All martial arts are ruined by their hubris

[skribs]

It sounds like we're saying more or less the same thing. The structure breaking to enable the technique can't actually be simultaneous with the technique it enables, but if it's a straight flow (which Hapkido would have a focus on), then there's no real separation between them. One starts before the other, but they overlap. That's often verbally expressed as "simultaneous", even when it isn't actually, because it's effective to think of them that way.

And again, back to definitions. How do you define a "technique"?

Our hapkido curriculum starts out with rote drills that start with your attacker grabbing you, and end with your attacker in a wristlock tapping before their wrist breaks. So one of our techniques, for example, will follow this format:

1. Attacker grabs wrist in cross-arm grab (right hand)
2. Step in towards attacker with right leg and stick right elbow into their solarplexus or bring your right hand up to their ear
3. Grab their wrist with left hand (thumb on the back of their hand, fingers under the wrist). Their grip should be broken to allow you to pull your right hand free and also grab their wrist with that hand, but it's not necessary
4. Swing your left leg around behind you and apply downward pressure to their pinky to twist their wrist in. This will take them down, to land on their back.
5. Place your right foot under their armpit, keep swinging your left leg back against their body and drop into a horse stance. Pull their wrist straight against their body.

Now, you'll notice at least 3-4 techniques here, in one of our "techniques". You've got the grab-break, you've got securing their hand, you have the take-down, and the submission. At first, these are all whole techniques together (from the understanding of the student), but as you gain familiarity with these combinations, you learn to spot individual techniques and the points at which you can switch from one technique to another.

Now, I think that Step 2 is what @wab25 would refer to as "connecting with your attacker". What someone else might call "controlling the wrist", someone else might call "breaking their structure", and someone else might call "attacking the wrist". Because depending on whether you go for the solarplexus or the ear, you might trap at the same time or you might trap just after the step.

As you get more advanced, you learn when to go for the solarplexus, when to go for the ear, or some other tricks. You learn to identify points at which you will have this type of wristlock without those extra steps. You learn how to respond when your attacker doesn't let you gain that inside leverage. You learn how to respond when your attacker doesn't fall the way you want them to.

But while we might call this "technique #5", it's really several techniques together.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So, this set of steps here misses many, if not most, of the important parts of getting a wrist lock. The most important thing missing is the connection to the other guy. You can trap my hand, grip it very hard, and step whatever direction you want... but if you have not broken my structure and taken my balance... as @gpseymour says, there will be no pain to comply with and countering, blocking, defeating your technique will be easy. You need to connect with the other guy first. If you are connected, when you move his wrist, you will move his body and shift his weight. There are lots of ways to accomplish this off balance and structural break. Aikido and Daito Ryu are some of the best arts I have come across, that really dig into this idea.

The best way to explain this is with demonstration, being able to see and feel what is going on. But, I will attempt. If you are holding you arm out, and I grab your hand, and step inside or out side, but you have not changed your posture or position of your arm... then I will not be able to apply a lock. You are still in a strong posture and your arm/wrist/hand are all in positions of power. If instead, as I touch your hand, I put a little weight into it, this will slightly shift your posture... you will need to use your toes more to remain upright. At the same time, I slightly move your hand away from your body. You are now resisting a downwards pressure and an outwards pressure. Now, as I step in, if I maintain those two pressures, this should cause the shoulder rotations that @gpseymour was talking of. At this point, your body is out of alignment, you are not centered in your balance, and the structure of you arm is broken. Now the lock can be applied causing pain, or injury or a take down... The trick is that if you apply this downward force or outward force too much, or too long, the other guy just takes a step and recovers. This is why many times these things are practiced from a reach or a punch... the other guy is giving you momentum, such that if you simply continue his motion a bit further, you will accomplish the structural break and off balance needed. (this is why it works in the dojo, but not on the street... the guy on the street is not giving you the right momentum. If you have never figured out how to generate this structural break, without that help, it won't work.)

The first two steps I would add to the 4 above would be:
0.0 Connect with the attacker
0.1 move the attackers weight in a direction of weakness (perpendicular to the line drawn connecting his heels, for example)
0.2 move the attackers joint out of the strength alignment
0.3 the combination of 0.1 and 0.2, should create a tension in the other guys body, even if slight... maintain this tension

Now you can start with step 1. Note that is you drop that tension or if at any point from now on, if the other guy is not moving, when you move, the technique is over. If the attacker is in a strong position, or can recover to a strong position... you will not have the leverage, through pain or any other means, to finish your lock. Also note that all the important bits happen before you think the pain starts or the damaging leverage. By applying the wrist lock correctly, it effects their entire structure, not just his wrist... thus it does not matter if they are flexible, double jointed, or not feeling pain right now. You are still able to effect their entire body, take them down and or damage them.

