29 posts / 0 new
Last post
Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture
Wrist Grab Defence - Why bother?

Hi all

On one of my videos someone posted this comment,

"Can anyone post applications where it is not someone grabbing the wrist..this is a very clear and well executed video... I have never known someone to grab the wrist ...but as I say excellent and clear thanks you"

I made a shot clip explaining my position on this subject, do you agree with me or in fact there is no point teaching defence agaist wrist grabs?

deltabluesman
deltabluesman's picture

Les,

I completely agree with you about wrist grabs.  It's essential to practice wrist grab defenses.  Too many martial artists overlook this skill or only pay it lip service.  It's especially important for women who are training self-protection skills (as you point out in your video).  It is also very important for anyone who carries a self-protection weapon.  

There was an older thread a few years ago where some people weighed in on this.  Here's a link to the discussion in case you're interested:  https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/considering-wrist-grabs-karate-and-aikido

But to sum up, I strongly agree with you and really like the drills you show in the second half of your video.

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Deltabluesman, Thank you and I agree with you the martial artist overlook those techniques. Thank you for the link.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Good video Les! 100% agree.

I think the problem when teaching wrist escapes is that they are often taught out of context … and that’s totally OK when first learning the technique. People see this initial phase and mistake it for the entirety of the process. I can see why people may say that is it very unlikely for some one to grab and wrist and then stand still (i.e. not pull or strike), but to say that people never grab wrists is false. It happens all the time in fighting (arm-drags, setting up throws, etc) and even more so in self-defence (attempt to remove fence; open up path for strike; counter an attack to eyes, throat or groin; prevent escape, etc.).

Definitely something that needs practised.

All the best,

Iain

Elmar
Elmar's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
.... People see this initial phase and mistake it for the entirety of the process.

One of the nice things about Nishio style aikido is that Nishio sensei insisted that the other hand (not the grabbing one) actually do something (like punch you in the face).  Now there is a reason to do something.  Wrist grabs are an easy teaching setup and a good place to start imho, but it does need to progress to grabs at the elbow, shoulder and lapel/shirt front, coupled with something else happening, i.e. why the grab is being executed - grabs rae generally means to the end of pummeling, after all.

PASmith
PASmith's picture

One of the many lightbulb moments I've got from Iain' s approach to things was his context to wrist grabs whereby the wrist is grabbed because if it's not the opponents eyes are gouged/throat crushed/testicles seized! One very important context to wrist grabs we've lost I think is people habitual carrying of a weapon or blade. When weapons are very likely to be drawn in an argument then wrist grabs become more common to stop a weapon being deployed or used. When a culture like Britain (for example) becomes less about weapons and more about putting up your dukes and engaging in fisticuffs grabbing a wrist becomes less useful.

Heath White
Heath White's picture

I think I agree with everyone here that (1) wrist grab defenses are very important, and (2) the way they are usually taught--out of context--obscures this.  A couple lightbulb moments for me:

1) I realized that samurai were worried about their opponents drawing swords, hence would grab the wrist to prevent it.  Thus if you are a samurai you need to know how to get his hand off your wrist.  The same goes  today for anyone who might ever use a weapon.

2) I realized about the hikite.  If people are going to be pulling your guard down, etc. you need to be able to defend against this.

3) I realized how many arm bars there are in the forms.  Defending against an armbar involves defending a wrist grab.

What makes them seem dumb is lack of  context.  If you teach defense against grab-and-punch or grab-and-twist or he-grabs-to-prevent-your-strike then it makes much more sense.

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I actually wrote about this some time ago, and caught flak for it at the time. It's been long enough that I forgot it was an argument :P. Good points, Les!

https://www.karateobsession.com/2015/03/wrist-grabs-in-karate-training.html

JuhaK
JuhaK's picture

Nice clip. I think everything should be practiced. Ok, well if someone is practicing consensual fighting, like MMA or whatever, then there might be some things what can be excluded, because those are not needed in competition. But in non-consensual fighting, I think every imaginable scenario is possible and should be practiced. Someone can grab your wrist, hair or even ankle. And not just grappling other things too. Of course some are more likely to happen than others, but still needs to be practiced.

sarflondonboydo...
sarflondonboydonewell's picture

When Japan was an armed soicety grabbing wrist(s) was to prevent the swordsman drawing his sword or short dagger concealed inside the jacket. Some jutsu schools during that period techiques reflect that both to prevent the weapons being drawn and for the armed person to deal with the grabs and so as to then draw the sword or dagger to kill the attacker. Fast forward to today; people who grabs wrist tend to want control on the whole they are the 50/50 people; not certain if they want to fight so by going  for some wrist control they think  they can control the other person and prevent being punched and in the end the grabbed might give up; tends to work when they are up against 50/50 people them selves but against those that have committed themselves mentally  to fight then it tends to fail. Should one teach it? Yes in context.

