Fight Science! Did anyone watch this?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Someone should write an article on how ground-n-pound looks to law enforcement if they come upon a scene and see it... who will they believe is the aggressor?

Never mind what the police would think, I think you would be on shaky legal ground (ha ha) using ground and pound unless there were extenuating circumstances.

The legal standard as far as I'm aware is "reasonable force", and if I was on a jury I'm not sure I could be convinced it was reasonable to pound someone you were sitting on, rather than just sitting on them until the police arrive or they cool off.

In situations where you can't just sit on them until the police arrive, you probably aren't primarily concerned with the police arriving anyway.

Whereas the "ground" part of G'n'P is probably a fairly safe option from a police and court perspective. If the police arrive to see you sitting on someone and cheerily waving them over they might just be predisposed to believe you are a good citizen sitting on a bad guy, and it would be hard to argue that you used more force than was necessary. Whereas if you are standing over a crumpled body doing your Bruce Lee howl things are more ambiguous.

As always I am not a lawyer, and this ain't legal advice.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I dont understand that mr utah fight, he seemed to have beat the crap out of the other guy, then it was over and the other dude was cheering

Also, TMA would have been great here, a little kenpo time (not even out of white belt) and the big dude never would have gotten punched while they were standing and fighting

The little guy never would have come CLOSE to me with those John Wayne, telegraphed, wide swinging, cowboy punches. A better puncher than me would have jabbed him in the nose two or three times instead of blocking. I guess we found a PERFECT spot for a one inch punch I would have easily blocked those and been on my way. The kicks were worthless and the big dude rightly just took em.

Im beginning to think that when you guys say MMA you mean "football". Like run at a guy, and tackle em. If that dont work, then when your on the ground do the good ol' bully headlock, also like football

 

[thaiboxerken]

I dont understand that mr utah fight, he seemed to have beat the crap out of the other guy, then it was over and the other dude was cheering

This sums up the fact that you are simply ignorant. Thanks for confirming what I only suspected until this post.

 

[pipelineaudio]

well maybe you can tell me how the fight ended

Big guy was pounding the tar out of little guy, then a bunch of people got in the way of the shakey crappy video, then it looked like big guy was still on top of little guy, then the fight was over and they walked separate ways

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

well maybe you can tell me how the fight ended

Big guy was pounding the tar out of little guy, then a bunch of people got in the way of the shakey crappy video, then it looked like big guy was still on top of little guy, then the fight was over and they walked separate ways

Ken was as usual, when it comes to MA topics, being unnecessarily abrasive but basically accurate.

What happened was that Mr Utah walked into a technique referred to as "armbar from guard". Guard is the position where your opponent is on top but you have your legs around them or hooked between their legs, and an armbar is the technique where you trap the opponent's arm between your legs, with your hips between their elbow and shoulder, and use a whole-body arching movement to put pressure on the forearm and elbow.

Up until about 3:50 Pedro was attempting sweeps from "butterfly guard" (hooks between the legs), until Mr Utah managed to reverse a sweep and force him to change to standard guard (legs around the body).

That's where Utah starts to make mistakes, allowing his arms to be put into positions where they can be attacked. Pedro has the match won for all intents and purposes at 4:03, as Utah has his arm in a totally vulnerable position and Pedro gets his left leg over it and Utah's head. Utah realises he is in trouble and tries to escape, loses his balance and falls over into a prone position where he cannot escape the armbar. Win to Pedro.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Utah realises he is in trouble and tries to escape, loses his balance and falls over into a prone position where he cannot escape the armbar. Win to Pedro.

Ahh this is where I had trouble, it appeared to me that it was still utah on top when the fight ended

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ahh this is where I had trouble, it appeared to me that it was still utah on top when the fight ended

The armbar can work just as well from the bottom as from the top. So if things had gone only a little differently Utah could indeed have been on top and still have been forced to tap out.

 

[pipelineaudio]

wait was utah not on top at the end?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

Stimpy, do you recall me saying specifically earlier that I did not think MMA provided us with any evidence about what works and does not work in armed combat? I said that the Dog Brothers and metal weapon re-enactment groups are the people to go to if you want to find out what works with weapons, if you recall.

yes, I remember you saying this after claiming that anything useful for real fights on the street would be seen in MMA competitions, which flatly contradicts your later qualification about weapons, since weapons are key factor in most real fights. Even in fights where weapons never get used, the mere fact that you can't assume the other guy isn't going to pull something out of his pocket, or grab something he can use as a weapon against you, is going to seriously alter the way you need to fight.

