Wednesday, March 23, 2011

If Applying Control and Submission Technique's

  One of the more common critique's that I've heard (about how/what I teach in my classes) is in regards to placing an aggressor/uke in a submission hold/position (at the conclusion of an altercation). First off, I find this to be an odd reaction. Why should doing so seem to be detrimental?
Submission's are situational, you may not be able to utilize them in every circumstance. There are situation's that would make them completely impractical, but for the common/average altercation, you aren't dealing with someone trying to kill you (despite the hype promoted by the majority of martial arts advertisements).

  I consistently refer reader's to their local law enforcement reports (most of which can be located “on-line”). If one looks at these reports, (on average, across the country ie. USA, LOL) serious crime (murder, rape etc.) has been dropping (steadily) since the mid-90's (some will argue the mid-80's). I encourage individual's to check their own local reports to confirm/repute this (for their local).

  When one realizes that the majority of situations are not going to be life-threatening, you (hopefully, LOL) will realize that you won't be able to cause/create serious injury to an aggressor (over what amounts to being a social altercation). These will often amount to misdemeanor charges being filed (against possibly either/both involved individual's). Beyond the involved parties filing any charges, the city/state may file those charges (ie. Disturbing the peace, battery etc.) against (either/both of) the involved parties. This could (easily) happen despite that neither you or the (original) aggressor choosing to file any charges. If/when your actions have been deemed excessive (for the situation), you may very well have some expensive bills/fines to be paid. Causing and/or creating the most damage (to your opponent) is not always the most practical conclusion to a (minor) altercation.

  When one evaluates the degree of difficulty involved with implementing a conclusion/end to an altercation, the easiest is to cause/create physical injury/damage to an aggressor. The most difficult is to nullify an aggressor without causing injury to them (while protecting yourself also). In the classes we teach, we tend to practice techniques on the most challenging level (of implementing those techniques).
  This would dictate that we have our student's work on submission/restraint techniques (to conclude an altercation). I (regularly) have individual's tell me that they wouldn't even bother with attempting those types of techniques. I'm not always sure what telling me that is supposed to imply (though I can guess, LOL), or how I'm supposed to reply to it. Those that know me, are aware that I rarely restrain stating my opinion (if/when asked). When they make this statement, it (to myself) implies that they aren't concerned with learning/understanding the techniques, and only seek the easiest method for responding to an aggression. Which is fine, I just don't teach my classes on that level. Call it elitist or whatever you wish, but I believe that by being a martial artist/practitioner, there (should be) is an implied level of responsibility for one's actions. I feel it should be noted, (again) that those who know me, are aware that I don't fall into the touchy-feely kume-by-ya category. Despite that, I don't feel that (always) causing/creating un-necessary physical injury is (always) needed and/or required to bring a situation to a conclusion. The whole concept, of the macho martial artist turns my stomach. 

  To guide our student's on learning to control an aggressor, we begin with teaching the range-of-motion(ROM) of the bodies limbs. As I've previously stated here, the majority of this information, the student is already aware of. We simply demonstrate how to (effectively/safely) motion those limb's in the most efficient manner to placing the subject into a position of submission. This is useful information for (both) implementing tuite/combination techniques, and for effecting restraint/submission applications.

  We also provide information about the human anatomy (in individual categories). These include information about nerves, muscles, the skeletal system and the internal organ's. These are not (by any means) attempts to create medical experts, LOL. They are only to provide student awareness of anatomical considerations to/for applied techniques. This knowledge is utilized during the application of various manipulations/techniques.

  When you apply control techniques, they (usually) will inflict painful reactions (by the recipient). If the recipient is under the influence of some substance (be it drugs or alcohol), those reactions may be limited if they are only based upon pain compliance. The majority of our taught techniques are nerve based, which create physical reactions that (possibly)may not even be (or need to be) felt by the recipient. Additionally, the techniques that we utilize don't place the user in a vulnerable position (unlike the majority of the ground-fighting applications that are being promoted of late). The applications that we teach to our student's, place the user in a position that can be safely abandoned (if/when needed) to deal with alternative threats (ie. additional aggressor's).

  A lot of my teaching method revolves around the sense of feeling (through the physical feed-back) of the responses made by the recipient of the applied technique's. With (obviously) experience, one can/will reach the point where visually confirming reactions (of the recipient), isn't necessary. The user should become able to(both) apply the technique's, and apply the necessary correction's while (simultaneously) being able to maintain awareness of your surroundings and/or additional threats.

  Attaining this ability, is only possible from the repeated practice of the technique's (thereby becoming familiar with the common responses made by the recipient during the implementation of those technique's/motion's).

  I've received a (small) amount of flak, about not providing details of how much of what I write about is or should be done. As I've previously (in numerous posts) stated, it is not my intent to create/provide a training blog for student's of RyuTe. I don't believe in media instruction (regardless of the media utilized). Various media is useful for reference purposes, but sucks (IMO) for instructional purposes. RyuTe, is an art that the motion's will often have individual requirement's of application. This (obviously) can't be addressed via “video”. I'm (also) not interested in hearing argument's to the contrary (about how because of someone's vast experience {yawn}, they can adapt and/or understand how to make the necessary correction's to make those motions work). This isn't based upon some hubris on my part, it's based on my desire that the technique be done correctly, and the only way that is possible, is through 1st person interaction. When I describe a technique's application, it's only done so in a (very) general manner.

  We welcome anyone (with an interest) to attend one of our classes (yes, without charge, LOL). Anything that I write about here, can more easily, and in a shorter time-frame, be demonstrated in person without any misunderstanding of application (than can be done on this silly “blog”,LOL). 

No comments: