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.