Let me give you a handy list of straw men to avoid:

MMA is the last word in submarine warfare and anti-satellite weaponry.

Standing wrist locks are impossible.

You can throw an opponent without hurting them and without using any muscles at all.

I can do things in semi-contact sparring and that proves something.

All irrelevent to my point.

Here's another handy list of claims I am actually making.

MMAers have discarded techniques which are low-percentage.

As do all competitors.

Techniques which are low-percentage are low-percentage on everyone, not just on people who can fight. Wrist locks don't magically become higher-percentage than a shoot against idiots.

They don't have to become higher percentage than some other technique to be useful. They just have to be high percentage enough to make them reliable. And that does change depending on the target.

The specific ideas you have advanced about what grappling techniques work and how they work are based on a near total ignorance of full contact grappling.

So you claim...

People who claim they can make these low-percentage techniques work and have been training them for decades assiduously avoid amateur MMA events where they could demonstrate their skills against people who have been doing MMA for (in some cases) less than a year. I take this as strong evidence that they know very well that their stuff just doesn't work.

First of all, your characterization of them "assiduouly avoiding" the events is hardly unbiased. Indeed, I would strongly suspect that many of the better people who compete in those MMA events can make them work in real fights. They just don't use them in those competitions because they aren't useful there. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case? Or do you simply assume that anything that a person doesn't do in an MMA competition is something which that person can't effectively use anywhere.

People who claim one thing works better than another against multiple opponents have a rich fantasy life. (Exception: People who work as bouncers and such, who seem to say what works against multiple opponents is hitting them really hard, preferably without warning).

How about "Exception: people who actually have experience dealing with multiple opponents?"

I notice that this "handy list of things you actually are claiming" leaves out many of the claims you actually did make in this thread. For example, your claim that Japanese Jujitsu people can't fight.

Anyway, if you are now going to say that you do not stand behind any of the claims you have made other than the above, and/or that anything else you seemed to be claiming was a misunderstanding, that's fine. If so, I would say that about the only thing of substance that we seem to be disagreeing about, is the conclusion that anything that you don't see in MMA competitions just doesn't work anywhere. This conclusion is not justified by the evidence. It is, in my opinion, based on your ignorance of non-competition fighting.

But as we can see, this is going nowhere. At this point, we seem to both be in a position of just saying that we each think the other person is wrong. I don't see how discussion can possibly resolve this disagreement. Nor does it need to. Presumably, since we both agree that full-contact training is a critical part of martial arts training for anybody who actually wants to be able to fight, as our training progresses it should become clear to both of us where our mistakes and misconceptions lie. That is, assuming that we do not choose to just focus exclusively on one type of fighting, and base our opinions on all other types of fighting on that. For example, I fully intend to train full-contact unarmed fighting, and if I continue with Inayan Escrima, I will have to do so. Do you intend to ever actually do anything other than competition style fighting?


Dr. Stupid

 

[T'ai Chi]

Techniques which are low-percentage are low-percentage on everyone, not just on people who can fight. Wrist locks don't magically become higher-percentage than a shoot against idiots.

Of course, wrist locks are low percentage in MMA... since they are effective and damaging they are banned in almost all MMA sport/entertainment events.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

yes, I remember you saying this after claiming that anything useful for real fights on the street would be seen in MMA competitions, which flatly contradicts your later qualification about weapons, since weapons are key factor in most real fights. Even in fights where weapons never get used, the mere fact that you can't assume the other guy isn't going to pull something out of his pocket, or grab something he can use as a weapon against you, is going to seriously alter the way you need to fight.

Fascinating. So which techniques exactly that are not MMA techniques become useful once you "seriously alter the way you need to fight"?

Let me guess. You have no idea. You want someone else to individually disprove every possible technique's usefulness.

They don't have to become higher percentage than some other technique to be useful. They just have to be high percentage enough to make them reliable. And that does change depending on the target.

Sound sensible. Now give us evidence anyone is so good that they can make, say, a standing wrist lock against an uncooperative beer-bottle swinger reliable.