Les Bubka
Les Bubka's picture

Thank you all, 

looking on comments across the Facebook, not many people understood what I'm saying on the clip :)

Kind regards

Tau
Tau's picture

I'm sure that I've discussed this on here and indeed relayed the story that I'm going to relay now. Wrist grabs have been the first grabbing attack that I've learned through both Aiki-Jujitsu and Aiki-Do. I was very dubious about this and questioned this probably for exactly the same reasons as you're being questioned now. I had two reasons for having wrist locks in the syllabus at a low grade:

1. it was a goood introduction to grabbing, spacial awareness, moving leverage and so on. But just an introduction

2. they corresponded to our supposed herritage in the Japanese feudal arts, specifically the art of the sword. Tori reaches for the tsuka. Uke arrests tori's wrist. Tori locks uke's wrist. This is illustrated in my YouTube video: 

 

Note that this is a nine minute video that is probably of no interest to most of you. The wrist grab stuff starts at 06:40ish.

I did a seminar with Iain a few years ago in which he taught bunkai to Chinto including wrist lock. This is illustrated on the link below and I think endorses Les's view and video.

 

At the seminar the critical mind kicked in and I remember thinking along the lines of "no-one would grab your wrist like that." Less than a week later a fight broke out in the waiting room of the hospital that I worked at. I stepped in to seperate the two fighters.... and one grabbed hold of my wrist exactly as in Iain's video! At that point in my mind I expertly and precisely followed Chinto kata. In reality I reigned myself in.

So I too have questioned the value of learning wrist locks. But there's my answer. I agree with Les wholeheartedly; they most certainly do happen.

Anf
Anf's picture

Wrist grabs do happen. I've seen it plenty of times in petty disputes that have escalated. I've also been on the receiving end of them.

However, I've also seen how in pretty much all cases, the person being grabbed very quickly, usually with a furious look on their face, escaped the grab, despite in most cases never having attended a single martial arts class.

For this reason, I too used to be skeptical about them in the class. But since I migrated towards grappling {aikido and jiu-jitsu} I have a new appreciation for them in training. As Tau has said, they are useful for teaching various principles of leverage, those same principles being applied to more plausible scenarios. My journey in the grappling arts has only just begun. I have nowhere near enough experience to understand it all, but so far I've seen that just as you think something is not that practical, you'll suddenly be moved on to another layer of practicality.

I think most people that write off a technique or principle or training method, largely, don't understand it. You'll always get that. It happens in every aspect of life, not just martial art.

PASmith
PASmith's picture

One thing I see happening a LOT are grabs (wrist, arm, clothing) from friends and bystanders looking to break a fight up. Very dangerous as other people can tie up your arms and make you more vulnerable while your opponent is still dangerous or willing/able to fight. Their heart is often in the right place but can complicate things.

Wastelander
Wastelander's picture

I do feel that I should point out that there is a difference between techniques being done off of wrist grabs, and simply defending against our escaping a wrist grab. We teach simple wrist grab breaks to our beginners, before we even teach them techniques off of wrist grabs, because most of the time you can just pop your arm out of their grip and continue whatever you need to do. This would apply to things like bystanders getting involved, as PASmith mentions. There's no need to work actual techniques against them for just trying to break things up. It's the guy actively trying to control you so he can hurt you that you would use techniques against.

colby
colby's picture

I think people forget sometimes what's it like to be a complete beginner. Like to most people on this forum it's a no brainer right cause your aware and will never let someone grab you to begin with. But for a beginner, it's something easy that you can teach anyone of all ages. And it's something that you can build off of. You can grab and punch, lapel grab, double grab, whatevs

B Fountain
B Fountain's picture

In addition to a lot of what has been said any police officer or legally armed civilian would have a need to be able to break away from someone wrist grabbing trying to keep him or her from drawing their sidearm or other weapons, or to setup theft of such weapons.

