3 Stages of Pain Compliance

D

Deleted member 39746

Guest
You can always negotiate. It doesn't really cost you anything.

Time for talking is over if someone is trying to put you in a joint lock. For both parties really.

@skribs Or i could have just been exaggerating my usage of words to make a point, or chose those words to make a point. Doesn't really prove or disprove anything. (i haven't been doing any grappling to just get that out of the way)
 

wab25

Master Black Belt
Joined
Sep 22, 2017
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
1,229
I would personally consider retaliation in the same bracket as resistance. If you want to get out of the hold you need to put a little force into it which could be deemed retaliation.
Putting a little force into a proper joint lock, puts that force directly into the lock itself. I have seen severe injuries to people trying to do this. The best way out of a joint lock is to relax and go with it, try to get a little ahead of it... so as to release the lock.

(i haven't been doing any grappling to just get that out of the way)
That is apparent in your responses.

Time for talking is over if someone is trying to put you in a joint lock. For both parties really.
Quite the opposite. If I am going for a joint lock, it is because I have decided for whatever reason, I do not want to cause severe injury or loss of consciousness. I want to control the other person and escort them out, put them in restraints, ask them to reconsider... whatever. If I want to cause injury or loss of consciousness, then any joint lock would be merely transitory, helping me to gain the position necessary to choke / knock out the other guy.

Joint locks are great for getting people to comply with commands. If the person is beyond being able to comply, then joint locks are a waste of time, unless they are used to transition to a better position or to actually destroy that joint quickly.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,514
Location
Manchester UK
Ok, so ive never been taught this directly per say but it seems to hold up well and im interested in how others learned/were taught about it? And if you have similar/unique examples.

0. Resistance
1. Compliance - to ease the pain they move how and were you want them
(generally a joint lock but not necessarily)
2. Retaliation - youve applied too much force, and they pain is so great they dont care about, and fight back
3. The Breaking Point - what ever your tugging, pushing, etc. breaks, snaps, etc. and they cant use it. they want to hold the area and usually comply to other force.

EX1
1. Ive demonstrated and felt a common hammer lock (like what police use) and have made people and been made to move where is pushed
2. Ive demonstrated and felt extra pressure and the urge and motion to want to retaliate, swing, kick, etc.
3. Ive NOT had the shoulder dislocated or done it to anyone but is painful, and awkward so i hear

EX2
1. Ive used and felt nose pull throws to their full effectiveness
2. Ive been hit in the nose (strikes and hard grappling bumps) that make me want to fight back harder
3. Ive broken someones nose and seen how quick people stop
the three stages of pain compliance are,, ow, oooooowwwwww and ******* **** that hurts
 
D

Deleted member 39746

Guest
Quite the opposite.

You may not wish to kill them, but as soon as force is brought out, you need to actively stop it to stop it. Not saying you cant talk while fighting* (not really talk, i don't think many people can focus that well on both to formulate good conversations) but you need to stop the force or apply it then take the following actions you deem fit. (if you are either the one being on the receiving end of a joint lock or giving one) The usage of talk in context implies no force needing to be resisted or applied. After all are you really talking your way out of it, if you have got someone in a choke hold and choking them while telling them to "stop"?

The latter part kind of enthisises the need to stop the joint lock attempt and gain distance before you take either further action offensively, decide to try and talk them down or run off. So the person applying it cannot break the joint, get into another position you dont wish them to have for what ever reason.

If any of that needs elaborating or clarifying just tell me, reading back i can see its somewhat jumbly, just cant fix it without loosing the points i was trying to make. Woes of having a bad typing structure. :p

Just to reiterate the point was, you need to apply the force or resist it before you can go back into the talking stage if you deem that as your follow up action. If you are on the receiving end its more vital to stop the attempt to put you in said position of vulnerability. I also dont disagree the validity of the verbal component but when actually fighting, you need to actually apply the physical or fight it off to re enforce the verbal when it comes to it. Thats the point i tried to make at the * before i broke the structure to fit it in. The usage of words can help you sometimes, not all the time though, it can also get third parties in on your side if its a extended fight.


I also had no real comment on how to actually grapple, my usage of words was for literary effect. i would personally just punch what ever i can punch to try and break out of it as that's the only method i can do.
 

wab25

Master Black Belt
Joined
Sep 22, 2017
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
1,229
You may not wish to kill them, but as soon as force is brought out, you need to actively stop it to stop it.
No one has died from a wrist lock, elbow lock, or other come along hold. They may get spiral fractures, torn ligaments or dislocated joints... but not killed.

