Many Qinna techniques require mistakes from your opponent, such as leaving an arm out for too long after attempting a strike. In addition, they require great precision. Is Qinna useful in active fighting or sparring against experienced opponents or not? It seems to me (from all of the Qinna that I have seen) to only serve the purpose of punishing an opponent for an inexperienced choice, in most cases. In addition, much of Qinna is done standing and although the joint locks are painful, there are often very simple ways to escape them. With this being the case, Qinna would very rarely be able to be used in order to force a submission from a capable and experienced fighter. More often than not, I see these techniques as being useful in setting up a strike. However, due to their relative need for extreme precision, it often seems futile to attempt the lock in the first place, the smart choice to instead go directly for the intended strike. I honestly don't see Qinna as being useful against, say, a well-trained boxer. What is your opinion on the matter? What movements in particular do you find useful or useless?
When you are in - kicking range, you can kick. - punching range, you can punch. - clinching range, you can lock or throw. Trying to apply locking and throwing in kicking and punching range is not realistic. In clinch, if you can get your opponent an - over hook, you can apply an elbow lock from there. - under hook, you can apply a shoulder lock from there. - ...
Not really true. Some chin na requires nothing more than an opponent's grip on you, or you have hold of an arm (strike or no strike), and BJJ for example plenty of grip breaking and locking techniques that would fall into "chin na" portions of CMA. But if you are facing someone whose guard is up, chin na should not be on your noggin at all. Chin na is advanced technique for use when the conditions are right (and they often are), but a faceoff is not one of those conditions. A great portion (not all, but many) of Japanese and ultimately Brazilian locking techniques came from from the various forms of "Tang Te" (Tang Dynasty Hand) chin na techniques. In reality, these techniques probably predate the countries themselves, because our primate ancestors likely figured out how to lock each other up well before Homo Sapiens gave it a name. But what are now "submission" lock techniques were once actually limb destruction techniques. You didn't use them to make your opponent submit (unless you wanted to spare them the suffering): you destroyed one elbow, then went for the other if necessary. Some particularly brutal chin na actually combines simultaneous locking and striking. You only need a split second and the right opportunity to make this work...mistake or no mistake on the part of your partner. True but that precision only comes with great practice, and it's possible to practice chin na to be very fast, very effective in the right applications. But simply put, no amount of practice will make chin na work when it isn't meant to work. This is really the "movie" version of chin na, where it's used as pain compliance. But again, it depends on your exposure. Some people learn 3 or 4 grip breaks and think they know chin na. Chin na is about learning how to manipulate your opponent's limbs and joints to your advantage, in ways you want or away from places you don't want them... not to make them cry uncle which is the popular image. This if often because people learn chin na standing. In fact, chin na is infinitely more useful on the ground or against solid objects, like walls. A standing kimura (which falls under chin na) for instance is easy for most people to get out of, which is why when police apply it, they apply it on a grounded suspect or against a squad car, etc. An armbar is chin na, so no, it definitely works on capable and experienced fighters. It will often seem futile to attempt a lock until the moment the lock should be attempted, which is a big part of anyone's chin na game. The same goes for Judo or BJJ locks. If you try a lock at the wrong time, you'll fail and often get beaten. Again, if you're talking "movie" stuff, no, you will never get a boxer to cry uncle from your pinky hold. But there are real chin na locks that would work fine against any boxer in a mixed ruleset. In an actual boxing match, where things like locks are prohibited, then no.
One other note: remember the language differences often throw people off the intended meaning of these terms...."chin na" is a concept as much as any specific technique....there are hundreds and hundreds of trapping/locking/breaking techniques under the chin na umbrella from both Northern and Southern CMA styles, before we even get to the Japanese techniques. And, they were so popular and effective in ancient times they were re-used in jujutsu, judo, Brazilian jiujitsu...in many ways these arts are effective because the ancient ways of locking up your opponents limbs is one of the most tried and true of martial arts skills. Ironically, chin na still gets a lot of flak because of its (often ridiculous) depiction in film. But it forms the underpinning concept of some of the most effective martial arts techniques in the modern age. Remember the first few UFCs? The big strikers back then also thought the locks/submissions of wrestling and jiujitsu were worthless against their fists. Boy were they wrong.
Fixed that for you For the second portion the techniques typically aren't about submission, they're either dynamic destructions, active restraints or they're for controlling and throwing.
