Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Should Applying a Joint-Lock, Be Considered a Risk?

  Having recently read an (basically) “anti-” Joint-Lock article, I was amazed by the numerous assumptions that were being made in their regard. In many circles, Tuite would be regarded as being (only) "joint"-locks. Though being an inaccurate assessment, those that don't know the difference tend to lump it into that category. 
 Most amazingly (to myself anyway) was the general assumption being made, that any effective application of a joint-lock was made (either) by luck, or by accident.
 For me, this represents the opinion of someone who only has limited experience, or limited knowledge in regards to the use and/or application of joint-locks. A “book” author (who was being quoted numerous times in the article I read) made the most telling of the assumptions.
  He stated that joint-locks will either occur unexpectedly, and/or by chance (if my view of a confrontation was as limited as this individuals, then I suppose that I might be that pessimistic as well).
IMO, If/when the user (only) expects, and trains for a joint-lock to (only) be used as a response to an aggression, then the user is limiting the potential of the techniques application.
  He additionally presented the assumptions, that certain people, whether under the influence of alcohol/drugs, fueled by adrenaline and/or individual's that are mentally unstable can (appear to) be immune to the effects of the joint-lock's application. Though presenting no examples of these instances, any of those occurrences, would be examples of/for techniques that should be expunged from one's training regiment and/or the "user" requires a greater amount of practice (before attempting to implement them).
  I have utilized joint-locks on individual's (both male, and female) that fell into each of those category’s (and have yet to of experienced a technique failure). What I have found/experienced, is the improper application of a technique (which is not an example of technique failure, only of miss-application).
  They further speculated, that anyone who was able to utilize one during a confrontation, was (only?) “Lucky”. To myself, this is the fall-back position/argument for the ignorant and inexperienced.
 The fact that some individual and/or group of doof's, makes a claim, does not make it a true or even accurate statement (much less an assessment for a whole category of techniques).
The vast majority of these (so-called) “experts”, are only considered to be such, because of their own, or the opinions of others who are equally ignorant of the application of the subject matter.
  From the quotes made from this individual, are opinions from several (20?) years ago. Numerous statements made, were of/from outdated and discarded (LE) training methods (because they were proven to be inaccurate and/or incorrect).
  To myself, the additional opinions of “ reality-based self protection instructors” is not a ringing endorsement of validity (and IMO, lean toward the validating the opposite opinion, LOL).
  One of the quote's from the article “Their view boils down to this: You don't go into a fight planning on using a joint lock. Their perspective is that anybody lucky enough to have successfully used a joint lock in a real fight is just that...just plain lucky   
  Evidently I need to be going to the local casino's, because (according to them) I've been unnaturally lucky, LOL.
  Their arguments about the technique's learning curve is somewhat justified. Those technique's do require a great deal of practice. If your wanting to be one of those 1-year “wonder dan's”, you won't be worth a crap at using them. So for that crowd (which is who I'm surmising constitutes the vast majority of these nay-sayer's) They won't be effective or even applicable (because those person's can't perform the technique correctly to begin with). 
  The argument that “some people simply don't feel pain when they are on drugs or experiencing an adrenaline-induced rage” is just an example of the poor choice of technique's being used by these idiots. If your technique's are based upon “pain-compliance” (to begin with) your not training for/with the right techniques (or your doing yours wrong).
  A correctly applied technique should not be based upon any pain-induced reaction. Techniques that should be considered effective, will be those that create a neurological/physical reaction, that will effect the operation of that joint/limb, regardless of the conscious mind's ability to recognize that effect. “Pain”, is only an additional benefit.
  The argument against “fine-motor control” is equally ridiculous, FMC, is a matter of practice (repetitive practice made by the subject). This ability is directly related to the amount of time spent by the individual practicing the involved techniques. 
  They additionally made some obscure argument about having to be close to the opponent (in order to use them), well....No shit!...(that complaint had me totally confused, if there were supposed to be a point to that observation, they didn't relate it).
  I believe their biggest mistake (of many), was in assuming that the defender had to (first?) grab the assailant. As with the majority of their arguments, If you take/use their (presumed) application method as being the only one (or that it's even correct), then you (almost) have to come to the same conclusions that they did. 
  I guess more than anything, I disagree with their assumptions of how/why the use/application of the technique's are being made. I noticed that they (emphatically) insisted that strikes “had” to be used in conjunction with the technique's application (usually just prior to application).
  It was stated that this was for “disorientating” purposes (?). Evidently, they are so incompetent with the application of their technique's, that they require that the subject be “dazed” before their application? (and if they are “dazed”, wouldn't that negate much of the reason for the technique's application?).
  A lot of what they presented for an “argument” (against) their use and/or applicability, is based around the (presumed)
complexity of the technique's application. If it were a newly learned technique, this may very well be a relevant factor, but for the experienced practitioner, performing a repeatedly practiced technique, not so much.
  As I reviewed the article, I decided it matched all of the quicky karate school requirements (for technique relativity). If it can't be taught and learned in 6 weeks, then it must be too complicated to work. For that crowd, their probably right and there's no point to them learning those technique's.
  They should just leave those alone, and let the Grown-up's worry about using them.

No comments: