Wednesday, October 9, 2019
I have had (numerous) debates in regards to the use of strikes being made upon an aggressor's arm(s) (and to their effectiveness and/or lack thereof). The typical argument made against them, is that the individual has done “whatever” training that included being repeatedly struck upon their arm's and “they” are no longer vulnerable to those (types of) strikes. They are implying that their training (whatever that may of been) has made them “immune” to any effects from those types of strikes.
Through that claim, they are then implying that they have negated any/all subliminal reactions made by their arm's (a pretty bold claim). “If” they have managed to destroy (all of) the nerve endings in their arms, then (maybe) this could be an accurate claim.
Personally, I've never encountered anyone for which this was an accurate claim (but I've only been practicing the arts for 50 years). I believe that their understanding of what's being attempted (with those types of strikes) is different than what's (actually) being attempted with their use.
Typically, the assumption being made is that the (struck) arm will not be able to continue being utilized. Though accurate for some, there is more often a hesitation for continued use (of the struck arm). It is additionally assumed that there are no additional motions being implemented (by the defender) in conjunction with the utilized strike being made upon the limb.
The “simplest” of these (arm) strikes, is delivered upon the bicep (of the striking arm). Although a common “straight” punch delivered to the bicep will effect most individual's, one made across the bicep has rarely failed to garner an effective result. The majority of doubter's assume that a strike upon the forearm is what is (always) being referred to. Oyata utilized those manner of strikes on a (very) regular basis as well. His strikes were never performed at the angle that the receiver (assumed) them to be done at (thus they were unable to “brace for/absorb” the delivered strike).
Whether the individual (who has had their arm struck) believes it (or not), they will then utilize that arm differently than prior to it's being struck. Those that argue against striking the arm, are inclined to focus on the fact that they are “still” able to use the (struck) arm. Which is (typically) accurate, they just won't be using as effectively as prior to it's being struck (whether for striking or grabbing with it).
Detractor's are (too) focused on the fact that the struck arm isn't “hanging loosely at their side” (as if that's the only way it can be disabled).
By creating that condition, the student has changed how the aggressor can/will implement their assault (regardless of how subtle that change may be). It will effect what (and how) continued motions will be implemented. A singular impact is (rarely) something that “defeats” an aggressor (from continuing), but multiple strikes of this manor will cause an aggressor to “rethink” their (original) strategy for accomplishing their goal.
The defender's strategy should not be “how do I defeat the aggressor”, but “how do I prevent them from being able to continue”. Student's are inclined to focus (only) on how to defeat an aggressor (instead of being able to prevent being injured by one). Unless the student can prevent being injured, being able to defeat them becomes moot. With training, those goals can be combined but must (at least initially) be prioritized.
Implementing strikes upon an aggressor's arm's is a (more easily) achieved goal than focusing on causing sufficient (over-all) injury to an aggressor. It isn't the “one-punch” defeat that most student's (at least initially) are seeking, but it is a more realistic/practical defensive approach that (most) student's can (more easily) achieve.
Using this strategy one need never move (closer) into the range necessary to impact the aggressor's head/body (which is how most people assume an aggressor can, or has to be defeated). If/when the defender moves close enough to strike the aggressor, that means they are close enough to be hit by them as well.
By focusing on striking the aggressor's arm's, the student can remain beyond the aggressor's range to be struck (or grabbed) by them. Although it is common for people to “deny” that grab's occur (and thus use it as an excuse for “tuite” not being practical) this tactic creates those probabilities. The student will create those situations from remaining beyond the aggressor's (striking) range.