An excellent description, and a near match to something I was picturing in my mind in my earlier reply.

 

[skribs]

That's a reasonable definition. To me, it's anything that messes up their balance or physical structure (takes head or shoulders off the top of their hips, bends the spine, etc.). It could (and often does) also include putting them in a position that takes away offensive and reactive options. A simple example is from a cross-hand wrist grip: roll your hand under theirs and reach over to grab their wrist. If you do this without breaking their structure, they can easily still pull you. If you - during the roll and grab - extend their hand away from them and downward so it moves their shoulder, you reduce their ability to pull you.

The fact that even you see several different definitions is part of why we're all arguing. Are we talking about messing up balance and setting up a take-down? Are we talking about disrupting their attack in progress? Are we talking about gaining leverage to isolate joints? Are we talking about positioning the attacker in such a way they cannot retaliate? (Or something else)?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm going to go on a rant here, because this whole discussion can be summed up this way: this thread is a prime example of people trying to poke holes in what isn't said.

This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum. I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented. But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.

There's the assumption that because it wasn't said, the poster doesn't know it. If a poster talks about a punch and doesn't mention the proper fist, obviously he doesn't know how to make a fist and must be told. If a poster talks about a block and doesn't mention any other application of that technique, obviously he's just a pleb that only knows techniques and stuck in his learning. If a poster talks about a hip throw and doesn't mention that he ate a good breakfast, it's important to remind him that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. If a poster is talking about a joint lock and doesn't mention the exact position each of your limbs must be relative to yourself, the sun, and each of the other 7 or 8 planets (what is Pluto now, anyway?), then obviously you know nothing.

Well, there are tons of details that go into each individual technique, and some of those details get left out. Because people don't have time to list every single muscle and every single joint and every single minor movement in a technique. But then someone has to be all high and mighty and say "oh, you didn't say this, this is important," and turn their nose up so the rest of the forum can see how smart they are; how much they know about martial arts because they caught that missing piece.

Then the poster has to say, "no, I know that" and explain that they have a different term, or they simply omitted it because it wasn't necessary, or it's something that's so ingrained in their muscle memory they don't even think about it anymore. But no, that's not good enough. The commenter has to have the poster acknowledge that they're right, that they know better and they pointed out your mistake. It can't be that the poster knew the detail and just didn't make it into the post. It has to be that the poster didn't know at all. Because the poster has no proof of whether or not they knew it before it was pointed out in the thread, they get defensive and backpedal, and then there's a huge argument over something that everyone agrees on.

This is the problem. I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with how the techniques work. We just have different ways of describing them. And we've been arguing for four fracking pages about something we all agree with! If you got us all into a room together and actually worked through what we're talking about, I'm sure everyone would say "oh, yeah, that's what I meant."

And there'd still be someone saying "well that's not really what you meant, but now that I've shown you, I'm glad you understand."

I'm sick and tired of arguing over things we agree on. There's plenty of things we disagree on that are waiting to be debated until the cows come home. But we're stuck arguing semantics, stuck arguing over things unsaid, stuck arguing over meaningless distinctions, when we could be arguing over things that actually matter.

I don't think there's been much argument on this, Skribs. Getting straight on each others' usage is important in making sure we understand each other. It sounds like your description assumes something @wab25 and deliberately separate in our descriptions. I don't think there's anything wrong with not separating it, though I find it useful to do so to avoid some of the errors I've seen students make.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I especially like the definitions at the end of the article at Why Are Some People Double-Jointed? where they mention those with particularly shallow sockets (for ball and socket joints), can dislocate and as far as I know, re-locate the ball portion of the joint.. That is how I usually think when I hear the term double-jointedness. Thanks to you, I guess I will have to modify and call that a specialized form of double jointedness.



Well, maybe I just need to get out more, but I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't affected painfully from a properly applied wrist manipulation. Maybe it will happen yet.