Anf
Anf's picture

There's a new video from reality check self defence specifically about defence from wrist grabs. It's excellent, as most of their videos are. And very pragmatic.

https://youtu.be/6bOMjYHDSsI

That said, I do believe there is value in learning the 'traditional' techniques, as long as there is always the understanding that they are unlikely to work in a true violent encounter. The principles may be valid, but I see the 'techniques' as nothing more than a safe and controlled mechanism for conveying those ideas.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
There's a new video from reality check self defence specifically about defence from wrist grabs. It's excellent, as most of their videos are. And very pragmatic. https://youtu.be/6bOMjYHDSsI

The initial premise of “no one walks up and grabs your wrist” is flawed. I know of many women who have had people grab their wrists in an attempt to prevent them leaving / prolong unwanted conversation and to subtlety intimidate / show dominance. It is particularly common in public / semi-public locations were more subtle forms of control need to be employed.

There is a “male-centric” theme running through the critique, both in the denial of the initial premise, the “punch him really ####ing hard with your free hand until they stop being conscious” alternative, and the sarcastic mocking of the “incredibly dangerous” wrist grab. That said, the “escapes” taught in the original video are indeed overly complex for the target audience and hence inappropriate for self-protection.

People ARE gripped by the wrist. It needs trained in a self-protection context.

The objective is to escape (not KO / win). To do this a simple combination of strikes and strips would be the way to go; combined with shouts to “get off me!” and for help and assistance. The vocal element can draw attention to the subtle control which may cause the criminal to abandon it. It can’t be overlooked.

The “escapes” in the original video are too complex. The advice in the critique is also flawed in my view. It is advising people with minimal skill seek to KO an attacker and it ignores the simple strips – slap down / pull up – that can work when used in combination with strikes (palm heels over punches). The aim is to escape not “win”.

Witness perception and legalities are also ignored. By way of illustration:  

A man says something inappropriate to a woman as she passes by in a night club. The man grabs her wrist, “I was talking to you! What’s the matter? You too good to talk to me?” Woman asks man to let go. He say’s “No. You stay here and talk to me” …

Scenario A (as advised in video): Woman tries to KO man with her free hand. She makes no attempt to break the grip. She is not successful in KO-ing man, but the whole club witness a man getting repeatedly punched. Others intervene and break up situation. Staff call police. Man maintains he simply said hello to the woman when she suddenly started swinging at him. He grabbed her arm to stop the volley of punches, but it was simply self-defence. Witnesses confirm they saw the women punching the man as he cowered with one arm in his grip. Woman has badly bruised knuckes and man has minor facial injuries. Woman potentially finds herself getting charged with assault. Sleazeball gets off scot-free.

Scenario B: Woman repeatedly screams “Get your hands off me!” as she repeatedly attempts to palm heel man (perceived as less violent). She then applies a simple strip. The strip may work, or the man may let go due to public awareness of his actions. Woman creates space. Man does not pursue due to all eyes being on him.  She screams, “Help me! This man put his hands on me!”  Others intervene and come to aid of woman. Staff call police. Witnesses confirm they saw the woman trying to free herself from the grip of the man as she shouted for help and for him to let go. No legal problems for woman and man potentially gets charged with assault.

I can see problems with both the original video and the critique. The original video shows complex “tricks” as self-protection.  The critique fails to recognise the validity of the premise, the objective within the defined context, and to present a sound alternative as a result.

All the best,

Iain

Heath White
Heath White's picture

The RCSB neglects to mention a couple of basic principles for the wrist lock it's talking about.  To be fair, these aren't mentioned by the original video they are critiquing either.  But (1) virtually no joint lock is going to work without some distraction strike(s) first; and (2) wrist grab defenses, and wrist locks, work much better when the wrist is close to your torso and far away from theirs.  This may require some footwork.  (See the first move of Pinan Nidan.)

I'm not saying the original video is good instruction--it's not.  But before concluding that a technique "doesn't work in the real world" they ought to at least try to do it in a way that maximizes the chance of success.

Anf
Anf's picture

Heath White wrote:
I'm not saying the original video is good instruction--it's not.  But before concluding that a technique "doesn't work in the real world" they ought to at least try to do it in a way that maximizes the chance of success.