First of all, your characterization of them "assiduouly avoiding" the events is hardly unbiased. Indeed, I would strongly suspect that many of the better people who compete in those MMA events can make them work in real fights. They just don't use them in those competitions because they aren't useful there. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case? Or do you simply assume that anything that a person doesn't do in an MMA competition is something which that person can't effectively use anywhere.

The human body works just the same outside the ring as inside. If they can't make them work against a single opponent they know is unarmed, what reason do you have to believe they can make them work in your beloved multiple ninjas in a concrete carpark with concealed weapons scenario?

How about "Exception: people who actually have experience dealing with multiple opponents?"

Yes. The people who actually have experience dealing with multiple opponents seem generally to recommend sucker punching and having friends around. Not training in woo-MA.

I notice that this "handy list of things you actually are claiming" leaves out many of the claims you actually did make in this thread. For example, your claim that Japanese Jujitsu people can't fight.

Like I said, I've never heard of a school or subgroup of JJJ that was full contact and if I saw one that purported to be I would want to poke it to verify it was actually a direct JJJ descendant and not someone's eclectic style with jujitsu on the label.

For example, I fully intend to train full-contact unarmed fighting, and if I continue with Inayan Escrima, I will have to do so. Do you intend to ever actually do anything other than competition style fighting?

The important issues in this discussion are matters of evidence, and I could do no training at all and still be right about them.

Since you asked though... Will I ever do full-contact striking as well as full-contact grappling? If I do then I'll brag about it when I've done it, as opposed to bragging about how I intend to do it. Will I ever actually do anything other than competition style fighting? I already do Stimpy, we train all sorts of things that aren't competition legal.

 

[Jekyll]

Of course, wrist locks are low percentage in MMA... since they are effective and damaging they are banned in almost all MMA sport/entertainment events.

Name one event in which they're banned.

Hint:Wrist locks are not consider to be small joint locks, which refers to finger and toe locks.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

Fascinating. So which techniques exactly that are not MMA techniques become useful once you "seriously alter the way you need to fight"?

Let me guess. You have no idea. You want someone else to individually disprove every possible technique's usefulness.

I already gave you several examples, including wrist locks and limb destruction techniques. The problem is that you are demanding something which, in principle, cannot be provided. I cannot give you a specific example of when one of these techniques will be more appropriate than the techniques you see in MMA competitions, because it depends so much on the situation. I can (and have) mentioned situations where they are often considered useful, but of course you can always point out MMA competition techniques that will work then too, and then we get into the neverending (and completely unresolvable) debate about which techniques are better, easier, and so on.

And again, it completely misses the point, which is that you have not provided the evidence to support your claims. Demanding that I provide evidence to refute your claim, when you have not yet provided any evidence to support it in the first place, is not reasonable.

They don't have to become higher percentage than some other technique to be useful. They just have to be high percentage enough to make them reliable. And that does change depending on the target.

Sound sensible. Now give us evidence anyone is so good that they can make, say, a standing wrist lock against an uncooperative beer-bottle swinger reliable.

I know several people who can do that. But since I don't have video of them doing so, you won't accept that. And that's fine. I am not asking you to believe that anybody can do it. I am asking you to support your claim that nobody can.

First of all, your characterization of them "assiduouly avoiding" the events is hardly unbiased. Indeed, I would strongly suspect that many of the better people who compete in those MMA events can make them work in real fights. They just don't use them in those competitions because they aren't useful there. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case? Or do you simply assume that anything that a person doesn't do in an MMA competition is something which that person can't effectively use anywhere.

The human body works just the same outside the ring as inside. If they can't make them work against a single opponent they know is unarmed, what reason do you have to believe they can make them work in your beloved multiple ninjas in a concrete carpark with concealed weapons scenario?

We are just going around in circles here. I already addressed this ridiculous mischaracterization of what I am saying.

How about "Exception: people who actually have experience dealing with multiple opponents?"

Yes. The people who actually have experience dealing with multiple opponents seem generally to recommend sucker punching and having friends around. Not training in woo-MA.

Nobody is advocating "woo-MA". Your insistence on tossing anything you haven't seen in a sporting competition in together with garbage like magical chi defenses and super-deadly nerve strikes, is exactly the sort of nonsense I am objecting to.

I notice that this "handy list of things you actually are claiming" leaves out many of the claims you actually did make in this thread. For example, your claim that Japanese Jujitsu people can't fight.

