Your thoughts on these locks?

[drop bear]

There is more to martial arts than just fighting and the demonstration videos in this thread are clearly not related to competition or combat situations. It seems that a lot of responses here are quite basic in their viewpoint. Ones which are based on a limited competition/fighting outlook. I was just a little surprised to see responses about punching and kicking the guy in order to get the lock to work - oh well, you lives and you learns

Then what is that demonstration showing?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I was just a little surprised to see responses about punching and kicking the guy in order to get the lock to work - oh well, you lives and you learns

You can also use joint lock combo that move into opposite directions. When you apply force in one direction, if your opponent resists, you can borrow his resisting force, and lock him into the opposite direction. If you can add in the leg skill, that will be even better.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Are you talking about Dr Yang Jwing-Ming?

Yes for me.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Are you talking about Dr Yang Jwing-Ming?

Yes.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Yes for me.

Yes for me too.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Yes for me.

He lives 2 miles from me. We had tea and did some Chi na. One of my students mows his grass for lessons.

 

[Flying Crane]

You assert that punches and kicks are unnecessary, and then go on to say that those are base levels. I disagree with that because learning to punch and kick has quite a lot of nuance and variation and is not so base level. In my experience quite a lot of “martial artists” aren’t even able to make a proper fist. I don’t see a lot of people that can double up hooks on same side or jab with any real ability. It takes proper instruction and a LOT of practice to be any good at it. So why would you think it’s base level?

I think perhaps “base level” was an unfortunate choice of term, but I’ll share my take on it.

It seems to me that people often want to focus on effective use of something (in this case the wrist locks and joint manipulation) as quickly as possible, as opposed to taking the long view of developing the technique to its highest possible level before relying on something like a punch or kick to facilitate its use, which could be seen as a crutch. Destroying a joint with this type of technique is not difficult and does not take a high level of skill or precision, especially when using strikes to set it up. However, a more refined skill with such techniques gives greater choice in either controlling OR destroying the joint, and doing so with little effort. But the latter takes longer and requires a willingness to put off until later that immediate gratification of being able to “use” the technique in a fight, for the possibility of a greater payoff farther down the road.

In my brief tenure in aikido, it seems to me that the approach of aikido (in many cases) is to take the long view. It does not reject or oppose the use of strikes to set up the technique; in fact my sensei talks about it a lot. But in the practice, our focus is on developing a deep understanding of those locks and the subtle body mechanics and breaking down of the opponent’s structure that it takes in order for those techniques to function with a minimum of effort, without relying on a strike as a short-cut. We train with that idea in mind, which does mean that there is cooperation from Uke. If you develop the techniques and the subtle understandings to be able to do this, then in the chaos of combat, you are starting from a higher level and you have more elbow room to get functionality when the technique breaks down in that chaos (as all techniques almost inevitably do).

When you are faced with a situation where you need to actually destroy a joint and really ruin a person’s month, you can do that with great efficiency, and the use of some striking to set it up is embraced to meet that need. That is a difference between training and combat: in the former we need to protect our training partners when repeatedly working techniques that can injure in an instant if done carelessly; in the latter we want to strongly control or even destroy that joint, and that can be done with less precision and less control.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I think perhaps “base level” was an unfortunate choice of term, but I’ll share my take on it.

It seems to me that people often want to focus on effective use of something (in this case the wrist locks and joint manipulation) as quickly as possible, as opposed to taking the long view of developing the technique to its highest possible level before relying on something like a punch or kick to facilitate its use, which could be seen as a crutch. Destroying a joint with this type of technique is not difficult and does not take a high level of skill or precision, especially when using strikes to set it up. However, a more refined skill with such techniques gives greater choice in either controlling OR destroying the joint, and doing so with little effort. But the latter takes longer and requires a willingness to put off until later that immediate gratification of being able to “use” the technique in a fight, for the possibility of a greater payoff farther down the road.

