Compliance

Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by Paul_D, Apr 26, 2017.

  1. Paul_D

    Paul_D Master Black Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    England
    Some thoughts on compliance, for no other reason than I have time enough to put them down, and it is always helpful to read the thoughts of others (until we get to page three by which time everyone is arguing about a different offshoot topic of course). I will be reading/liking comments, but probably won't be be relying to anyone:-

    The argument is often put forward that locks/throws practised only with a complaint Uke cannot be made to work in a live situation (by live situation, I mean self protection from non consensual criminal violence. Not “fighting” i.e. two trained martial artists competing in a sporting environment, or two idiots brawling in the street) . Before we go into that though, let us look at some levels of complicity.

    Beginner
    Uke is not only complaint, but actively places themselves into the correct position for a technique to work. This is to enable the beginner to learn what position their partner needs to be in for a given technique to be effective. At this stage Tori is also learning how to control their own body and learning to position themselves correctly.

    Intermediate
    Uke no longer positions themselves into the required position, this is now left to Tori. However, Tori does not yet posses the required level of skill to manoeuvre a resisting open into the correct position, so uke does not resist.

    Advanced
    Tori is now at a stage where they are proficient enough at the technique, controlling their own body, and fully understand the principals. At this point Uke can add resistance. Practising against resistance will improve Tori’s technique and allow them to reach a higher level of proficiency.

    Arguing however that a given lock/throw will only work once the student has reached an advanced level is to miss an important point. That throws/locks are not intended to be used isolation, i.e. without any proceeding atemi necessary to set them up.

    Once you are at the stage during a live situation were there is no other alternative other than to strike pre-emptively*, if during the course of your striking a throw or lock presents itself, then there is of course the option to take it

    The problem is that some styles either acknowledge the strikes are there, but don’t practice them when practising throws/locks, or have removed the strikes completely form their system (in which case the student would of course need to practice atemi extra curricularly). Both with the intention of allowing the student to fully focus on the technique at hand. The means when others see the techniques, sans atemi, they conclude “it won’t work”.

    If then you have been on the receiving end of one or more preemptive strikes the question of your compliance is now somewhat mute in a live situation (as few criminals are highly trained highly skied martial artists conditioned to taking blows from their victims). If you are still not convinced ask your training partner to punch you in the throat and then apply (insert name of technique here). See if you can successfully counter or resist.

    Geoff Thompson sums this up very well by saying that he trains for the first shot, as that’s all he needs. Not meaning he is necessarily going to end it with one punch, but that as it will be delivered without warning the techniques that will follow the first punch will be continued to be delivered without respite. Meaning you will never be afforded the luxury of the opportunity to resist.

    Iain Abernethy also has a great saying "The blow before the throw".

    *hence we are not talking about people who get into an argument and then agree to fight in the street or pub car park. As pre-emption is not possible when you start by square off against each other from fighting distance
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. drop bear

    drop bear Sr. Grandmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    18,097
    Likes Received:
    4,446
    Trophy Points:
    308
    To be a grappler in an environment with strikes you pretty much have to be able to strike.

    The problem you have is if your striking is sub par you do the rhonda.



    Otherwise if you swing for the rafters. And they swing for the rafters. At least one of you will get knocked out. The issue is it leaves the outcom a lot mre to chance than ability.
     
  3. marques

    marques Master Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Essex, UK
    Yes, locks/throws are not simple and are likely to fail. Furthermore, some crazy guys are willing to sacrifice some articulation or ignore some serious damage in order to achieve their objectives or avoid jail or... they are just crazy.

    BUT you know how an untrained guy reacts to it. And you can use it to your advantage. If the reaction surprises you, be careful with that guy... :cool:

    PS: Do you think punches are more effective? How many punches per KO? Is it within self defence boundaries for any given situation?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  4. jobo

    jobo Grandmaster

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2017
    Messages:
    6,923
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    if youve got a free punch, thrown at you behest then you should be able to knock the guy over, and if not over at least scramble his brains for 10 seconds. People so punched. Will do what a boxer does, which is grab hold of you and try and wrestle whilst he recovers. That's good, if you are up on your locks and throws, not so if your not and he is bigger than you. In which case you should have moved out of range. If your punch doesn't do that, there is something wrong with your punch123
     

Share This Page