How is your martial art designed for self-defense? For war time or peace time

From what I understand, most defences against wrist grabs from traditional martial arts are leaning towards the more redundant side of things, as wrist grabs were originally ways of controlling the opponent's sword arm or drawing the opponent's sword. They may still have some relevance it certain circumstances (e.g. police, soldiers, someone who is carrying a weapon, etc), but for the majority of self defence applications, they just don't seem too useful to me

 

I agree they are redundant without knowing the reasons why they are different. who needs fifteen techniques against a wrist grab, for example? In knife it is cut your way in and cut your way out against a wrist grab. All other techniques could be said to be extensions of that premise.

Another point is why practice a counter to a grab that won't help you against someone much stronger than you? Why not just start with the one that works best against someone much stronger than you?

 

This would not be necessary if the lock is being used to create mechanical compliance. If I have mechanical control of the opponents balance / movement from a lock. I do not have to cause injury.

Chokes on the other hand I personally would always consider a last resort. It is an escalation to potentially lethal force. It is likely to prompt the opponent to respond with lethal force.

 

Chokes are something of a dichotomy in that sense; they are "human" (in so far as any assault upon another is) and have limited long term damage if properly applied.

Conversely, it is considered a highly aggravated assault in many jurisdictions and presence of choking/strangling is considered a high risk factor

Personally it is one of my default responses, but the operational paradigm is a little different

 

The peace time vs war time debate circles back to the sportive vs non-sportive one. From this JJJ vs submission grappling article by Kesting:

JJJ choke:



Submission grappling/BJJ choke:



Clearly different emphases.

 

As much as I like Kesting he is wrong on this one. In reality they end up looking the same...only the initial set up tends to differ occasioanlly. In the LVNR used by PD's globally if you cannot lock it in you take the back and sink it further - the only constant difference is the end goal, although arguable capitulation is present in both

 

I was talking about RNCs the other day. My oldest son started taking BJJ and I was showing him some of the different ways to apply them. I even think that conversation was one of the reasons I started this thread (although it wasn't supposed to be such a confusing thread).

The difference between many of the methods of RNC is in speed.

RNC in Kajukenbo, for example, is a systematic approach that starts with the quickest application and then moves from there. First crank it on to unbalance or stun, then clear the defending hands, sink it in, and finish with bringing elbows together as you lift up. The first stage is fast and can be used to move someone to use them as a body shield against other enemies. This is fast, it involves movements much like striking, AND is not as effective as a choke. What I mean by not as effective is that it leaves more space and alerts the opponent of danger, causing them to want to get their chin down and a hand or something in between to defend against the choke. It is also more fast moving and thus not as accurate. It is more for the idea that there may be multiple attackers.

In BJJ, the arm is snaked under the chin like "slitting the throat". It does not alert of danger and sinks in under the chin directly. It is much more accurate and leaves almost no space for counter once it is applied. It puts the opponent to sleep and they may never feel they are in danger until it is too late. This is a much more refined approach (e.g. higher level of precision), but is inherently "slower" (not really considering the speed needed to address multiple attackers).

I think you have a good point. Could they end up looking the same because people end up "rushing it" and thus it is hard to see any difference?

 

No they look the same because they ARE the same - reality is a cruel mistress and the lab conditions 90% of things are practiced as are hard to replicate.







In each of these the oly thing that differs is the pressure application - the MMA is done with the other arm, the LVNR is done with the head providing the pressure

In reality it makes little to no difference and most end up being really bad chokeouts unless you know how to adjust to a mechanically better position.

In addition, many people just give up straightaway and the full choke isn't needed.

the real reason that the choke is done that way in the LVNR? Optics - it looks less aggressive

 

I think the context is very important. If a total stranger starts a physical confrontation and attempts to choke me I will regrettably conclude that they are committed to killing me.

if this is the case it is very unlikely that I can get them to back down from their chosen coarse of action. So if I can escape the choke I shall do what ever it takes to physically nutralise the threat. I would take the first opportunity that arouse and would prosecute it to the maximum. Note I would not deliberately select a technique that maimed or killed over one that controlled. I would however take the first opportunity to apply any technique, including those with the potential to maim or kill. This includes punches with power to the back of the head / neck spine and or throws into furniture for example.

This would be necessary because I am not a skilled fighter. I do not believe that I could survive a fight against someone who was trying to kill me, while at the same time restricting myself to only non lethal techniques.