In my brief tenure in aikido, it seems to me that the approach of aikido (in many cases) is to take the long view. It does not reject or oppose the use of strikes to set up the technique; in fact my sensei talks about it a lot. But in the practice, our focus is on developing a deep understanding of those locks and the subtle body mechanics and breaking down of the opponent’s structure that it takes in order for those techniques to function with a minimum of effort, without relying on a strike as a short-cut. We train with that idea in mind, which does mean that there is cooperation from Uke. If you develop the techniques and the subtle understandings to be able to do this, then in the chaos of combat, you are starting from a higher level and you have more elbow room to get functionality when the technique breaks down in that chaos (as all techniques almost inevitably do).

When you are faced with a situation where you need to actually destroy a joint and really ruin a person’s month, you can do that with great efficiency, and the use of some striking to set it up is embraced to meet that need. That is a difference between training and combat: in the former we need to protect our training partners when repeatedly working techniques that can injure in an instant if done carelessly; in the latter we want to strongly control or even destroy that joint, and that can be done with less precision and less control.

I am coming at this from a primarily striking background so I admit my bias there. I am unlikely to fight in all but most urgent circumstances these days. If I have to I’m nearly certain that I would use whatever was available. It sounded like he was of the opinion that striking was somehow on a lower level of art. Now I think he meant that hitting the lock without striking to set it up was on another level. That is different, but I’m not sure I agree either way. Again, it’s my bias playing out front here.

 

[Flying Crane]

I am coming at this from a primarily striking background so I admit my bias there. I am unlikely to fight in all but most urgent circumstances these days. If I have to I’m nearly certain that I would use whatever was available. It sounded like he was of the opinion that striking was somehow on a lower level of art. Now I think he meant that hitting the lock without striking to set it up was on another level. That is different, but I’m not sure I agree either way. Again, it’s my bias playing out front here.

I am also primarily a striker so I know where you are coming from. Hit-and-run, really. I’ve got some experience with the joint locks, they are in the kenpo I used to do but to be honest, I cannot claim to have ever gotten skilled with it. That stuff in the kenpo was, in my opinion, not as highly refined as it is in the aikido. That is what aikido specializes in, and we really focus on the details and the nuances. In the kenpo, to be honest I would say we just bulled our way through it with the idea of breaking the joint and not much thought for a more refined approach. A bit brutish really, but if all you wanted was effect, that could be enough. And the nature of the kenpo curriculum made it impossible to give it the attention it deserved to really get good at it. That was my experience. Perhaps some kenpo schools approach it differently and take the time to develop that skill.

But we need to look at the context of the comments. I believe @Taiji Rebel is coming from an aikido background, if I remember correctly. These types of techniques are the specialty of that method. So their vision of what is high-level skill will focus on that in as pure a form as possible, un-assisted by strikes, if possible. Someone from a striking background like you and I may not see it that way. Again, context.

My aikido sensei frequently talks about using a strike to set up the lock. However, so far in my training (under six months at this point) we have spent zero time in actually developing and drilling good punch mechanics. I do not know what his background is, in developing punches. Tibetan crane is a punching specialist method. We have a very specific method that we use in developing our punches, and should I ever need to punch someone, that training is what I would rely on. I am sure that in my practice and in my teaching, I am just as detail-focused in the methodology of developing a punch, as my aikido sensei is in developing our locking and throwing techniques. But I am there to learn aikido, not to try and “fix” their punching methods.

There is an argument to be made that perhaps in our own ways we are all unreasonably hyper-focused on the details of our respective methods. Maybe it all isn’t so necessary, if functional skill is what we want. But that is what makes us all passionate about what we do: that push to raise our methods to the highest level possible.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think perhaps “base level” was an unfortunate choice of term, but I’ll share my take on it.

