Problems with pressure points.

[JP3]

So when my sifu does them on me it hurts a lot and they are very effective but when I do them on other people I fail at them.

In your opinion are pressure points a viable thing to train in? I mean yeah I know they work because they were done on me but, the reason I ask this is because many of them in our style are done during grapples and takedowns, where I could just instead punch or elbow them and do that much easier

Hmmm.... I have answered this question in the past this way.

Student: "Man, this technique simply does not work!"
Instructor: "Which technique?"
S: "This one." *attempted demonstration*
I: "Oh, yes. That is very good. But, you missed the {WHATEVER}, and you should correct by doing {WHATEVER}. See, like this..." *Demonstration*
S: "Yowchie!! How did you do that."
I: "The tecnique works fine. Your technique doesn't. There is a difference."

...and I could also point out that punching or elbowing the opponent, while easier and probably effective, is an overt act of hostility and can get someone in trouble if seen or caught on video and thought to be "too much violence." It is something to think about. But... pressure points don't even look like they should work, but they do and nobody saw you do much of anything. A good option to have in your tool bag.

 

[Red Sun]

...i may be wrong, but if it goes to court, assault is assault, and self defense is saying 'i committed assault, but it's okay because... *insert reasons here*'

It shouldn't matter how it looks, so long as it doesn't constitute excessive force. Hitting someone once and running away is not excessive force (assuming you were fully justified in doing so and can either prove it or explain it to a court.)

Putting someone in a jointlock before they go hands-on is assault, which you then have to justify (if i understand the law correctly.) After they go hands-on, you're gambling with the likelyhood that 1 technique will work better than something else.

Can someone with legal experience pitch in?

 

[Phobius]

Since it works then obviously yeah there is point training in it. You see that's your problem you think just about punching and kicking and elbowing you think of it simply as a fight you don't think about the legal side sure of course you can just punch the guy but if you use a pressure point to put a guy down it won't look as aggressive as a punch will it.

For example If a 50 year out of shape drunk comes up to you and is mouthing off if you punch him in the face knock his teeth out break his jaw that'll look worse on you but if you put him in a lock it'll look like you simply holding him in place

Using pressure points on a drunk is a nice way of getting punched in the face.

 

[Juany118]

...i may be wrong, but if it goes to court, assault is assault, and self defense is saying 'i committed assault, but it's okay because... *insert reasons here*'

It shouldn't matter how it looks, so long as it doesn't constitute excessive force. Hitting someone once and running away is not excessive force (assuming you were fully justified in doing so and can either prove it or explain it to a court.)

Putting someone in a jointlock before they go hands-on is assault, which you then have to justify (if i understand the law correctly.) After they go hands-on, you're gambling with the likelyhood that 1 technique will work better than something else.

Can someone with legal experience pitch in?

Assault is a legal term, a better way to express your point would be both are fighting, self defense being the legally justified form of fighting. I say this because, in my State, I can arrest two people for "Simple Assault by mutual fighting."

How it looks can matter, at least the aftermath. A knife hand isn't in and of itself a deadly move, but a knife hand to the throat is a potentially deadly move. This is why it is important to train not just in techniques but in knowing under what circumstances such techniques can be used.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Hmmm.... I have answered this question in the past this way.

Student: "Man, this technique simply does not work!"
Instructor: "Which technique?"
S: "This one." *attempted demonstration*
I: "Oh, yes. That is very good. But, you missed the {WHATEVER}, and you should correct by doing {WHATEVER}. See, like this..." *Demonstration*
S: "Yowchie!! How did you do that."
I: "The tecnique works fine. Your technique doesn't. There is a difference."

...and I could also point out that punching or elbowing the opponent, while easier and probably effective, is an overt act of hostility and can get someone in trouble if seen or caught on video and thought to be "too much violence." It is something to think about. But... pressure points don't even look like they should work, but they do and nobody saw you do much of anything. A good option to have in your tool bag.

Not looking at the legal issues, I see an issue here. Let's assume that a student has a very good grasp of how to use pressure points to facilitate their wrist lock. Let's even assume that a very strict teacher has given them permission to teach others. Do we know that with adrenaline rushing in during a real situation, they will be able to do that? Would it be easier to teach them a more generalizable skill such as a palm or punch to the chin, to help them out of the situation?

This is not me making a point for or against pressure points. It is a question meant towards someone who has taught their children how to use pressure points.

 

[Juany118]

Hmmm.... I have answered this question in the past this way.

Student: "Man, this technique simply does not work!"
Instructor: "Which technique?"
S: "This one." *attempted demonstration*
I: "Oh, yes. That is very good. But, you missed the {WHATEVER}, and you should correct by doing {WHATEVER}. See, like this..." *Demonstration*
S: "Yowchie!! How did you do that."
I: "The tecnique works fine. Your technique doesn't. There is a difference."