How would one go about testing its real life effectiveness?

I myself have taken part in many a drill aimed at testing these techniques (joint locks and take downs). Of course they might work in real life, but equally I've experienced both my failure to get the technique on, and the failure of others to get it on me. This is with minimal resistance, and with no party being genuinely aggressive and with genuine intent.

To pick up on Iain's scenario, that I totally get. Let's considered as Iain suggests, girl in nightclub has just inflicted mild pain on man, and caused him to go to his knees in front of everybody while girl is screaming and yelling at him. The rational man would skulk away at this point and keep a low profile for a few weeks. But our man in the nightclub is not rational. He has just tried to use physical force against a woman, so we already know he is not rational. Already irrational, now he has been humiliated, and he has someone screaming at him. Is he now going to apply cold logic, cut his losses and retreat? The situation has just escalated, he is still in reach of his intended victim. She is still there. Who knows what he will do next?

Back to the video, if you watch other videos by the same chap, we see that he is actually quite humble. He admits in many videos that he doesn't know what to do for the best in a given situation. Unlikely so many martial artists his goal is not to prove his superior knowledge, but to call into question bad advice and terrible techniques. Why might someone do that? There is a huge industry built on people's insecurity and fears. There are martial arts schools everywhere where compliant drills lead people to believe they can take down a much larger assailant. We've all heard it, 'what if they do this? Easy, if they do A, B and C, then ALL we do is X, Y and Z'. People buy that. Literally. They spend a lot of time, energy and money. They show techniques against no resistance, they get their next belt. That's absolutely great if it helps their happiness in any way, but it is dangerous if they believe they can do it against a genuine attacker. Reality check self defence is all about highlighting these issues. Not necessarily about providing the 'correct' alternative, but at least highlightng why things might not go quite as planned when it's not a fully compliant drill.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

I think Sun Tzu’s famous quote applies here:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

When it comes to self-protection this means we need to understand criminal behaviour (“the enemy”) and the person aiming to keep themselves safe (the “yourself”). Most martial artists insert themselves into both roles and hence entirely mess self-protection up.

The criminal will not act like a fellow martial artist. The have different motivations and goals. It’s true that two martial artists in a consensual exchange will not “grab the other’s wrist and stand there”, but that will happen when the criminal wishes to control and assert dominance.

We also should not assume the person trying to mitigate criminal action is, likewise, a fellow martial artist. Again, a very common error i.e. “just keep punching them until they are unconscious” or “here’s a very advanced lock”.

The self-protection student wants to avoid criminal harm. They will not have trained for decades as most of us have. Martial artists like martial arts – for all kinds of reasons – and hence they devote large parts of their lives to it. The person learning self-protection will devote a few weeks at best. We need to know “ourselves” in this scenario.

Jamie Clubb uses the brilliant analogy of first aid vs being a surgeon. Like first aid, a person learning true self-protection is hoping to acquire a basic life skill. They are not wishing to devote years of their lives to becoming a “brain surgeon” i.e. a highly trained specialist. The highly trained specialist can do things that the layman can’t, but what will actually determine the actions they take is the context. If I’m in an accident, I want my health to be maintained while the emergency services are summoned. The first aid practitioner has the training to do that. Just because the brain surgeon CAN perform brian surgery does not mean it is advisable in a first aid context. The brain surgeon should do the exact same things as the first aid practitioner (although, being highly trained in medicine generally, one would hope they will those same things to a higher standard).

Taking this analogy back to the case in hand:

Will self-protection practitioners be able to apply wrist locks in the face of criminal action?

An emphatic NO! It’s neither applicable nor relevant. Such methods should not be taught in that context.

Can wrist locks be applied successfully by highly trained people who have spent decades training?

Applied well and in line with the right tactics such methods can work. If you are going to spend 50 years training, you may as well learn a few wrist locks alongside everything else.

Should a highly trained person use wrist locks in a self-protection context?

The situation demands that they perform the actions most likely to lead to success. They will therefore be doing what the pure self-protection practitioner also does i.e. seek to effectively escape using very simple methods. It is theoretically possible that the situation could arise where a wrist lock is possible, and it is also possible it could work due to the skill of the practitioner, but at best wrist locks are tertiary methods in that context; irrespective of how skilled the martial artist is.