It seems to me that people often want to focus on effective use of something (in this case the wrist locks and joint manipulation) as quickly as possible, as opposed to taking the long view of developing the technique to its highest possible level before relying on something like a punch or kick to facilitate its use, which could be seen as a crutch. Destroying a joint with this type of technique is not difficult and does not take a high level of skill or precision, especially when using strikes to set it up. However, a more refined skill with such techniques gives greater choice in either controlling OR destroying the joint, and doing so with little effort. But the latter takes longer and requires a willingness to put off until later that immediate gratification of being able to “use” the technique in a fight, for the possibility of a greater payoff farther down the road.

In my brief tenure in aikido, it seems to me that the approach of aikido (in many cases) is to take the long view. It does not reject or oppose the use of strikes to set up the technique; in fact my sensei talks about it a lot. But in the practice, our focus is on developing a deep understanding of those locks and the subtle body mechanics and breaking down of the opponent’s structure that it takes in order for those techniques to function with a minimum of effort, without relying on a strike as a short-cut. We train with that idea in mind, which does mean that there is cooperation from Uke. If you develop the techniques and the subtle understandings to be able to do this, then in the chaos of combat, you are starting from a higher level and you have more elbow room to get functionality when the technique breaks down in that chaos (as all techniques almost inevitably do).

When you are faced with a situation where you need to actually destroy a joint and really ruin a person’s month, you can do that with great efficiency, and the use of some striking to set it up is embraced to meet that need. That is a difference between training and combat: in the former we need to protect our training partners when repeatedly working techniques that can injure in an instant if done carelessly; in the latter we want to strongly control or even destroy that joint, and that can be done with less precision and less control.

I think the issue of control is a natural path in terms of keeping available training partners. It's not only found in wrist locks but also in striking and grappling in general. To me control is the beginning and not the end of learning locks or anything else.

Control is one thing application is another. For example.. There are times that a lock must must be released in order to protect a training partner who fails to realize that it is his eager resistance that will break destroy his joint. This is something you would do in training but not in a fight. We actually see this in MMA where the referee has to jump in before severe damage is caused to the joint. Sometimes he gets there in time and some times he doesn't.

In terms of traditional martial arts I've seen some take control to an extreme and techniques become in effective. For example, when point sparring becomes a game of advanced tag. The technique is great only in the context of point sparring but is ineffective in fighting.

Control must be defined and boundaries must be set in a way that doesn'tsacrifice the fighting effectiveness of a technique.

I'm all for control but within reason. sometimes the reality isn't so much about cont as it is about your training partner not destroying their own joints when a technique has been set in correctly.. just something to think about. My personal beliefs is that man of the traditional martial arts were born in an era where kindness and restraint weren't the norm. At least that is what history has shown.

Just something to think about. Training vs Fighting and the application of techniques.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Aikido is my preferred perspective. Kyokushin was my first art, quickly followed by boxing. Striking are key skills in these arts, but even Morehei Ueshiba claimed Aikido was 70% atemi. A taiji friend sent me the videos and asked my opinion. Being new to the forum, I thought it would be informative to share them with you. We all have our own drives and reasons for following martial practices. A lot of you seem to love the fighting aspects, always looking for the realistic applications. Exploring different ideas and techniques from various arts and angles inspires me. Aikido is the Way of Harmony. To strike is the most simplistic/instinctive approach we can take, but over time it is more fun to refine our skills and seek alternative methods. Of course, if competition fighting is your game then you will do whatever you need to do win, and win quick.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Looks very much like Aikido with a bit of Daito Ryu Aikijujitsu mixed in there. This must be the Chinese version of this stuff???

The very subtle movements remind me a lot of Yanagi-ryu, too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

over time it is more fun to refine our skills and seek alternative methods

This is something that has confused some folks about why some arts are the way they are. NGA shares a core with Ueshiba's Aikido, and we have many of the same tendencies - including that we tend to enjoy digging into areas that aren't necessarily the most efficient trainng path for developing fighting skill. Heck, most of aiki isn't efficient, as far as learning to fight, because it takes so long to do well. But, man, is it fun to learn and to dig ever deeper into!