...and I could also point out that punching or elbowing the opponent, while easier and probably effective, is an overt act of hostility and can get someone in trouble if seen or caught on video and thought to be "too much violence." It is something to think about. But... pressure points don't even look like they should work, but they do and nobody saw you do much of anything. A good option to have in your tool bag.

On the last bit not really, so long as it preemptive. If someone tries to punch you feel free to punch back. Everything about UoF in self defense is about objective reasonableness based on the circumstances during the fight, 20/20 hindsight isn't applicable. Remember before it goes to trial it has to go through the PD and DA. They are familiar with these concepts.

That out of the way "pressure points" that rely on pain compliance as their bread and butter simply do not work in a knockdown drag out fight. They aThegood at compelling someone passively resisting, or when used with surprise but if the opponent is engaged in active aggression they are far from certain. I would never recommend anyone use pain compliance techniques in a fight. Now if you have the person restrained and need that last bit of "oomph" to gain compliance yes, but that is about it.

There is also the issue of application. The majority of pressure points such as, under the nose, the mandibular angle, are not at all easily applied against an actively struggling suspect, they are a lot more difficult than what earlier was defined as "nerve strikes." Unless your career places you in a circumstance where you will have to use force against a passively resisting suspect I really only see learning pressure points as tool to learn how the body works because a majority of the pressure point areas can also be excellent targets for striking.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Using pressure points on a drunk is a nice way of getting punched in the face.

For the pain-compliance ones, most likely. The ones I refer to as "nerve strikes" (brachial stun, etc.) still work.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not looking at the legal issues, I see an issue here. Let's assume that a student has a very good grasp of how to use pressure points to facilitate their wrist lock. Let's even assume that a very strict teacher has given them permission to teach others. Do we know that with adrenaline rushing in during a real situation, they will be able to do that? Would it be easier to teach them a more generalizable skill such as a palm or punch to the chin, to help them out of the situation?

This is not me making a point for or against pressure points. It is a question meant towards someone who has taught their children how to use pressure points.

Yes, simple strikes are better in most cases. And better yet (IMO) to have both in your toolkit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

On the last bit not really, so long as it preemptive. If someone tries to punch you feel free to punch back. Everything about UoF in self defense is about objective reasonableness based on the circumstances during the fight, 20/20 hindsight isn't applicable. Remember before it goes to trial it has to go through the PD and DA. They are familiar with these concepts.

That out of the way "pressure points" that rely on pain compliance as their bread and butter simply do not work in a knockdown drag out fight. They aThegood at compelling someone passively resisting, or when used with surprise but if the opponent is engaged in active aggression they are far from certain. I would never recommend anyone use pain compliance techniques in a fight. Now if you have the person restrained and need that last bit of "oomph" to gain compliance yes, but that is about it.

There is also the issue of application. The majority of pressure points such as, under the nose, the mandibular angle, are not at all easily applied against an actively struggling suspect, they are a lot more difficult than what earlier was defined as "nerve strikes." Unless your career places you in a circumstance where you will have to use force against a passively resisting suspect I really only see learning pressure points as tool to learn how the body works because a majority of the pressure point areas can also be excellent targets for striking.

That last point is key. There's one nerve nexus on the forearm that I love. My students hate it...because I love it so much.

Because I use it a lot, I grab it entirely by habit now. In an aggressive fight, I would still grab it, simply because that's what I do. It probably won't have much effect. However, sometimes I use it for striking. Hitting it right will temporarily weaken the grip (it stuns the nerves that control those muscles), and can be hit with a hammerfist. That application of it is more useful under an assault, since it provides two benefits (the actual hit to the muscle, plus whatever stun you get to the nerves) with a gross-motor movement.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Hitting it right will temporarily weaken the grip (it stuns the nerves that control those muscles), and can be hit with a hammerfist.

Been there and done it, and it's nothing that the person can do to stop the body from reacting to that nerve being struck.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Been there and done it, and it's nothing that the person can do to stop the body from reacting to that nerve being struck.

No, but they can cuss a lot if you do it too often.

 

[JowGaWolf]

No, but they can cuss a lot if you do it too often.

That's exactly what I did when I experienced it first hand.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's exactly what I did when I experienced it first hand.

One of my students is very sensitive to nerve pressure points. He flinches whenever I use him to demonstrate anything, even when he knows that it will be something harmless like how to extend the lead in a technique.

 

[JP3]

On the last bit not really, so long as it preemptive. If someone tries to punch you feel free to punch back. Everything about UoF in self defense is about objective reasonableness based on the circumstances during the fight, 20/20 hindsight isn't applicable. Remember before it goes to trial it has to go through the PD and DA. They are familiar with these concepts.