That depends which ones you're talking about. I did have one training partner who got his hand broken without ever feeling the pain of a lock, but that's really unusual. I used to not feel finger locks (don't know what other arts call it - it's a Lift Up in NGA) unless extreme variants were used, and often didn't feel some other wrist locks. I was never double-jointed, just had really limber wrists. My wrists are still pretty limber - though not nearly as they were when I was in my 30's - but arthritis in my hands has made me much more compliant to any wrist and hand locks.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And again, back to definitions. How do you define a "technique"?

Our hapkido curriculum starts out with rote drills that start with your attacker grabbing you, and end with your attacker in a wristlock tapping before their wrist breaks. So one of our techniques, for example, will follow this format:

1. Attacker grabs wrist in cross-arm grab (right hand)
2. Step in towards attacker with right leg and stick right elbow into their solarplexus or bring your right hand up to their ear
3. Grab their wrist with left hand (thumb on the back of their hand, fingers under the wrist). Their grip should be broken to allow you to pull your right hand free and also grab their wrist with that hand, but it's not necessary
4. Swing your left leg around behind you and apply downward pressure to their pinky to twist their wrist in. This will take them down, to land on their back.
5. Place your right foot under their armpit, keep swinging your left leg back against their body and drop into a horse stance. Pull their wrist straight against their body.

Now, you'll notice at least 3-4 techniques here, in one of our "techniques". You've got the grab-break, you've got securing their hand, you have the take-down, and the submission. At first, these are all whole techniques together (from the understanding of the student), but as you gain familiarity with these combinations, you learn to spot individual techniques and the points at which you can switch from one technique to another.

Now, I think that Step 2 is what @wab25 would refer to as "connecting with your attacker". What someone else might call "controlling the wrist", someone else might call "breaking their structure", and someone else might call "attacking the wrist". Because depending on whether you go for the solarplexus or the ear, you might trap at the same time or you might trap just after the step.

As you get more advanced, you learn when to go for the solarplexus, when to go for the ear, or some other tricks. You learn to identify points at which you will have this type of wristlock without those extra steps. You learn how to respond when your attacker doesn't let you gain that inside leverage. You learn how to respond when your attacker doesn't fall the way you want them to.

But while we might call this "technique #5", it's really several techniques together.

Yes - that's exactly what I was getting at. If you were to look at a "Classical Technique" in NGA (what I call a "Classical form" of a technique), you get a similar issue, though they are a bit shorter. I teach that every Classical form contains an entry and a finish (the finish being the "technique"), but most instructors will consider the entry part of the technique.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The fact that even you see several different definitions is part of why we're all arguing. Are we talking about messing up balance and setting up a take-down? Are we talking about disrupting their attack in progress? Are we talking about gaining leverage to isolate joints? Are we talking about positioning the attacker in such a way they cannot retaliate? (Or something else)?

A bit of all of that, really, when I use the term. To be clear, it's easy to spot what I mean when I'm demonstrating, and it becomes clear what I mean - it's really about disrupting their physical alignment from feet (or hips) to head. But the point of doing it is one or all of the things you listed.

As I said, I don't think we're really arguing, so much as getting clear on each others' terminology.

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm going to go on a rant here, because this whole discussion can be summed up this way: this thread is a prime example of people trying to poke holes in what isn't said.

This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum. I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented. But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.

There's the assumption that because it wasn't said, the poster doesn't know it. If a poster talks about a punch and doesn't mention the proper fist, obviously he doesn't know how to make a fist and must be told. If a poster talks about a block and doesn't mention any other application of that technique, obviously he's just a pleb that only knows techniques and stuck in his learning. If a poster talks about a hip throw and doesn't mention that he ate a good breakfast, it's important to remind him that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. If a poster is talking about a joint lock and doesn't mention the exact position each of your limbs must be relative to yourself, the sun, and each of the other 7 or 8 planets (what is Pluto now, anyway?), then obviously you know nothing.

Well, there are tons of details that go into each individual technique, and some of those details get left out. Because people don't have time to list every single muscle and every single joint and every single minor movement in a technique. But then someone has to be all high and mighty and say "oh, you didn't say this, this is important," and turn their nose up so the rest of the forum can see how smart they are; how much they know about martial arts because they caught that missing piece.

Then the poster has to say, "no, I know that" and explain that they have a different term, or they simply omitted it because it wasn't necessary, or it's something that's so ingrained in their muscle memory they don't even think about it anymore. But no, that's not good enough. The commenter has to have the poster acknowledge that they're right, that they know better and they pointed out your mistake. It can't be that the poster knew the detail and just didn't make it into the post. It has to be that the poster didn't know at all. Because the poster has no proof of whether or not they knew it before it was pointed out in the thread, they get defensive and backpedal, and then there's a huge argument over something that everyone agrees on.

