Talk:Armlock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Mixed martial arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Kimura (Gyaku ude-garami) Always Capitalized?[edit]

When writing 'Kimura lock' should the word Kimura always be capitalized, as a proper noun?

This article was created because...[edit]

...several armlocks are not separable into shoulderlocks and locks targeting the elbow joint. Another reason was to unify the all the short stubs about the separate armlocks under one banner. The armbar couldn't be left out when some locks at the elbow joint were included, so it was included as well. ---Marcus- 22:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's pritty much ready now, i've wanted everyone to see what it looks like as finished. Some more references and links will be added though. ---Marcus- 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And if it get's too crowded or messy, it can later be split up again... but right now, i think having them all under one banner is the best option. ---Marcus- 13:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
From what I've read, the omoplata is often referred to as a shoulder lock only. But I guess this is ok, given the subsections. Shawnc 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes the omoplata is used as a shoulderlock, but after careful scrutiny i found out that some judo practitioners get the position, but instead of cranking the shoulder(which isn't allowed), they crank the elbow. ---Marcus- 13:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting stuff, maybe you can put that in the article! Shawnc 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that it was a discussion in a judo forum, and not a good technique page; but i'll see if I can find some. ---Marcus- 14:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The kimura picture[edit]

I noticed that it doesn't have any licensing. But heck, it's from a newspaper, a major article, possibly even cover page, and its pritty damn old. But maybe some form of licensing explanation (fair use?) should be added?---Marcus- 17:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what the licensing should be -- I photoshopped it from a video I downloaded, a Japanese-language clip covering the match. I've added a fair use tag for describing the match/technique/Masahiko Kimura. Shawnc 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I find the choice of volunteers in the first photo to be very offensive. A black man is being once again harmed by a white oppressor. Somebody should think about reporting this to the NAACP. Ha, just kidding. I just thought it would be funny for somebody to read the first part of this paragraph and just get completely pissed off that somebody could still be so politically correct. Enjoy the rest of your day.  :)

  • Yes that was totally inane. LOL. Mglovesfun 17:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the guy "oppressing" the black dude, is asian... not white. Regardless, that comment was effective to the intended purpose. (Although I'd say your words were a bit off from politically correct) 204.101.241.2 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Images of standing armlocks[edit]

There are lots of nice images here, but nothing showing a standing armlock. -- Medains 12:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dominant Grappling Positions[edit]

Therefore, armlocks are usually more easily performed from a dominant grappling position on the ground such as the mount, side mount, or guard.

I personally wouldn't call guard a dominant position, I'd call it a neutral position.

I second that. Disco 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • i wouldn't call it neutral. in pure grappling the guy on top can only use two limbs and has extremely limited offensive options until he manages to pass, while the guy on bottom can use all four limbs to attack and has tons of sweeps and submissions at his disposal. once you toss in striking, the positional advantage changes to the guy on top because he's in a much better position to throw punches and elbows. of course, it appears that the offending sentence has been edited, so i don't know why i'm nitpicking. while i'm at it though, i can't say i'm a big fan of the top picture. guy needs to learn to squeeze his legs together to trap the arm. he's spreading 'em like a $5 hooker. hell, the other soldier applying the armlock below could use some tightening up too.

Importance[edit]

This was on Low but I changed it to Mid. In my opinion it should be mid or high... but definitely not low, armlocks are an important and frequent device used in martial arts. Disco 06:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the hammerlock, you turkey necks[edit]

Everybody's doing it! Mike R (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the Main Photo[edit]

While this photo does indeed depict an armbar, I believe that it does not uphold the standard of quality I would expect for wikipedia.

My criticisms in order of importance: 1. The lock is being applied using poor technique.

A. The opponents hand should be oriented thumb-rather than pinky-up.
B. The Marine is grabbing the wrist of his opponent with large amounts of space between his torso and the arm
I. An ineffective grip
II. Inefficient utilization of the muscles of the torso
C. As another user pointed out: The marine is not squeezing his knees very tight

2. The Marine is wearing wrap-around sunglasses

A. He is indoors
B. Uncool and tacky

3. The opponent is screaming: tacky

I know that there are many differences in armbar styles and types, but I just had to voice my concerns. I do not think that this photo should be the primary representative for armlocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.205.74 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. He looks like a clown and it makes the whole article look ridiculous. The technique isn't right, and seriously, who trains with sunglasses on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.50.6 (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If you have another image that we can use (either public domain or under a Creative Commons license then please replace that one. --Natet/c 13:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I came here to say this. The picture is irrelevant and just shows a couple douchebag Marines playing around. Douchebag sunglasses on indoors, douchebag watch turned the wrong way, douchebag tattoos, poor technique and the MCMMAP reference is unnecessary and distracting from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.197.127 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, this douchebag was under investigation for making death threats to a woman. LCpl Ron Parikh, USMC is a douchebag. Source: http://crime.blogs.com/tre/2008/02/a-few-good-men.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.197.127 (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Straight armbar attack?[edit]

In my experience a straight armbar will break the forearm, not the elbow. Certainly the elbow is strained, but the forearm will break before the elbow does. I suggest saying that the straight armbar (when done properly) attacks the forearm and not the elbow. Agree disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.49.68 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with experience in grappling, I tend to disagree. In my experience, the straight armbar is an elbow attack, when done properly it will hyperextend the elbow, and eventually tear tendons and break the joint. While there will be pressure on the forearm it is not the primary target, the joint is the weak point of the arm and much more vulnerable to isolation and attack. However, if the opponent attempts a lift while the armbar is applied, the amount of force of the forearm is greatly increased and this can actually cause the forearm to snap (see image). Nevertheless, it is important to state that this is a side effect of poor defensive tactics, not the original goal of the technique.--Jdcollins13 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Omoplata[edit]

How can one make the redirect jump to the Omoplata anchor on the page? If someone searches Omoplata they see the armbar image at the top and they assume it means "armbar" -iopq (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

to make a redirect point straight to a section the usual method is to use the pagename followed by a pound sign (#) then the section name. alternately you could simply follow the contents link to the desired section and copy the applicable part of the url, or perhaps copy the link straight from the contents, the latter I have not tested however, so I am not as sure on that will work.Jdcollins13 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rendundant/Unsourced Intro[edit]

I was just going through the article and doing some general maintenance, when I noticed we have some redundant and unsourced material in the introduction, mainly the description of the armbar and flying armbar, respectively. I feel that some of the information may be of value, but should be relocated to the appropriate sections or subsections with valid citations added, but before initiating such a change I would like make sure there are no objections.Jdcollins13 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism Edits[edit]

Yesterday an ip user deleted an entire section (Juji-gatame), and renamed a section from flying armbar to cross armbreaker, perhaps I'm in the minority but I feel flying armbar is a much more common term for the technique, and I personally felt Juji-gatame was one of the most informative sections in the article, are there any thoughts on this? (I wish to avoid edit warring so seek a general consensus) Jdcollins13 (talk)

I am replacing removed information. Jdcollins13 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some possibly helpful info[edit]

On this edit I removed some stuff added by 139.67.141.132 that may be of use but needs copyediting and checking. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)