 

[Flying Crane]

This is something that has confused some folks about why some arts are the way they are. NGA shares a core with Ueshiba's Aikido, and we have many of the same tendencies - including that we tend to enjoy digging into areas that aren't necessarily the most efficient trainng path for developing fighting skill. Heck, most of aiki isn't efficient, as far as learning to fight, because it takes so long to do well. But, man, is it fun to learn and to dig ever deeper into!

I will simply reiterate a point I made earlier: sometimes it can be worth it to put off the instant gratification for the potential for a greater payoff that comes later. Even when it isn’t strictly necessary if useful functionality is what someone wants.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think the issue of control is a natural path in terms of keeping available training partners. It's not only found in wrist locks but also in striking and grappling in general. To me control is the beginning and not the end of learning locks or anything else.

Control is one thing application is another. For example.. There are times that a lock must must be released in order to protect a training partner who fails to realize that it is his eager resistance that will break destroy his joint. This is something you would do in training but not in a fight. We actually see this in MMA where the referee has to jump in before severe damage is caused to the joint. Sometimes he gets there in time and some times he doesn't.

In terms of traditional martial arts I've seen some take control to an extreme and techniques become in effective. For example, when point sparring becomes a game of advanced tag. The technique is great only in the context of point sparring but is ineffective in fighting.

Control must be defined and boundaries must be set in a way that doesn'tsacrifice the fighting effectiveness of a technique.

I'm all for control but within reason. sometimes the reality isn't so much about cont as it is about your training partner not destroying their own joints when a technique has been set in correctly.. just something to think about. My personal beliefs is that man of the traditional martial arts were born in an era where kindness and restraint weren't the norm. At least that is what history has shown.

Just something to think about. Training vs Fighting and the application of techniques.

My experience with aikido so far indicates that the control in no way has a detrimental effect on the usefulness of the techniques. Granted, I am a beginner and most of my classmates are at my level or slightly ahead of me, with only a couple of Dan-grade people who help the class. But we apply the techniques slowly (which requires cooperation from uke) because we are working through the details, trying to get it all just right, which makes it effective. Especially at this stage in the game, working on a resisting uke will undermine the ability to develop those details and put them into play. This is not the time to be concerned with whether or not our application is “realistic” or whether we can apply them on a “resisting” enemy. That comes later.

At the same time, once the technique is properly applied it only takes a little more effort before they can become destructive in an instant and that is where the beginners lack experience to recognize when they have reached that danger point. So control is emphasized, and that means working slowly and cooperatively. If uke tried to up the ante at this point, it creates an unnecessary risk of danger and injury because then a beginner student applies greater pressure and a joint can easily pop.

All things in their own time. I have seen (and felt) our Dan-grade members apply this stuff much more quickly and with great authority. When our head sensei does this stuff on me, it is like trying to resist the tide. He is really powerful but it is because he has excellent timing and precision with the details and he breaks my structure which makes me vulnerable to the technique, all the while he uses minimal effort.

The ability to reach that kind of level comes from long study of the details, not from rushing into sparring as quickly as possible with the desire to prove to oneself that we can use the technique. As I said earlier, it isn’t terribly difficult to use this stuff to injure someone, but at that level there is more application of brute force because the techniques have not been refined beyond that level. If one is satisfied with that, then have at it. But aikido typically strives to move beyond that and refine and develop the techniques, striving for effortless application. It is a gradual process that cannot be rushed if you want to move beyond a baseline level of functionality.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The video is kind of interesting if you understand what's actually being shown.

The gentleman on the left understands the techniques well enough that he is able to allow his partner to get most of the way into the wristlocks and make some very subtle micro adjustments which prevent them from working. The person on the right only understands the basic shape of the locks and so doesn't have the sensitivity to feel how to counter the counters. Contrariwise, when the guy on the left applies the techniques, he understands the subtleties of directing the force exactly where it needs to go.