This is the problem. I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with how the techniques work. We just have different ways of describing them. And we've been arguing for four fracking pages about something we all agree with! If you got us all into a room together and actually worked through what we're talking about, I'm sure everyone would say "oh, yeah, that's what I meant."

And there'd still be someone saying "well that's not really what you meant, but now that I've shown you, I'm glad you understand."

I'm sick and tired of arguing over things we agree on. There's plenty of things we disagree on that are waiting to be debated until the cows come home. But we're stuck arguing semantics, stuck arguing over things unsaid, stuck arguing over meaningless distinctions, when we could be arguing over things that actually matter.

Wow @skribs why don't you tell us how you really feel?

But you are right. It is something we seem to do here a lot at MT. I tried to overcome my angst by ignoring it, only to discover that only made me more frustrated. I finally defeated my anger by simply joining in. Now I hardly even notice it.

I was particularly intrigued by the bolded parts of you comment. Several times I have tried to describe a technique, with all the details a person would need to try the technique. I have never gotten a response, much less a derogatory response telling how stupid that was. Are people really not interested? Do they still not get it? I don't know. But my curiosity is salved by joining in with ignoring it when someone else tries to impart some secret technique of some ancient master. There you have it.

 

[oftheherd1]

If you're having trouble understanding my explanations, wait a bit. @Tony Dismukes will probably say it better (and in fewer words).

Part of the difference might be "attacking the wrist". To me, that's the technique - the thing that's applying pain or damage to the wrist. But you might be including the point before that, where you've attached to it (grabbed wrist/hand/whatever), and put them (or allowed them to put themselves) into position for the technique. If you include that part (what I refer to as the entry to the technique) then that would explain the difference in our descriptions. Let me use a technique I'm pretty sure we share, and which is likely done fairly similarly (and others will probably understand, as well): kote gaeshi (in NGA: Front Wrist Throw). So, if I get ahold of a hand/wrist and simply apply kote gaeshi while you are standing upright, turning your hand back at or across your forearm (some differences among styles on that), you can easily block that by putting your elbow in the path of the throw, extending your arm to put my elbow behind the plane of my body, or a number of other small adjustments. However, if I - during my entry to the technique - extend your arm down in a spiral to draw your shoulder forward then to the outside before reversing the wrist, the technique has a much better chance of working. In NGA's Classical form (the short, one-step introduction to a technique), that entry is part of the "technique", but I see them as separate things - modular and interchangeable between techniques.

Does that help, or do we have to wait for Tony?

Yes, I like, dislike, agree, disagree, think it's funny, no - informative, and useful no matter.

Thank you.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I especially like the definitions at the end of the article at Why Are Some People Double-Jointed? where they mention those with particularly shallow sockets (for ball and socket joints), can dislocate and as far as I know, re-locate the ball portion of the joint.. That is how I usually think when I hear the term double-jointedness. Thanks to you, I guess I will have to modify and call that a specialized form of double jointedness.



Well, maybe I just need to get out more, but I have yet to meet anyone who wasn't affected painfully from a properly applied wrist manipulation. Maybe it will happen yet.

Regarding the double jointed thing...i have made your life slightly more difficult by forcing you to modify a word! My mission is complete
Regarding the pain...in a dojo ive never seen it. I have seen it with people that were high on specific substances. I never put someone who was drunk/high in the lock, so the person doing it could have just been messing it up, but it doesnt appear reliable if the person is drunk or on a specific group of substances (PCP and cocaine, iirc)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Regarding the double jointed thing...i have made your life slightly more difficult by forcing you to modify a word! My mission is complete
Regarding the pain...in a dojo ive never seen it. I have seen it with people that were high on specific substances. I never put someone who was drunk/high in the lock, so the person doing it could have just been messing it up, but it doesnt appear reliable if the person is drunk or on a specific group of substances (PCP and cocaine, iirc)

I do recall a senior brown belt when I started (a bouncer at a strip club) and my primary instructor (a pharmacist who more than once had to deal with drug addicts trying to steal from the pharmacy) both describe people with chemicals in their system not responding to pain from locks. The bouncer had a guy simply stand up out of a shoulder lock, dislocating his own shoulder in the process, and proceeding with his attack, without use of that arm.