We martial arts types know loads of things that can work but are still not advisable in self-protection in the first instance i.e. kicking, throws, most locks, chokes and strangles, etc, etc. Providing they are applied in the right tactical way for the objective as dictated by the context, such methods can be useful if the need for them arises (secondary methods), but in the first instance we should always use the same basics we should be teaching in self-protection i.e. pre-emption, simple strikes, simple strips, all the associated “soft skills”, etc.

Martial arts and fighting have their own inherent value, and they do have some overlap with self-protection. However, they are far from being the same thing and it is vital that we fully appreciate that. We need to understand criminal behaviour, and we need to understand how everyday people can best mitigate the effects of that behaviour. If we swap out either for [Insert Martial Artist Here] we are not teaching or practicing self-protection effectively. I think both the original video and the critique make that mistake; albeit in different ways.

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

One thing that bothers me about saying "this lock doesn't work" is that often the same logic isn't applied to strikes.

Does a right cross/straight "work"? Obviously yes it does. We see it used countless times in real violence and combat sports to good effect. But...we also see it not work...right straights get blocked, parried, evaded, absorbed, miss, etc all the time. So something "working" is not a simple binary outcome. Lot's of variable factors at play.

When I think of things like joint locks or wrist releases I always think of them as part of the whole. Like a combinaton of strikes where each strike is intended to land and "work" but no single strike is has to "work" 100% of the time in order to still be a valid technique. In a jab/cross/hook any of the three punches can "fail" while still remaining valid techniques in their own right. In the same way if I employ a wrist release it will be mixed into a barrage of techniques. "Palm strike, elbow strike, wrist release, palm strike, palm strike, knee, knee, knee, wrist release, palm strike, run".

Much like striking I think the real key is to find wrist releases or joint locks that fall into the same "bread and butter" category of strike as a right-cross rather than the "jumping spinning, hook, monkey-paw backfist" category of strike.

Not sure if that makes sense?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

PASmith wrote:
Does a right cross/straight "work"? Obviously yes it does. We see it used countless times in real violence and combat sports to good effect. But...we also see it not work...right straights get blocked, parried, evaded, absorbed, miss, etc all the time. So something "working" is not a simple binary outcome. Lot's of variable factors at play …

… Not sure if that makes sense?

Makes perfect sense to me … indeed I have unreleased “head and shoulders” video recorded around that very theme :-)

When we factor in context, it becomes more a case of appropriate / inappropriate and high-percentage / low-percentage as opposed to the black and white of works / does not work. “Works for what?” and “Works for who?” are vital additional questions.

I also believe any functional system will accept that accept that no method is guaranteed to work in all circumstances, in a way that is appropriate to all goals, irrespective of how well it is enacted and countered. We should also train accordingly based on our acceptance of those facts.

As they say in Japan, “saru mo ki kara ochiru” (even monkeys can fall from trees).

All the best,

Iain

Anf
Anf's picture

Excellent analysis and explanation from Iain.

I think the issue boils down to this. Martial art, self protection, whatever, there is no black and white. The idea that something does work or something does not work is unrealistic. In reality it comes down to probability. A liklihood, to varying degrees, of success or failure, and by extension a likelihood, to varying degrees, of the assailant gaining or losing some degree of control over the victim.

When we are play fighting in training, against people we fully trust, we can experiment and get a feel for such probabilities in a controlled setting, safe in the knowledge that if we miss that technique it may result in us tapping, stepping back, shouting ouch, or whatever cue our particular club uses to signal submission and the play fight will immediately stop. When it's for real, we don't have that safety net, so unless we've ran out of all other options, simple actions as close as possible to instinctive behaviour is generally the safer option with the higher probability of success.

I think this is really the point of the video. Perhaps not that we should punch someone til they stop being conscious. I hope that's meant slightly tongue in cheek. I can't imagine any sane person would immediately take that course of action. But that we absolutely must not escalate a situation by attempting a futile technique that you've practiced a few times against zero resistance after learning it from a video or maybe 5 minutes practice as an afterthought in prep for your orange belt grading.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
In reality it comes down to probability.

Absolutely. No guarantees. No absolutes. Just more likely and less likely.