If a law enforcement officer should attempt to choke me in the coarse of his / her duties I would not necessarily assume that thier intention was to kill me.

 

The actual choking mechanics are the same. The point was to highlight what the lower body does.

 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgahUYGGAoc"]PURPLE SHACKLE BREAK - YouTube[/ame]


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gtKqJQgA50"]Rear double wrist grab defense - YouTube[/ame]


Surly this situation could occur both in self defense and in wartime?

 

There are 3 basic levels "effort" levels to an LVNR (restrain, escalated resistance and fully applied) and there are also 3 application basics (standing, kneeling and prone)

A level 3:3 LVNR (prone and full force) looks like a mirror for an RNC because the aim is to put them out

 

They certainly can. I was mistaken in trying to lead the discussion using those terms (peace time /war time). What I wanted was to address something around techniques and how they are applied based on urgency or speed.

In the first video, there is no urgency of a lethal threat. It is more around being escorted or immobilized by a two handed wrist grab from behind.

In the second video, the same technique has a component of urgency/speed to it. More along the idea that rather than just a grab, there is a violent pull/push action on the arms to "tear them off" as per the foot to the spine attack vector I was eluding to as something lost.

Both methods could work, but it is possible to teach initial defensive movements that help protect against a lethal threat to allow time to assess the situation. The first step is understanding what the lethal threat could be to develop the sense of "urgency" that goes along with many counter techniques. Then you move on from there to whatever technique is given and appropriate. IMHO.

 

I agree that there is much more happening than the arm around the neck. I see your point and agree.

If you broke down the choke into three phases you can see that the JJJ choke picture is just the first stage (but could choke out).

1) Stun or unbalance on contact
2) Control
3) Finish the choke

You could start with the JJJ choke and if defended, get your hooks in and manipulate their arms and head to snake in an arm deeply under the chin. At that point you have the BJJ choke (last picture).

You can skip to the BJJ choke once you are in position and use subtlety to snake in the arm under the chin, but it takes time to get in the position to do this. Whereas the JJJ choke is faster to apply as a method of stunning and control (but less reliable as a choke)... you don't even have to completely have their back, you can be on the side and turn them violently to take their back.

 

I understand what you're saying but don't see how that really negate Kesting's point. One is prone and full force while the other maintains higher mobility - which obviously will be at the detriment of efficacy, no? Plus that approach also applies to keylocks and leglocks, not just chokes. Would a law enforcement officer attempt the prone variation without backup?

 

I understand the first stage argument. It seems to me that Kesting's very point is that JJJ's strategy does stop there to maintain mobility. Could you still put your hooks in and go into a traditional BJJ RNC? Yes of course you could. Point is, they don't for a reason.

 

If I was a female and an unknown male attempted to physically escort me to a different location I would judge the threat to be as lethal as it gets.

 

Yes, agreed. Same reason why it is important to learn RNC in phases so that you can apply for speed (e.g. multiple attackers) or for precision (e.g. single opponent).

I think people may just think they are different, but not actually train why they are different. I think it is important to train from speed version to precision version, train just the speed version, and train just he precision version... So train techniques three ways (at a minimum).

 

Good point. I guess it is hard to see that with static training partners. Sometimes adding an additional attack is what is needed to educate on why your first reactions need to be trained to protect you.

It may be more extreme, but even wrist grabs can be combined in training with an additional attacker with a training knife. One drill is to just have an attacker try to grab an arm, take you down, and pin you while the other attacker follows up with the training knife to the throat once you are down and pinned. It isn't intended to allow you to defeat multiple attackers, but what it does is train the necessity of using the speed version of a counter movement to just change the angles enough that you aren't such an easy target.

Conversely, training methods of "softening up" a stronger opponent who has you grabbed so you can escape is good training for situations like a woman that might be held down for reasons other than killing them on the battlefield.

 

In fact thinking about it - I was wrong. the sex of the defender and of attacker is entirely irrelevant.

if an unknown individual attempted to physically escort me to a different location that could very likely lead to a life threatening situation.

The principle reason for an attacker to move you to another location is to give them more control over you. So that they can do what they want to you.

It is a central tenant of Self Defense as I understand it that you do not let the attacker control your location.

There are times when it is necessary to escalate a physical confrontation and this is one of them.

For this reason I would consider the first example should be considered more dangerous than the second.