Hi Guys-
In ninjitsu we treat nearly all of our locks, submissions and throwing techniques as breaks. You can certainly throw or submit with a joint manipulation, but those are secondary effects. The only time you would just lock someone up is to control them because you don't want to hurt them.
I am curious if all arts have a similar focus? If not, do the origins of these arts? Obviously joint-manipulations must be toned down in our mordern world so as not to bring the furry of law down on you. But what about in the old days of mass battle against armored opponents? Were joint locks intended to be locks or breaks back then? If you were to apply a "wrist twist" throw on the battlefield, would you take it a small step further and break the wrist while you take the assailant to the ground?
If it is true that joint-manipulations were originally meant as breaks and not just locks or takedowns, then what does that say about modern training? If we tone down the brutality of the arts that we practice, do we inhibit our ability to develop a true combat mindset?
-Kyle
Joint manipulations are breaks.
Moderator: Available
Joint manipulations are breaks.
Kyle,
From a koryu Jujutsu perspective, yes. The restraining aspect of the joint locks are semi-modern additions. Probably dating from the transition period where the buke class took over "peace keeping" duties. In our kata I can only think of one pure restraint lock- it requires no hands and is only held so that you can disarm your opponent and drive his own sword into the back of his neck.
The Good Doctor (tm) is right. Weapons are the key. The Japanese unarmed arts were auxillary. Training for the odd moment when you had lost (broken, dropped, wedged in somebody's skull) your primary weapon and were facing armed, armored and multiple opponents. The resultimg systems tended to be very quick and effective. (Or "gut-turning brutal" to quote a dojo spectator).
Rory
From a koryu Jujutsu perspective, yes. The restraining aspect of the joint locks are semi-modern additions. Probably dating from the transition period where the buke class took over "peace keeping" duties. In our kata I can only think of one pure restraint lock- it requires no hands and is only held so that you can disarm your opponent and drive his own sword into the back of his neck.
The Good Doctor (tm) is right. Weapons are the key. The Japanese unarmed arts were auxillary. Training for the odd moment when you had lost (broken, dropped, wedged in somebody's skull) your primary weapon and were facing armed, armored and multiple opponents. The resultimg systems tended to be very quick and effective. (Or "gut-turning brutal" to quote a dojo spectator).
Rory
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Joint manipulations are breaks.
Kyle
Toning down techniques is possibly more training device and less an act of kindness to aggresor. Only in aikido have I heard the philosophy of developing skills so overwhelming than you can thwart an attack without hurting the opponent (Level 4 fighting). There it is more a Platonic ideal and less a practical issue.
In order to internalize a technique so that it is yours when the time comes, you need to practice, practice, practice. Since few of us own slaves that we can slaughter for practice, then we are left to use each others as proxies for what we really mean to do. Even in class sparring of striking and kicking styles, we use rules and equipment to make it possible to practice another day. The most brutal styles of jujutsu do not rip joints during training.
And if you are going to practice a joint break, you then have two ways to do it. One is to do the lock and stop short of actually tearing ligaments (allow the person to tap out with pain). Another way is to just convert it to a throw. Either way, you aren't quite doing the real thing.
- Bill
Toning down techniques is possibly more training device and less an act of kindness to aggresor. Only in aikido have I heard the philosophy of developing skills so overwhelming than you can thwart an attack without hurting the opponent (Level 4 fighting). There it is more a Platonic ideal and less a practical issue.
In order to internalize a technique so that it is yours when the time comes, you need to practice, practice, practice. Since few of us own slaves that we can slaughter for practice, then we are left to use each others as proxies for what we really mean to do. Even in class sparring of striking and kicking styles, we use rules and equipment to make it possible to practice another day. The most brutal styles of jujutsu do not rip joints during training.
And if you are going to practice a joint break, you then have two ways to do it. One is to do the lock and stop short of actually tearing ligaments (allow the person to tap out with pain). Another way is to just convert it to a throw. Either way, you aren't quite doing the real thing.
- Bill
Joint manipulations are breaks.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:
Kyle
And if you are going to practice a joint break, you then have two ways to do it. One is to do the lock and stop short of actually tearing ligaments (allow the person to tap out with pain). Another way is to just convert it to a throw. Either way, you aren't quite doing the real thing.
- Bill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all respect: three ways. Inherent in what Glasheen-Sensei said and undoubtedly meant is there are two ways to practice a joint break with a live partner.
Without a partner one can apply full pressure in pantomime/kata/hyung/kuen practice or to a representational training aid, e.g., a mook jong (Chinese wooden man). This allows you to use real power and the real movement, but subtracts the timing and proximity you gain with a partner.
And actually breaking your partners' limbs gets you talked about and discourages new partners....
(But it was only a finger...!)
student
[This message has been edited by student (edited May 05, 2000).]
Kyle
And if you are going to practice a joint break, you then have two ways to do it. One is to do the lock and stop short of actually tearing ligaments (allow the person to tap out with pain). Another way is to just convert it to a throw. Either way, you aren't quite doing the real thing.
- Bill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With all respect: three ways. Inherent in what Glasheen-Sensei said and undoubtedly meant is there are two ways to practice a joint break with a live partner.
Without a partner one can apply full pressure in pantomime/kata/hyung/kuen practice or to a representational training aid, e.g., a mook jong (Chinese wooden man). This allows you to use real power and the real movement, but subtracts the timing and proximity you gain with a partner.
And actually breaking your partners' limbs gets you talked about and discourages new partners....
(But it was only a finger...!)student
[This message has been edited by student (edited May 05, 2000).]
Joint manipulations are breaks.
Doctor X:
Good point. Thanks for the input.
Bill Sensei:
I fully agree with you, but I think I failed in communicating my thoughts. Let me give it another stab.
I believe in restraining techniques for practice purposes. Joint-locks can be fooling though because even the restrained locks can seem very effective in dojo practice. I am concerned with the possibility that there are a lot of practioners that don't realize that the techniques they are practicing are actually restrained. They may not ever know that the techniques were intended as breaks and turned into locks for the purpose of the dojo or other reasons discussed by RA Miller.
Do you agree that it could be dangerous to let a student believe that their joint locks are meant to be employed as joint locks on the street. Do any of you even agree that joint locks should be treated as breaks?
-Kyle
Good point. Thanks for the input.
Bill Sensei:
I fully agree with you, but I think I failed in communicating my thoughts. Let me give it another stab.
I believe in restraining techniques for practice purposes. Joint-locks can be fooling though because even the restrained locks can seem very effective in dojo practice. I am concerned with the possibility that there are a lot of practioners that don't realize that the techniques they are practicing are actually restrained. They may not ever know that the techniques were intended as breaks and turned into locks for the purpose of the dojo or other reasons discussed by RA Miller.
Do you agree that it could be dangerous to let a student believe that their joint locks are meant to be employed as joint locks on the street. Do any of you even agree that joint locks should be treated as breaks?
-Kyle