Not saying you cant talk while fighting* (not really talk, i don't think many people can focus that well on both to formulate good conversations) but you need to stop the force or apply it then take the following actions you deem fit. (if you are either the one being on the receiving end of a joint lock or giving one) The usage of talk in context implies no force needing to be resisted or applied. After all are you really talking your way out of it, if you have got someone in a choke hold and choking them while telling them to "stop"?
You need to watch a few episodes of Cops. They give very specific instructions to the bad guys, as they are trying to put the cuffs on. Some listen some don't. Some resist until the officer gets him down and his arms in a compromising position, then they become very compliant. Others require a dog pile. But every time, clear instructions are being given to the guy resisting.

Go to a bar, and start making a fuss. Every bouncer I have ever seen, will give you plenty of advice as they man handle you out the door, about when you can return. They do this while applying their come along holds and locks. This talking, giving instruction and looking for compliance is not only possible, but happens all the time.

The latter part kind of enthisises the need to stop the joint lock attempt and gain distance before you take either further action offensively
Sorry, but you should really get some experience before discussing this stuff. You would use the joint lock to break their structure and close distance, in order to take further action... not make more distance.

Just to reiterate the point was, you need to apply the force or resist it before you can go back into the talking stage if you deem that as your follow up action.
Just reiterating that this point in incorrect.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
Time for talking is over if someone is trying to put you in a joint lock. For both parties really.

@skribs Or i could have just been exaggerating my usage of words to make a point, or chose those words to make a point. Doesn't really prove or disprove anything. (i haven't been doing any grappling to just get that out of the way)

Please I have chatted with guys I have been choking.
 

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
2,517
You may not wish to kill them, but as soon as force is brought out, you need to actively stop it to stop it. Not saying you cant talk while fighting* (not really talk, i don't think many people can focus that well on both to formulate good conversations) but you need to stop the force or apply it then take the following actions you deem fit. (if you are either the one being on the receiving end of a joint lock or giving one) The usage of talk in context implies no force needing to be resisted or applied. After all are you really talking your way out of it, if you have got someone in a choke hold and choking them while telling them to "stop"?

The latter part kind of enthisises the need to stop the joint lock attempt and gain distance before you take either further action offensively, decide to try and talk them down or run off. So the person applying it cannot break the joint, get into another position you dont wish them to have for what ever reason.

If any of that needs elaborating or clarifying just tell me, reading back i can see its somewhat jumbly, just cant fix it without loosing the points i was trying to make. Woes of having a bad typing structure. :p

Just to reiterate the point was, you need to apply the force or resist it before you can go back into the talking stage if you deem that as your follow up action. If you are on the receiving end its more vital to stop the attempt to put you in said position of vulnerability. I also dont disagree the validity of the verbal component but when actually fighting, you need to actually apply the physical or fight it off to re enforce the verbal when it comes to it. Thats the point i tried to make at the * before i broke the structure to fit it in. The usage of words can help you sometimes, not all the time though, it can also get third parties in on your side if its a extended fight.


I also had no real comment on how to actually grapple, my usage of words was for literary effect. i would personally just punch what ever i can punch to try and break out of it as that's the only method i can do.

This reads like someone who read a bunch of articles and wrote a persuasive speech for speech class, but who has never had actual training in martial arts, self defense, or de-escalation.
 

dvcochran

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
7,047
Reaction score
2,297
Location
Southeast U.S.
You may not wish to kill them, but as soon as force is brought out, you need to actively stop it to stop it. Not saying you cant talk while fighting* (not really talk, i don't think many people can focus that well on both to formulate good conversations) but you need to stop the force or apply it then take the following actions you deem fit. (if you are either the one being on the receiving end of a joint lock or giving one) The usage of talk in context implies no force needing to be resisted or applied. After all are you really talking your way out of it, if you have got someone in a choke hold and choking them while telling them to "stop"?

The latter part kind of enthisises the need to stop the joint lock attempt and gain distance before you take either further action offensively, decide to try and talk them down or run off. So the person applying it cannot break the joint, get into another position you dont wish them to have for what ever reason.

