Nice Chinna Vid

[sanjuro_ronin]

That version of arm bar (I am tempted to say "waki gatame" but not sure?) was legal in Judo for years and while low percentage, did work ... I would also say you'd probably find more examples IN GI because the Gi makes it easier to pull off

Waki gatame is correct
It was one of the arm locks that I always had some concern with because it always seemed that, fro it to work, it hard to dislocate.
It had to be done in such a way that it would dislocate - explosively for lack of a better word.
I have used arm and wrist locks while bouncing, as have many other bouncers of course and LEO's and, typiclaly, they work best when you have numerical superiority and by best I mean without having to dislocate anything.
That said, it seems to me for standing locks to work 1-on-1 they have to be "breaks" rather than locks.
I have used the waki and the kote and the ikky and sankyo locks and for them to be effective 1-on-1 they have to go fast and hard and that usally means a dislocation.

[lkfmdc]

It was one of the arm locks that I always had some concern with because it always seemed that, fro it to work, it had to dislocate.

This is the rationale behind making it illegal

My friend, a judo coach, had his arm broken BADLY from this arm lock, back in "the old days"

I have used arm and wrist locks while bouncing, as have many other bouncers of course and LEO's and, typiclaly, they work best when you have numerical superiority and by best I mean without having to dislocate anything.

locks definitely have LEO application, Gene LeBell taught the LAPD a number of "time holds" for this purpose

in summary, a few do work, not high percentage, and certainly a lot of the so called "chin na" clips are still trash

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is the rationale behind making it illegal

My friend, a judo coach, had his arm broken BADLY from this arm lock, back in "the old days"



locks definitely have LEO application, Gene LeBell taught the LAPD a number of "time holds" for this purpose

in summary, a few do work, not high percentage, and certainly a lot of the so called "chin na" clips are still trash

Agreed.
Standing locks, IMO, have to be done under these circumstances to be effective:
Against grabs and attempted grabs and NOT strikes.
Off the clinch or attempted clinch.
UBER FAST
In a position that doesn't leave you TOO open to strikes from the free hand.
You have to be open to "releasing" the lock the moment it doesn't work.

I recall at a Lebell seminar he put a few grapplers in their place with standing locks so the other factor would be SUPERIOUR skill.

[Scott R. Brown]

Compare to the folllowing Chin Na 2 men form, what's the difference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4LVjwPGhQg

Much more dynamic and a wider range of techniques. I liked both vids though.

This one is rehearsed, which makes it even more unrealistic.

Its a FORM!!!!!!

That means it is for practicing the movements!

[lkfmdc]

Its a FORM!!!!!!

That means it is for practicing the movements!

Scott,
The obvious question would be, why practice techniques in such a static, dead way as opposed to doing it in an alive way that is more realistic

such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AWQ4fVbcxE

[faxiapreta]

Scott,
The obvious question would be, why practice techniques in such a static, dead way as opposed to doing it in an alive way that is more realistic

such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AWQ4fVbcxE

Also notice the shoulder and head control, of which you saw none of in the other b.s. clips above.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Scott,
The obvious question would be, why practice techniques in such a static, dead way as opposed to doing it in an alive way that is more realistic

such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AWQ4fVbcxE

Well, the first concern would be safety and the second would be technical learning, BUT when those issues are resolved there really isn't any reason to NOT practice in a way that BEST simulated how it WILL HAVE to be done "for real".

[sanjuro_ronin]

Scott,
The obvious question would be, why practice techniques in such a static, dead way as opposed to doing it in an alive way that is more realistic

such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AWQ4fVbcxE

LOL !
There was more internal on that clip then we see in hours of IMA seminars !!!

[faxiapreta]

Gotta be careful of those useless standing joint locks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_718dOW09k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leecBqLeQdg

As usual its is HOW and WHEN a technique is done that make sit effective.

Do they work? Sure, but accidentally to the main goal which is positioning and takedowns.

There is a reason you rarely see them and it's not because they are too dangerous to use.

[faxiapreta]

I recall at a Lebell seminar he put a few grapplers in their place with standing locks so the other factor would be SUPERIOUR skill.

This was a seminar with guys letting him apply the holds. That's lightyears away from actually countering and resisting.

Lebell once fought a boxer full contact. How did he beat him? With standing joint locks which would have been the easiest? Nope. On the ground.

Lebell also coaches guys who compete in sub grappling and MMA. How do they win their matches? With standing locks, which would be easiest? Nope again.

[faxiapreta]

Its a FORM!!!!!!

That means it is for practicing the movements!

It's FORM!!!!!!

Which leads to practicing the movements in unrealistic manners as you can see in the clip!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Do they work? Sure, but accidentally to the main goal which is positioning and takedowns.

There is a reason you rarely see them and it's not because they are too dangerous to use.

Neither one of those were "accidental".
The both applied the locks and did it in a way they KNEW would be effective.
The first one lead to a TD but the second didn't and it was almost picture perfect of how it is applied for it to be applied with TD in mind.
Pretty much any standing joint lock can and should lead to a "throw" but they are not applied with throwing as the primary intent.
Not sure what videos you were seeing there...

[faxiapreta]

Neither one of those were "accidental".
The both applied the locks and did it in a way they KNEW would be effective.
The first one lead to a TD but the second didn't and it was almost picture perfect of how it is applied for it to be applied with TD in mind.
Pretty much any standing joint lock can and should lead to a "throw" but they are not applied with throwing as the primary intent.
Not sure what videos you were seeing there...

OK, let me change my term from accidental to incidental and extremely low percentage.

Again, there's a reason they are so rare and it's not because people aren't trying to hurt each other.

Practicing standing locks is exactly the type of approach the traditional jiu jitsu guys took which was proven to be so ineffective by Kano.

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott,
The obvious question would be, why practice techniques in such a static, dead way as opposed to doing it in an alive way that is more realistic

such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AWQ4fVbcxE

Apparently, not everyone understands that the best training methods are those that are as close to realistic circumstances as possible!

[sanjuro_ronin]

OK, let me change my term from accidental to incidental and extremely low percentage.

Again, there's a reason they are so rare and it's not because people aren't trying to hurt each other.

Agreed, low percentage for a variety of reasons.
I didn't mean to imply that people don't use them because they are too dangerous.
I just meant that for them to be used effectively they seem to have to be done to "dislocate" rather than "lock".
The reason being that, while on the ground the opponent has less mobility and as such the lock can be applied in a more progressive manner, standing it has to be more "ballistic".