This short article may be relevant to this point:

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/it-depends-and-other-scary-things

Anf wrote:
When we are play fighting in training, against people we fully trust, we can experiment and get a feel for such probabilities in a controlled setting, safe in the knowledge that if we miss that technique it may result in us tapping, stepping back, shouting ouch, or whatever cue our particular club uses to signal submission and the play fight will immediately stop.

That can be very helpful for both learning generally, and a fun and enjoyable experience in and of itself. I really enjoy dojo play; during which I will do / try all kinds of things that I’d never dream of doing in a self-protection context. As an example, I’ve used my shoulder throw successfully loads of times in dojo play / consensual sparring. I know from experience that I can throw people, trained martial artists no less, with that method. I’d still not use it in self-protection though because there are simpler ways to achieve the objective and the risk to reward ratio does not favour it over those simpler methods. It’s not that the shoulder throw does not work (it does), but it’s inappropriate as a primary self-protection method.  

Anf wrote:
simple actions as close as possible to instinctive behaviour is generally the safer option with the higher probability of success.

Absolutely. Consensual fighting can reward complex and indirect actions because they are less predictable. However, self-protection can harshly punish those same actions. The enemy does not have the formal training to recognise and react to the action patterns associated with a given form of consensual conflict; hence there is no need to try to operate outside those patterns.

Anf wrote:
I think this is really the point of the video. Perhaps not that we should punch someone til they stop being conscious. I hope that's meant slightly tongue in cheek.

That’s a fair point and I could be doing them a disservice by taking it literally.

Anf wrote:
we absolutely must not escalate a situation by attempting a futile technique that you've practiced a few times against zero resistance after learning it from a video or maybe 5 minutes practice as an afterthought in prep for your orange belt grading.

100%. Live practise against resistance is always a must … and it’s also important that such training is context specific.

All the best,

Iain

colby
colby's picture

I'm a pretty young guy who'd main threats qre going to be coming from going out at night. And there is a high probability of some drunk of his gourd dude grabbing you, not violently or anything just trying to keep you interacting with him. Now you could escalate things and hit him but that could be a problem. But if you can escape his grasp and go to the other end of the bar or something. Done deal. You have successfully defended yourself. I think the problem is most people are always thinking about mortal combat and forget and it doesn't. Always have to go to that place. It's like a shoulder grab you dont want to palm heel your significant other at a party because they snuck up on you and grabbed your shoulder.

Anf
Anf's picture
colby wrote:
. It's like a shoulder grab you dont want to palm heel your significant other at a party because they snuck up on you and grabbed your shoulder.

If someone grabs your shoulder from behind, quite right, it might just be your friend. Context is key here. You need to consider where you are, who else is there, and what is the general vibe. Because it equally might not be your friend. It might be jealous dude that thinks you've been looking at his wife and is now sufficiently inebriated to think it's a good idea to crack your face. I agree that the reflex response should not be a preemptive strike, but at the same time my reaction would be to turn and look in such a way that my face is not where it might be expected to be if the guys other hand is already a fist travelling to where he expects my face to be. For example, if someone pulls my left shoulder from behind, I don't simply rotate to the left. I kind of step back and round on my right foot such that my face is now off the centre line. Completely passive, so if it is just your friend then nobody bat's an eyelid, but if its not, then you're in a much better position.

swdw
swdw's picture

People that say wrist grabs are never used have only seen school yard fights and maybe a couple of bar fights where the people had already faced off. The UK Habitual Acts of Violence study has an entire list of comman wrist grabs used against women.

A friend that's a bouncer saw 3 fights in one week that started with either a wrist grab or pin. These were male vs male. 

My Sensei worked in the prison system for almost 20 years, and I have students and friends that are in law enforcement. They have esplained to me that wrist grabs are actually fairly common when the perpetrator is trying to restirct an officer from going for a tazer, stick, or gun. Same thing with civilians carrying pepper spray or tazers. I have personally seen a guy grab another guys wrist when the hands were held up in front (the fence).

I was also shown how many of the wrist counters can be used against a punch. So yes, the counters should be taught. However, like Iain said, too many places ony have the grabber stand there and do a static hold. Yes this is necessary for a person to learn the motion. But then you need to up the training.

With wrist, arm, clothing, shoulder, and hair grabs; the training should step up in stages until you reach the point where the grabber is moving and trying to turn or off balance the defender. If you don't do that, then you are doing a disservice to your students. So yes they should be taught.