Like I said, I've never heard of a school or subgroup of JJJ that was full contact and if I saw one that purported to be I would want to poke it to verify it was actually a direct JJJ descendant and not someone's eclectic style with jujitsu on the label.

So are you retracting your statement or not? Clearly you appear to be unprepared to support it.

For example, I fully intend to train full-contact unarmed fighting, and if I continue with Inayan Escrima, I will have to do so. Do you intend to ever actually do anything other than competition style fighting?

The important issues in this discussion are matters of evidence, and I could do no training at all and still be right about them.

OK. Then provide your evidence. Provide your evidence that there are no techniques which are not used in MMA competition, which are nevertheless useful in other types of fighting. If you do not have evidence to support this claim, then please either refrain from claiming that you do, or stop making the claim.

Note that presenting the strawman of something which doesn't work against a single unarmed opponent not working against an army of armed ninja's, does not constitute evidence supporting your claim. As I have repeatedly pointed out, It is not necessary for a technique to not work at all against a single unarmed opponent, for it to be Darwinized out of MMA competitions. All that has to happen is for it to be less useful in that highly specific context, than some other technique.

Since you asked though... Will I ever do full-contact striking as well as full-contact grappling?

That isn't what I asked. Simply adding in striking isn't enough, if your training is always going to be in the context of competition against single unarmed opponents in a nice safe ring environment.

If I do then I'll brag about it when I've done it, as opposed to bragging about how I intend to do it.

Why would you characterize what I said above as bragging?

Will I ever actually do anything other than competition style fighting? I already do Stimpy, we train all sorts of things that aren't competition legal.

Great. But do you ever train for circumstances that differ from a competition setting? Things like being on the street, or having to be aware of other potential opponents, or having to worry about weapons being brought into the fight (even if they are not there already)?


If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be indicating that the only reason any given technique would not be seen in MMA competition is that it is too "low percentage" to be useful there, in which case you infer that it will be too low percentage to be useful anywhere. But I don't see any justification for this assumption. There are all sorts of factors which go into determining what is and is not most useful in a given context. Furthermore, in the case of things like competition, only the very most useful stuff survives because the context is so narrow that there easily ends up being techniques which, while effective, are always less effective than some other technique. These techniques will also get Darwinized away, even though they are effective, and may even be more effective than the alternatives in other contexts.

And again, before you go demanding that I provide specific examples and evidence to support them, I don't need to. You need to provide evidence to support your claim. And since the arguments you have presented all require that the above never be true, it is up to you to back this up. If you cannot, then you should limit your claim to saying that you are not convinced that any of the common martial arts techniques which you don't see in MMA competitions are actually useful, and that you suspect that they may not be. You should not be claiming that they not only are not useful, but furthermore that you have evidence showing that they are not.


Dr. Stupid

 

[thaiboxerken]

I am asking you to support your claim that nobody can.

Isn't that just like asking someone to support their claim that nobody has psychic powers?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Isn't that just like asking someone to support their claim that nobody has psychic powers?

Pretty much. Except that he won't even define exactly what psychic powers he is talking about.

He just believes some people, somewhere, have some psychic powers, and now it's up to everybody else do disprove all possible psychic powers or else they aren't entitled to say "going on the available evidence, psychic powers do not work". It's certainly not up to the people with psychic powers to provide evidence.

 

[Wudang]

Kevin,


I already gave you several examples, including wrist locks and limb destruction techniques. The problem is that you are demanding something which, in principle, cannot be provided. I cannot give you a specific example of when one of these techniques will be more appropriate than the techniques you see in MMA competitions, because it depends so much on the situation. I can (and have) mentioned situations where they are often considered useful, but of course you can always point out MMA competition techniques that will work then too, and then we get into the neverending (and completely unresolvable) debate about which techniques are better, easier, and so on.

And again, it completely misses the point, which is that you have not provided the evidence to support your claims. Demanding that I provide evidence to refute your claim, when you have not yet provided any evidence to support it in the first place, is not reasonable.


I know several people who can do that. But since I don't have video of them doing so, you won't accept that. And that's fine. I am not asking you to believe that anybody can do it. I am asking you to support your claim that nobody can.


We are just going around in circles here. I already addressed this ridiculous mischaracterization of what I am saying.


Nobody is advocating "woo-MA". Your insistence on tossing anything you haven't seen in a sporting competition in together with garbage like magical chi defenses and super-deadly nerve strikes, is exactly the sort of nonsense I am objecting to.


