Adam Chan - Basic Grab Releases Exercises
- Thread starter TMA17
- Start date
His movements are fine. My objection is that the students performing the grabs are completely clueless about how to do them effectively. It’s easy to look badass when countering a garbage “attack”.
I believe in teaching the students how to perform the attack correctly so that it exposes any flaws in the defense. If you encourage your demo dummy to repeatedly come in with an incompetent attack and pre-compromised structure, then you get to look impressive but you don’t do your students any favors in teaching them how to fight.
I believe in teaching the students how to perform the attack correctly so that it exposes any flaws in the defense. If you encourage your demo dummy to repeatedly come in with an incompetent attack and pre-compromised structure, then you get to look impressive but you don’t do your students any favors in teaching them how to fight.
I liked his wrist escapes at the beginning. They were very simple and helped develop a unity of body. (using your whole body together instead of just the arm)
The take down defense at the end... I would like to see how that holds up against someone with wrestling experience, or even a determination to take him down.
The take down defense at the end... I would like to see how that holds up against someone with wrestling experience, or even a determination to take him down.
The interest question is should you teach your students that your technique won't work on him?
Why do you want to grab on your opponent? You want your opponent to break your grip in such a way that you can take advantage on. Since it's easier to break a grip against 1 finger (the thumb) than to break a grip against 4 fingers, you can predict how your opponent may break your grip.
You want your arm to be
- inside, and
- on top
of your opponent's arm. So there is a right way to grip and there is a wrong way to grab. After your opponent breaks away your grip, if he can create an opportunity so your arm can move inside and on top of his arm, your grip is correct. Otherwise, your grip is wrong.
Here is a correct wrist grip.
Here is a wrong one.
Both are starting points. If they stop there, they'll have very limited applicability. If they are developing principles, their next step should be learning to deal with a more "attacky" attack (intent), then adding resistance to the drill and learning to either overcome that or switch to a different technique based on the input of that resistance.
If we look deeper into the "grab release" issue, here is an example that whether or not that you can break away your opponent's grip is not important. Your opponent's grip is as simple as to "guide your arm away from his attacking path".
Try not to think your opponent is so stupid that he doesn't know why he grabs on you for.
Try not to think your opponent is so stupid that he doesn't know why he grabs on you for.
That depends what the point of the grip is. Trying to take the first one requires more range, and takes the elbow out of a protective position. Reasonable if the grip serves a purpose. But if the intent is to practice escaping common grips, that grip isn't going to be as common for someone standing in front of you.The interest question is should you teach your students that your technique won't work on him?
Why do you want to grab on your opponent? You want your opponent to break your grip in such a way that you can take advantage on. Since it's easier to break a grip against 1 finger (the thumb) than to break a grip against 4 fingers, you can predict how your opponent may break your grip.
You want your arm to be
- inside, and
- on top
of your opponent's arm. So there is a right way to grip and there is a wrong way to grab. After your opponent breaks away your grip, if he can create an opportunity so your arm can move inside and on top of his arm, your grip is correct. Otherwise, your grip is wrong.
Here is a correct wrist grip.
Here is a wrong one.
Agreed. A good wrist release should have - as its primary aim - breaking up the attack. For me, that means my first aim is to affect his structure. If he has sloppy grip, I might do nothing more than slip out of the grip, but I'd rather there be enough connection to affect structure, whether I actually escape the grip or not.
When you grab (or be grabbed), you should have a "plan".
- How to grab and how to attack after that.
- How to break a grip and how to prevent your opponent's next attack.
Last edited:
Basic Grab Releases Exercises
Should we just talk about how to
- block a punch,
- block a kick,
- break a grip?
Or should we talk about much more deeper than that?
Should we just talk about how to
- block a punch,
- block a kick,
- break a grip?
Or should we talk about much more deeper than that?
I like both. If I teach a student to always 'attack' correctly, I could be missing stuff. So for a wrist grab, if they grab appropriately, X technique may be effective. But then they grab with their arm twisted around, and now all of a sudden breaking their structure looks slightly different. A lot easier probably, but it could confuse me if I expect the technique to work. With new people, I like to get a chance to work with them before they are taught to fight properly, so I can see more directly how what I'm doing would apply to an untrained person.
My answer is "both". I use the former to teach the latter.
This is something that gets exaggerated in a lot of aik-oriented arts. I agree with you, in principle (and probably in practice). It's good to know - and be able to quickly and effectively "feel" - which techniques work against less-than-optimal attacks. There are a lot of easy answers here, and a quick review of video shows a lot of "street attacks" (whether angry sucker punches or lethal attacks) are over-committed enough to take advantage of with these techniques. Where a lot of aiki-oriented training gets into trouble is that they train only for these kinds of attacks (we can see this in most of the videos of Aikido training). Training also against good, balanced, coordinated attacks gives us the other half of the puzzle. And, of course, well-trained practitioners will often find a brief opening for the former between the latter.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,404
- Reaction score
- 8,138
Yeah but there should still at least be intent. Otherwise you are not replicating what an untrained attacker will do.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,404
- Reaction score
- 8,138
No they are not. It is a big lie that one.
Because it looks slow and easy to read from the side. People assume it is slow and easy to read from down the barrel. That is an incorrect assumption.
And you can tell this two ways.
One is looking at the reactions of the people who get hit. They can't move fast enough to take advantage.
Two. You can test it for yourself by sparring.
And the factor is punching someone light at half speed isn't punching someone hard at full speed
If every time that you apply a locking skill, your opponent just collapses down, how will you be able to train the counter and anti-counter?
1. You apply wrist lock with downward force, your opponent raise his elbow to counter you.
2. You change your downward force into horizontal force, your opponent turns his body to counter you.
3. You change your horizontal force into a pulling force, your opponent ...
The issue is how long will you stay in the 1 step technique training. When will you get into the combo training?
This is why it's better for you to attack first. If you attack for real, your student has to respond for real.
If a
- student can counter a teacher's attack, that student has learned some real skill.
- teacher can counter a student's attack, that student has learned anything yet.
IMO, you are not putting yourself in your student's position and look at from your student's point of view.
Will it be nice to see a clip that a student can apply a technique successfully on his teacher?
Last edited:
In a lot of traditional training (what I've seen of JMA), the starting point is pre-intent - meaning, you learn to do the technique against a "neutral", rather than an actual attack. The point of this approach is to work the mechanics before dealing with anything resembling a real attack. There are pros and cons to this - I tend to start some things by this method (NGA's named "classical" techniques) and other things from a low-power attack with intent. I've seen both have similar results, though each tends to work better for some students.
"Easy to read" is different from "over-committed enough to take advantage of".