The claim that one method is "mechanical" while the other uses "energy" is misleading. It's all mechanical. But referring to the more precise version as applying "energy" may be an accurate description of how the difference subjectively feels to the practitioner. Sometimes when you learn to make the subtle adjustments necessary to apply or defeat a technique, you just feel it kinesthetically and it takes additional thought and analysis to break down exactly what the mechanical differences are. Not everyone is skilled at or has the inclination for that sort of explicit analysis.

From a teaching standpoint, it's good to be able to analytically break down the mechanical details but it's also good to be able to describe the internal sensation (i.e. "energy") associated with those details, since some students will grasp it better one way than the other.

I can sort of do the same counters that the instructor was demonstrating, but I wouldn't try demoing them against anyone who was really strong or particularly skilled in the locks, because my wrists are both arthritic and have bone spurs, so my margin for error before the pain kicks in is pretty small. I might use the same principles to try escaping the lock if someone tries one on me in sparring, but my wrists just aren't healthy enough to hang out indefinitely in a compromised position while someone cranks on them.

As far as the techniques themselves, I'd say that they're valid but very situational. I could see them used in a bouncing/LEO/CO context as a sort of grappling "sucker punch" against a subject who is non-compliant or who is pre-fight posturing but hasn't started actually swinging yet. However in that case there are a number of macro adjustments (getting offline, disrupting the opponent's base and structure, etc) which are more important than the almost invisible micro adjustments.

In an actual fight or sparring match with any halfway competent opponent who is actively attacking, you are unlikely to complete any of those locks. However sometimes the opportunity presents itself to use the threat of the lock to force a reaction, which you can use to improve your position. I don't know that those opportunities come up often enough to make it worth devoting a lot of time to training the locks from a min/max perspective, but it's an interesting option to explore.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When our head sensei does this stuff on me, it is like trying to resist the tide. He is really powerful but it is because he has excellent timing and precision with the details and he breaks my structure which makes me vulnerable to the technique, all the while he uses minimal effort.

In the context of what? Fighting or doing Aikido.

I think it's important to determine what is being controlled and the context that it is being controlled. I always speak of control in the context of fighting so that there is no confusion. Control in the context of push hands is not the same as the control required in fighting.

If I were to discuss my Tai Chi practice then the meaning of control would be different and centered more on Push Hands.

At the same time, once the technique is properly applied it only takes a little more effort before they can become destructive in an instan

This is by design of the technique. It is only natural for it to do so. This is why control in context of fighting is need. So that the person applying the lock may realize the limit even if the the defender of the lock doesn't realize the limit (also the other way around).

 

[marvin8]

Martial Arts Journey
Jan 16, 2019

After training MMA intensively for 3 months I've finally found an Aikido technique which works in MMA and now is used even by my coaches. This Aikido technique is called Aikido Koteageshi and in MMA I use it when my sparring partner throws a one two.

 

[Flying Crane]

In the context of what? Fighting or doing Aikido.

I have to read this question as your statement that aikido is not functional in fighting. Is that what you believe?

I think it's important to determine what is being controlled and the context that it is being controlled. I always speak of control in the context of fighting so that there is no confusion. Control in the context of push hands is not the same as the control required in fighting.

If I were to discuss my Tai Chi practice then the meaning of control would be different and centered more on Push Hands.


This is by design of the technique. It is only natural for it to do so. This is why control in context of fighting is need. So that the person applying the lock may realize the limit even if the the defender of the lock doesn't realize the limit (also the other way around).

I am not following what your message is in the rest of this.

 

[Flying Crane]

Martial Arts Journey
Jan 16, 2019

After training MMA intensively for 3 months I've finally found an Aikido technique which works in MMA and now is used even by my coaches. This Aikido technique is called Aikido Koteageshi and in MMA I use it when my sparring partner throws a one two.

Is that something that validates aikido, in your opinion? That you can find a place for an “aikido technique” within MMA?

I’ll be honest about my own opinion: whether or not there is a place for it in MMA means absolutely nothing to me. MMA is not the yardstick against which all martial arts need to be measured. MMA is what it is, other things are what they are, context and purpose can often be very different and there can also be some overlap. None of that means anything one way or the other.