If any of that needs elaborating or clarifying just tell me, reading back i can see its somewhat jumbly, just cant fix it without loosing the points i was trying to make. Woes of having a bad typing structure. :p

Just to reiterate the point was, you need to apply the force or resist it before you can go back into the talking stage if you deem that as your follow up action. If you are on the receiving end its more vital to stop the attempt to put you in said position of vulnerability. I also dont disagree the validity of the verbal component but when actually fighting, you need to actually apply the physical or fight it off to re enforce the verbal when it comes to it. Thats the point i tried to make at the * before i broke the structure to fit it in. The usage of words can help you sometimes, not all the time though, it can also get third parties in on your side if its a extended fight.


I also had no real comment on how to actually grapple, my usage of words was for literary effect. i would personally just punch what ever i can punch to try and break out of it as that's the only method i can do.

If I understand you line of thinking, you are saying that when sparring talking is inappropriate. But the conversation has migrated to joint locks/holds for defensive tactics and confining someone. For a number of reasons you have to talk to the person you are taking down. The least of which is trying to minimize injury. I remember times I was struggling with someone to get them in a position to cuff them. Often times their mind was altered and not working normally so verbal ques were very necessary. Usually have to repeat everything several times before they actually heard it. This is an example where the line of actually resisting gets really fine. They are juiced up and their mind is not working very well. You start cuffing them and their mind cannot process what is going on and responds with unexpected actions, not at all hearing what you are telling them to do. Then panic sets in and they get defensive, a natural response. It gets pretty grey sometimes identifying the line between resisting and just being drunk, stupid and defensive. Much like telling a 5 year old to pick up their toys.
 

punisher73

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
3,959
Reaction score
1,056
Just reading through the following responses, I think that there is a disconnect on what "force" is in some ways.

If you have had training in Law Enforcement/Corrections, your department or agency will have a "use of force continuum" in some way that defines the different levels of resistance and different levels of responses to control that resistance. The terms vary, but most are very similar conceptually. In all of the ones I have seen (haven't seen them all so if someone has experience with one that differs greatly, I would love to learn about it). Pain compliance and joint locks are used for the lower levels of force. They are NOT used when someone is actively trying to punch and kick you. BUT, verbal directions are always a part of everything we do in all levels of force.
 

CB Jones

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
3,938
Reaction score
2,013
Location
Saline
To achieve pain compliance....you must give them verbal instructions to comply to....without that....you just have pain.
 

CB Jones

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
3,938
Reaction score
2,013
Location
Saline
Just reading through the following responses, I think that there is a disconnect on what "force" is in some ways.

If you have had training in Law Enforcement/Corrections, your department or agency will have a "use of force continuum" in some way that defines the different levels of resistance and different levels of responses to control that resistance. The terms vary, but most are very similar conceptually. In all of the ones I have seen (haven't seen them all so if someone has experience with one that differs greatly, I would love to learn about it). Pain compliance and joint locks are used for the lower levels of force. They are NOT used when someone is actively trying to punch and kick you. BUT, verbal directions are always a part of everything we do in all levels of force.

I like to think of it as a tools in a toolbox. As the level of force rises you can use more tools along with the tools allowed for the lower threats levels.

Compliant - tools : verbal instructions, soft escort and restraint techniques

Passive Resistance - tools: add joint manipulation, takedowns, and strikes to extremities

Assaultive Resistance - tools: add strikes to all areas, chokes, baton strikes, oc spray, and taser

Lethal force - tools: deadly weapon
 

skribs

Grandmaster
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
7,446
Reaction score
2,517
To achieve pain compliance....you must give them verbal instructions to comply to....without that....you just have pain.

Not necessarily. The "don't grab me" could be implied.
 

Buka

Sr. Grandmaster
Staff member
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
12,952
Reaction score
10,444
Location
Maui
The three stages of pain compliance -

The first stage is where you're shown a new technique in the dojo, a pain compliance technique. This is called the "this is very cool, hurts, too, I felt it, what a great thing" phase

The second stage of a pain compliance technique is when you get to show it to someone else and you think, "this works pretty good" phase.

The third stage of a pain compliance technique is when you try and apply it to a crazy man who has never actually been to your dojo. This is called the "whoa, sheet!" phase.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
To achieve pain compliance....you must give them verbal instructions to comply to....without that....you just have pain.

Not always.

I might be trying to elicit a response. Say nose pressure would be a simple one I use for either bite defense or to get a choke sunk in.
 

CB Jones

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
3,938
Reaction score
2,013
Location
Saline
Not always.

I might be trying to elicit a response. Say nose pressure would be a simple one I use for either bite defense or to get a choke sunk in.

Is that compliance?

Compliance is the action of complying with a request or command.

I would characterize that as using pain to elicit a specific response.
 
Last edited:

Latest Discussions

Top