So are you retracting your statement or not? Clearly you appear to be unprepared to support it.


OK. Then provide your evidence. Provide your evidence that there are no techniques which are not used in MMA competition, which are nevertheless useful in other types of fighting. If you do not have evidence to support this claim, then please either refrain from claiming that you do, or stop making the claim.

Note that presenting the strawman of something which doesn't work against a single unarmed opponent not working against an army of armed ninja's, does not constitute evidence supporting your claim. As I have repeatedly pointed out, It is not necessary for a technique to not work at all against a single unarmed opponent, for it to be Darwinized out of MMA competitions. All that has to happen is for it to be less useful in that highly specific context, than some other technique.


That isn't what I asked. Simply adding in striking isn't enough, if your training is always going to be in the context of competition against single unarmed opponents in a nice safe ring environment.


Why would you characterize what I said above as bragging?


Great. But do you ever train for circumstances that differ from a competition setting? Things like being on the street, or having to be aware of other potential opponents, or having to worry about weapons being brought into the fight (even if they are not there already)?


If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be indicating that the only reason any given technique would not be seen in MMA competition is that it is too "low percentage" to be useful there, in which case you infer that it will be too low percentage to be useful anywhere. But I don't see any justification for this assumption. There are all sorts of factors which go into determining what is and is not most useful in a given context. Furthermore, in the case of things like competition, only the very most useful stuff survives because the context is so narrow that there easily ends up being techniques which, while effective, are always less effective than some other technique. These techniques will also get Darwinized away, even though they are effective, and may even be more effective than the alternatives in other contexts.

And again, before you go demanding that I provide specific examples and evidence to support them, I don't need to. You need to provide evidence to support your claim. And since the arguments you have presented all require that the above never be true, it is up to you to back this up. If you cannot, then you should limit your claim to saying that you are not convinced that any of the common martial arts techniques which you don't see in MMA competitions are actually useful, and that you suspect that they may not be. You should not be claiming that they not only are not useful, but furthermore that you have evidence showing that they are not.


Dr. Stupid

Unfortunately, this is a subject on which neither Kevin nor Ken seem capable of rational debate. They have taken as an article of faith that full-contact MMA is not only the best training for a real fight (which nobody with experience would argue with) but is the be-all and end-all. Any suggestion that the psychological pressures will be different are ignored or caricatured. Any suggestion that external factors to an individual man-to-man fight might be relevant are taken as "invisible ninjas on lava" or whatever. Note that Kevin is quite happy to quote some unknown bouncer as evidence but not the well-documented experience of people like Geoff Thompson, Gary Speirs, or Terry O'Neill.
Again unfortunately neither actually seems to have any experience outside the ring which is why they are unable to evaluate your statements in a rational manner. Hell, Kevin only just admitted he doesn't actually do full-contact. Wrist locks don't work? They're the basis of a number of police restraint techniques. And sometimes if you're facing more than one guy you're best restraining the troublemaker and asking his pals to take care of him. Sometimes. Sometimes, you're best using your strongest technique and getting one of them out the way.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Unfortunately, this is a subject on which neither Kevin nor Ken seem capable of rational debate. They have taken as an article of faith that full-contact MMA is not only the best training for a real fight (which nobody with experience would argue with) but is the be-all and end-all. Any suggestion that the psychological pressures will be different are ignored or caricatured.

Rather, the suggestion that woo-woo better prepares you for psychological pressure than constant full-contact training does is ridiculed. It wasn't the sport fighters who curled up into a fetal position in UFC2 and got pounded.

If you train by having your fellow students jump out of alleyways when you are on your way home and try to cut you then I'll apologise and say yes, you really are better prepared psychologically than a sport fighter. On the other hand if you stand in a nice, safe dojo and your instructors say "Let's play-fight, only this time we'll pretend this guy jumped out of an alleyway with a knife" then I'm not impressed.

Any suggestion that external factors to an individual man-to-man fight might be relevant are taken as "invisible ninjas on lava" or whatever. Note that Kevin is quite happy to quote some unknown bouncer as evidence but not the well-documented experience of people like Geoff Thompson, Gary Speirs, or Terry O'Neill.