That out of the way "pressure points" that rely on pain compliance as their bread and butter simply do not work in a knockdown drag out fight. They aThegood at compelling someone passively resisting, or when used with surprise but if the opponent is engaged in active aggression they are far from certain. I would never recommend anyone use pain compliance techniques in a fight. Now if you have the person restrained and need that last bit of "oomph" to gain compliance yes, but that is about it.

There is also the issue of application. The majority of pressure points such as, under the nose, the mandibular angle, are not at all easily applied against an actively struggling suspect, they are a lot more difficult than what earlier was defined as "nerve strikes." Unless your career places you in a circumstance where you will have to use force against a passively resisting suspect I really only see learning pressure points as tool to learn how the body works because a majority of the pressure point areas can also be excellent targets for striking.

.
On this part, "20/20 hindsight isn't applicable," I think that's incorrect. We call it video recording, and it's all over the place now, the ever-watching security cameras. They aren't much for security per se, but they are sure good for the D.A.'s purposes after the fact. Or, the school principal's if it's a school situation.

I agree totally with your point on the questionable efficacy of pressure point use during fight, take something that is hard to do on someone who isn't moving (see the O/P), and try to do it on someone who is not only violently moving, but violently moving at You, exponentially more difficult.

What I was driving at was more of the learn what the Instructor is teaching, that sort of thing. My illustration would probably have been better if I was discussing a locking technique, but the O/P was on pressure points so I went with that. Inneffective on my part.

BTW all, the defense of "Self-Defense" to a charge of assault/battery is literally called "justification." Meaning, self-defense is an action which you took which would have been, but for the bad act of the other person, a crime in and of itself, but you were justified in taking such action because of the bad actor's initial action. That's from First Year Torts, which we got before Criminal Law.

 

[Juany118]

.
On this part, "20/20 hindsight isn't applicable," I think that's incorrect. We call it video recording, and it's all over the place now, the ever-watching security cameras. They aren't much for security per se, but they are sure good for the D.A.'s purposes after the fact. Or, the school principal's if it's a school situation.

The "reasonableness" standard is based on the state of mind in the scenario, not what a video watched passively after the fact alone provides . A video shows action but doesn't show State of mind. There are a myriad of factors that go into state of mind. Relative size and age, the suddenness of the event, etc. A video can be used to argue that a specific state of mind was not justified but if the video doesn't provide evidence of the lack of said justification we fall back to the former. This is explicit in more than a few SCOTUS decisions.

This is especially true with the era of iPhone videos where all to often they don't (sometimes conveniently) show the encounter from the perspective of the "target" and/or the entire incident. While a Law enforcement example... this shows why the legal principle I speak of exists...

I agree totally with your point on the questionable efficacy of pressure point use during fight, take something that is hard to do on someone who isn't moving (see the O/P), and try to do it on someone who is not only violently moving, but violently moving at You, exponentially more difficult.

What I was driving at was more of the learn what the Instructor is teaching, that sort of thing. My illustration would probably have been better if I was discussing a locking technique, but the O/P was on pressure points so I went with that. Inneffective on my part.

Oh we agree there, however as I said many of the pressure points can be useful in terms of learning "soft spots" which can be useful targets for striking. Sometimes a temporary disruption of a limb or stun can be useful in then moving for a locking technique. I do this all the time at work. The human brain tends to work rather linearly. So when you hit point "A" and there is a demonstrable effect, the brain focuses on "A", even if only for a moment, which then allows you to strike, lock and/or take down from/at point "B"

BTW all, the defense of "Self-Defense" to a charge of assault/battery is literally called "justification." Meaning, self-defense is an action which you took which would have been, but for the bad act of the other person, a crime in and of itself, but you were justified in taking such action because of the bad actor's initial action. That's from First Year Torts, which we got before Criminal Law.

I suppose this is kinda the difference between our training. Mine is solely upon Criminal Law so when I think self-defense it starts simply with this... Section 505 - Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES and then this Law applied under Case Law from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth and that of the Supreme Court of the United States. My Civil Law concerns end largely at Act 1983.

 

[Buka]

That last point is key. There's one nerve nexus on the forearm that I love. My students hate it...because I love it so much.

Made me smile over my coffee, it did.

 

[KangTsai]

I think pressure points are only viable in a completely non dominant and in a dominant position, like when they're on your back/when you're on their back respectively. You have better options in a neutral position.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think pressure points are only viable in a completely non dominant and in a dominant position, like when they're on your back/when you're on their back respectively. You have better options in a neutral position.

How is a pressure point any help when your attacker is on your back?

 

[KangTsai]

How is a pressure point any help when your attacker is on your back?

Actually, if they're on your back you're likely screwed already. My point is that you could use it in a non-dominant position to get out easier.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, if they're on your back you're likely screwed already. My point is that you could use it in a non-dominant position to get out easier.

You wil find mma is mad keen for a bit of pressure point action.

That is what grinding is.

Otherwise elbows in thighs to pass guard is a common example in mma.