Many times the following has been seen and experienced. Two martial artists are sparring. They spar using strikes, clinch fighting, takedowns and ground fighting. There strikes are impressive, there clinching fighting is smooth as are there takedowns and they move from submission to submission incorporating locks to nearly every joint and a variety of chokes when on the ground. They seem to be experts in there field, except that not one can apply a lock of any type while standing. Why?
Well the reason why, is because of the fact that they are both experienced fighters. To be able to apply a lock (standing or on the ground) a few factors need to be addressed. Firstly the person being locked must not be able to move away from it. When standing, it is very hard to control an opponent from moving away. On the floor it is much easier especially if they are on there back or lying on there front. When standing, as soon as your opponent sees that you are going for a lock, he/she will quickly move away. On the ground your opponent may see that you are going for a lock but it may be nearly impossible for him/her to move from it, so there is more of a chance they shall be locked. Secondly, when standing, and after moving away from the intended lock, your opponent creates gaps and breaks the tight hold that is necessary for a lock to be applied. There must be leverage in order to apply a knee bar, arm locks or any other type of lock. Being very tight into your opponent is the only way to create this leverage. So when your opponent moves away from you, the leverage is lost and the lock will not be applied. Thirdly, being easier for your opponent to hit you when standing, than when on the ground, as you try to put on a lock from a standing position, your opponent can easily strike you with any limb available, and since you are trying to lock your opponent with one or both hands, your defence is weak. On the ground, your opponent may be in a position where it is impossible to strike effectively as a lock is being applied which makes it easier for you to apply it. This is not to say that locks have no place in standing situations, but they are much harder to apply. Against a trained opponent who may expect locks during sparring, then there is a small chance of pulling one off, against someone on the street with no fighting experience, it may be easier. Following up locks after a hard strike are good times to apply them as your opponent may be stunned from the strike, and his/her reflexes and attention might not be available to react to the lock. The bottom line is that practice is needed and experience of the best way to apply locks from standing positions is necessary to be able to pull them off.
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
Standing Locks, Effective or Not
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
On the subject of standing locks: I train ju-jutsu with a mix of elements from krav-maga, JKD, kali… and if you’re experienced and well-trained they work and are applicable given the right tactics. First of all: if someone knows how to lock properly you will be in a world of pain and if he decides to complete the lock you’ll end up in the hospital with a broken arm, wrist etcet.
Now locks are what I would call higher-order fighting in the sense that I takes alot more skill to pull off than for instance punching someone in the nose. That being said locking is not without limitations and you’ll have to create the right circumstances to pull them off: for one locking is far more effective a defence against grabs or chokes than against kicks or punches (which travel at a much higher velocity and generally requite less commitment thus leaving you with a much smaller window-of –opportunity to effectively engage and seize. Two: you need to set up your locks by using other techniques (punches, kicks), basically you need to stun or injure the attacker (taking his attention) thus giving you a second or two to apply the lock. Hence the concept of atemi or striking vital points in ju-jutsu.
It’s foolish and dangerous to attempt to lock before administering at least one punch or strike (preferably more), I’ve seen people do it but you’ll have to either be extremely fast or very Lucky to get away wit hit (the exception being breaking techniques which are not really locks but basically double strikes designed to hyperextend limbs).
Another important factor is flow: never rely on just one technique or lock to get the job done but be prepared to go from one lock to another, reading his body-language (for example if you try an armbar and he bends his elbow go for a twisting armlock instead) and adding strikes and off-balancing techniques as you go. A beginner (new to ju-jutsu, he had experience in karate, kickboxing and judo) in my class asked me what to do if the technique didn’t work and my reply was simple: let go of the arm and beat him into submission. At the very least you learn how to physically evade an attack and achieve a superior position from which you can effectively engage him. You don’t have to use locks everytime and in every situation: they are but one category of techniques and if you can incorporate them in your fighting arsenal and use them when appropriate you’ll be a more efficient figher. Most people are simply not familiar with that type of technique and it can be very surprising (not to mention painful) to suddenly close in and lock and throw them to the ground and if you break the fight is effectively over.
In my opinion the main advantage of locks is that they allow you to control your opponent: either setting him up for finishing strikes (e.g a punch to the temple after a wristlock) or by eliminating his ability to fight. If you cause enough pain (and joint-locks are very painful when skillfully applied, I know since I’m my sensei’s uke and eventhough I’m fairly well trained and used to the techniques it still hurts like hell) he’ll abandon his attack (his intention changes from wanting to hurt you to stop the pain he’s experiencing) and maybe give up. In any case: almost all joint-locks end up in a takedown and a control-position and if you can control him that way it’s much more humane than to beat him into a bloody pulp.
Fighting isn’t just about physically defeating (which of course is the main goal of training) and demolishing your opponent but it’s also about conflict-managment (the amount of force necessary to succesfully and safely resolve a situation) and ethics. Your First objective is to survive and to protect yourself and those you love but at the end of the day you have to live with yourself and you don’t want to kill, maim or badly injure your opponent unless there is no alternative.
Learning to destroy someone is fairly easy (especially against the untrained) - engage, strike vital targets (eyes, throat…), follow-up with elbows and knees – but actually putting it into practice is a Grave matter and is rarely justified. In certain situations and against weaker opponents it’s simply not necessary to break someone’s nose or knee-cap, a controlling lock will suffice.
And it’s not just about ethics: there are legal considerations too, I don’t know what the law is in your country but here if you use excessive force (e.g breaking someone’s jaw when in a heated argument he grabs your clothing) you’ll be held accountable (especially if you’re a martial artist) even if you didn’t start the agression and might even face jail-time.
One last comment: arts like ju-jutsu were forged on the battlefield and they would not have survived to this day if they weren’t effective. Even today they are taught and used by law-enforcement, the military, bouncers… people who are confronted with danger on a regular basis. Do you think they’d use locks if they weren’t effective? I’d say with the proper training, tactics and strong entering skills they are still very useful and will retain their place in the martial-arts repertoire.
I’ve been doing some thinking and I have some comments on your article: you said the reason why you don’t really see standing locking in sparring is because both partners are experienced and can easily avoid being locked. I think this is only part of the reason.
While it’s true locking in a standing position is more difficult because of the mobility-issue I think there are other explanations for the phenomenon. For one there’s the factor of force-application: you cannot put on a lock at half intensity (not while he’s resisting anyway), now if you would spar using full-force you’d basically be fighting for real and that would result in unwanted consequences for both parties (it’s simply not worth risking a broken arm, wrist or even worse neck for the sake of training). Standing locks, due to their inherent technical characteristics are almost impossible to employ both succesfully and safely in a sparring context.
The second reason is (like I said in a previous respons) is that locks are always used in conjunction with something else (strike-stun-lock): without at least one good hard atemi they simply won’t work. Now sparring is all about controle and moderation of force (if not it would be a fight): in relation to atemi this means I cannot hit him full-force making it almost impossible for me to create the kind of situation in which I can go for a lock and bring him down. If he’s not hit and hurt for real he’ll keep resisting: if someone is hit properly the shock will make him relax for a second or two which gives me the opportunity to apply this type of technique.
On the street I don’t have to worry about hurting him, on the mat I’d like my uke to stay healthy and in one piece.
On the ground, locks are used and even when resisting, it is hard to defend them if the person applying it has the correct leverage and body position. Standing wise, it is very hard to gain the correct body position as the person being locked can move more easily, and if he/she is experienced enough to know whats coming it is even harder to apply the lock.
This is not to say that standing locks can not be applied. With the correct body position and leverage, standing locks can be applied easily without much force at all.
Post a Comment