I was actually thinking of Geoff Thompson specifically when I said that the opinions that seemed best informed about fighting groups advocated having one really good hit, using without warning, and bringing friends. Not throwing the first one into the second one with a wrist lock and then blah blah woo woo.

Again unfortunately neither actually seems to have any experience outside the ring which is why they are unable to evaluate your statements in a rational manner. Hell, Kevin only just admitted he doesn't actually do full-contact.

It's not exactly a secret. Find any martial arts thread in the last few years and I think you'll find me saying that I'm a BJJer, and I never stated or implied I do full-contact strking. (As opposed to full-contact grappling). Stimpy just jumped to the conclusion I was an MMAer because I was putting forward the idea that MMA worked better than anything else (including BJJ), and it's usual in martial arts threads for ignorant people to present whatever they do as being awesome.

Ken is the MMAer here, and I believe he also does escrima.

Wrist locks don't work? They're the basis of a number of police restraint techniques.

Yes. Techniques taught to police, as has been learned the hard way, have to be ones that make it as difficult as possible for police to maim or kill people. Goose-neck wrist locks are pain compliance moves with little potential for real injury, and I've never seen police trying to slap them on someone in a stand-up fight. The little footage I have seen of them in use involves the police using numerical, physical or positional superiority to apply them to someone no longer able to effectively resist, as a means of moving them from place to place.

There is evidence that they have their place. There is no evidence I am aware of that Stimpy's fantasy of opening a fight by slapping a wrist lock on someone who takes a swing at you is a practical proposition, let alone a practical proposition for a hobbyist.

 

[Wudang]

Kevin
if you can point out where I said that wrist locks had to injure people. please do so. If you read what I wrote you will see that as far as my experience is concerned, sometimes not injuring someone is the prefered course of action as it allows the situation to be defused rather than ignited.
And of course in your little fantasy world with your limited experience anyone advocating something you don't have experience of must be advocating woo role-playing.
Is there such a thing as non full-contact grappling?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin
if you can point out where I said that wrist locks had to injure people. please do so. If you read what I wrote you will see that as far as my experience is concerned, sometimes not injuring someone is the prefered course of action as it allows the situation to be defused rather than ignited.

With hindsight my point there was indeed a little unclear.

Because police tend to misuse or abuse submission holds in practise, they have to be trained to use the safest techniques as opposed to the best techniques. A decent hobbyist grappler has a lot more grappling time and corresponding skill than the average police officer, and can safely use a greater range of techniques. So the fact that a police officer is trained to use a wrist lock is not evidence that it is a high-percentage move, even if we leave alone the point (which you have not contested) that police do not use these techniques in the way Stimpy fantasises about using them.

And of course in your little fantasy world with your limited experience anyone advocating something you don't have experience of must be advocating woo role-playing.

I notice you have not contested that point either except to make a personal attack. Evidence that you are doing something that better prepares you psychologically for a fight than full-contact training does please.

Is there such a thing as non full-contact grappling?

Sure, Stimpy does it and I did plenty of it in my time too. It's when non-contact MAers "train" grappling techniques by applying them to a compliant partner. It's fun but it doesn't produce functional skills.

 

[Wudang]

With hindsight my point there was indeed a little unclear.

Because police tend to misuse or abuse submission holds in practise, they have to be trained to use the safest techniques as opposed to the best techniques. A decent hobbyist grappler has a lot more grappling time and corresponding skill than the average police officer, and can safely use a greater range of techniques. So the fact that a police officer is trained to use a wrist lock is not evidence that it is a high-percentage move, even if we leave alone the point (which you have not contested) that police do not use these techniques in the way Stimpy fantasises about using them.

It does perhaps provide evidence that the technique works well enough in practice though. These are different proposition:
1 - wrist locks are optimal
2 - wrist locks work well enough for a broad range of skills

I notice you have not contested that point either except to make a personal attack. Evidence that you are doing something that better prepares you psychologically for a fight than full-contact training does please.

Kevin, if you are going to arrogantly dismiss any suggestion that your training may not already be totally perfect in any way as "woo fantasies" then do not expect to be engaged in debate.
And did I say that it wasn't full-contact training? Some of it is but please try to read what I say then reply to it.

Sure, Stimpy does it and I did plenty of it in my time too. It's when non-contact MAers "train" grappling techniques by applying them to a compliant partner. It's fun but it doesn't produce functional skills.

Ummm, okay. I call that grappling training.