 

[skribs]

I do recall a senior brown belt when I started (a bouncer at a strip club) and my primary instructor (a pharmacist who more than once had to deal with drug addicts trying to steal from the pharmacy) both describe people with chemicals in their system not responding to pain from locks. The bouncer had a guy simply stand up out of a shoulder lock, dislocating his own shoulder in the process, and proceeding with his attack, without use of that arm.

Well, now that person has one less weapon and should be easier to subdue!

That's the point of most joint locks. It's not that the lock is guaranteed to hold you in place. It's that you pay a price for your mobility.

 

[oftheherd1]

Regarding the double jointed thing...i have made your life slightly more difficult by forcing you to modify a word! My mission is complete
Regarding the pain...in a dojo ive never seen it. I have seen it with people that were high on specific substances. I never put someone who was drunk/high in the lock, so the person doing it could have just been messing it up, but it doesnt appear reliable if the person is drunk or on a specific group of substances (PCP and cocaine, iirc)

Add barbiturates to the list. You may have seen one of my posts about the soldier in Vietnam who was pistol whipped and shot (EDIT)two times before he got 'tired" and sat down, telling the two MPs he was tired but when he had rested a bit, he was going to really beat them up.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Add barbiturates to the list. You may have seen one of my posts about the soldier in Vietnam who was pistol whipped and shot three times before he got 'tired" and sat down, telling the two MPs he was tired but when he had rested a bit, he was going to really beat them up.

That makes sense. Probably benzos then also, although im a lot less concerned about a guy on xanax attacking me than a guy on coke attacking me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, now that person has one less weapon and should be easier to subdue!

That's the point of most joint locks. It's not that the lock is guaranteed to hold you in place. It's that you pay a price for your mobility.

Agreed. I teach that locks aren't going to work "in the street" the way they do in the dojo. We're not going for a tap-out or submission - either they stay put (if it's a lock that can be used for that purpose - many aren't) or we're disabling that limb to gain an advantage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That makes sense. Probably benzos then also, although im a lot less concerned about a guy on xanax attacking me than a guy on coke attacking me.

Yeah, somehow, that's not an intimidating thought.

 

[wab25]

This is what I'm starting to hate about this forum. I get that people here want to be accurate, and it's important to poke holes in what is presented. But there are several people on this forum - and you're one of them - that like to poke holes in what isn't said.

I apologize. I only meant to join in the discussions here. But since I am obviously not able to add anything that you don't already know so well, that you don't bother to write it out anymore... I will leave your discussions alone here. My apologies again. Please continue.

 

[oftheherd1]

That makes sense. Probably benzos then also, although im a lot less concerned about a guy on xanax attacking me than a guy on coke attacking me.

Something rang a bell so I looked it up. Barbiturates are not benzos. According to the googling I did, benzos have mostly replaced barbiturates. I don't know about benzos, but barbiturates can have more than one side effect. They can be like the soldier I described in Vietnam, or like one on Okinawa who fell down beating his body and screaming about the bugs eating him up. Some were more discerning and knowing what it took to get the high, only took that much. It did seem it took them more time to come down. We had a couple or three guys in my platoon who we knew were popping pills. Barbs were very addictive.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Something rang a bell so I looked it up. Barbiturates are not benzos. According to the googling I did, benzos have mostly replaced barbiturates. I don't know about benzos, but barbiturates can have more than one side effect. They can be like the soldier I described in Vietnam, or like one on Okinawa who fell down beating his body and screaming about the bugs eating him up. Some were more discerning and knowing what it took to get the high, only took that much. It did seem it took them more time to come down. We had a couple or three guys in my platoon who we knew were popping pills. Barbs were very addictive.

Yeah, for the most part benzos dont have that reaction, although every once in a while people react weirdly to them (for barbiturates its a combination of people reacting odd to the drug, and that if you take even slightly more than you want it can cauae something odd, for benzos its just if the person has a weird reaction to the drug in general). The sedative effect though is likely why they dont feel the pain response, so that should be true for benzos just like barbiturates.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Add barbiturates to the list. You may have seen one of my posts about the soldier in Vietnam who was pistol whipped and shot (EDIT)two times before he got 'tired" and sat down, telling the two MPs he was tired but when he had rested a bit, he was going to really beat them up.

Just absorbed this-thats crazy! I cant imagine continuing after being pistol whipped, never mind shot twice on top of that