foul tactics (such as biting and eye gouging) which could never be allowed in sport. But, would you really want to go tit for tat with a Rickson Gracie, or Tom Erickson by biting or eye gouging?


Scary, but I tend to agree with GouRonin. You can do some crazy chit if your opponent is willing, or if there is a large enough gap between your skill levels.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Icepick
I've been staggered by Mr. Dillman at a seminar, where he grabbed by wrist and struck my neck. I believe it works, but again, I was a willing guinea pig.

I go to Mr. Dillman's seminars when I can; I have always come away with much wheat and a constantly increasing amount of chaff. On balance it's well worth my time and money.

The idea that there is such a thing that is "self defense" training is in and of itself yet another in a long line of martial arts myths.
Let me explain. What works in "sport" is what works against resisting opponents. Much of what is passed of as to "deadly" for sport, is simply technique which will not work against resisting opponents. Obviously there are some foul tactics (such as biting and eye gouging) which could never be allowed in sport. But, would you really want to go tit for tat with a Rickson Gracie, or Tom Erickson by biting or eye gouging?

As is so often the case, there's some truth in that but I can't really agree. Mindset--aggressiveness--makes the biggest difference in most fights and in many competetive sports, I think, but it is a different attitude (for most of us), "I want to win" vs. "I want to live". True aggressiveness will equal out a lot of skill. Not all of it, of course, but a lot of it. Because of this, what will stop someone who is fighting for money is not necessarily the same as what will stop someone who is fighting for survival.

But I would agree that there's a large overlap, both in terms of the level of intensity and in terms of techniques. One needs to be able to stop someone who doesn't want to be stopped in both cases. Training in combat sports, and developing the focused, controlled aggression attitude associated with boxers, will serve a person well.

One of the key reasons the militray still trains soldiers in hand-to-hand combat is because it builds self-confidence. Serious training in serious techniques with a serious mind works. For me, I prefer to enjoy the arts now.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I like the spot above and behind the elbow. My favorite is the back of the mandible. Have you noticed how freakily flexible some people's fingers are?