First, let's get this out of the way. We both know you are aware of what's meant when talking about a high crotch lift. Deliberately feigning ignorance on a topic you often talk about and study from afar does nothing to promote productive discourse.
You know, I was really curious if you could find an actual example of a "high crotch" or "high crotch lift" with the head to the outside and arms straight... I knew that you'd either pull up something or resort to trying to make it about you briefly watching something the video and wanting to categorize it according to your ideas that don't pan out in actual practice. The "short description" you are so desperately trying to use as your excuse for incorrectly labeling it is already taken. In fact I even stated in the OP, the more common and appropriate name for it would be a lock slide single, due to the lock on a head inside single sliding up to the crotch. Your brief description would actually create more confusion since the "high crotch and head outside singles" operate on different mechanics in their execution and approach. As well as the fact that people already think of a different technique than what I showed here when you say "high C lift"
If you would actually "try" this technique, then "try" a "high crotch or head outside single" lift and compare them. You would understand why I am very deliberately differentiating the two. I have multiple reasons why I don't equivocate them that have nothing to do with reductive systematization.
See to me this really is a question about technique, not something else. I know your quirks well enough now to know that you won't actually answer or give counter examples, which is fine. By all means call them the same thing incorrectly.
TLDR: To all the people reading this... I would strongly recommend not trying to do this as a "hi-c lift" if your head is on the outside and you try this finish, your shoulders will get ripped out, and finishing a head outside single with straight arms would be.. difficult
One wonders how Cain Velasquez or Daniel Cormier have possibly survived too this day.
Well, Cain hasn't held up too well, perhaps we have discovered the truth here in this to blame. Though it seems to still leave the question open of how Daniel's ligaments didn't instantly explode upon lifting Barnett, Gustafson, or Jones with hands locked under while his head was on the outside.
>Well if you look closely you will see his arms are slightly bent rather than fully locked out which is what i will assume you meant for the purposes of this argument, not that i want to be pedantic or anything...
On a completely related note, in your view, which single leg should be the only single leg to get to be called single leg? Obviously there are some variations of a theme here or there, but they can't
all hog the same rhetorical real estate, can they?
Well, yes they can.
If i were coaching you and said 'the single is there!' What's the first thing that would come to mind? What
could be coming too mind? Is there potentially more than one answer? If so, would it be
valid to say they are all answers? If so, then why?
There are two basic problems here in my mind. The first and perhaps simplest is the presumption of a shared terminology in the first place. We all speak english here, but we don't all speak the same language. In a sport with as much regional colour as wrestling, this should not be an unobvious fact. Me saying 'single!' to an athlete
could mean a lot of things, but in our
shared context it would mean something specific, it would mean whatever it is in particular that was worked on leading up too that event. If you want a perfect illustration of this fact, try typing in 'lock slide single' or 'lock slide wrestling' into youtube, and see how many results will actually show you what you're thinking of.
In cases where there might be confusion or cross purposes over terminology, a reasonable cool-headed response could be to simply to ask for clarification, and often in turn provide yourself, then you will see if you are or are not in fact talking about the same things, and carry on your discussion of
function from there. You might or might not then be pleased to have a discussion over the relative merits or synthesis of different naming systems if you wish. Agreement is of course optional. All of this rather than going strait for the jugulars post-haste. I will say my response to your jab was studiously pointed, but i did still leave the door open for just such a possibility. It does take two to tango.
We are all speaking of the same pure noumenal realm of grappling dynamics beyond the cloak of verbal phenomena, after all. I don't really get upset at people mistakenly calling cross arm locks 'arm bars', for example, any more than i might get upset at the dutch for using the wrong word for airplane, nor do i presume them gravely touched in the head in some way so as to have be able to arrive at such a mistake. That would only really be an applicable possibility if we actually had the same shared context. Elsewise, it would be a category error to think such a thing.
It is perfectly reasonable to have terms that contain yet more terms, constituting a
category, rather than nominalistically insisting on every given thing having only one single manners of reference. Could we live in a world where things like 'crack holds' could be
subsets of things like 'high crotch lifts'? Yes we can.
The second problem is... well first, correct me if this whole matter is just a foible of miscommunication here, but you gave me a strong impression that you figured that someone lifting with a high crotch grip with arms extended and the head outside was, if not impossible, then at least highly disadvantageous, and hence had a certain expectation of not finding any examples at all, or at least, not any examples amongst high level competition, or at the very least, not any examples so explicitly clear cut that you would be unable to split hairs over it for the purposes of face.
So the second problem is, in so many words, asking people to damn their lying eyes. Someone looking at examples in reality would see things like Cormier flipping people over with power cleans, and the foregoing would effectively be saying to them 'well according to my personal theoretical model of grappling dynamics, such a thing could not be taking place, so you can't actually be seeing what you are seeing'; but they are seeing it...
To say it's
impossible would be plainly counterfactual; to say it is never the less
suboptimal, would be debatable. It's not an impossibility i could even agree to some extent, but it might also be a moot point either way, if in sparring lifts against the cage you find use for either head position for the pop, whichever you can get. I'd always leave the door open anyways, at any rate.
You can find a lot of different demonstrations of various high crotch lifts from demonstrators of varying professionalism (which they all call high crotch lift). Many show going elbow deep with at least one arm; some show locking the hands, others show varying grips, with one arm in and one around the waist; which arm is doing which on what side can vary as well. Some show a finish by using just one leg as a lever for a dump, others like to switch to both legs, for a 'double dump' if you will. Carl Adams show the in and out grip for his lift. Kary Kolat locks underneath the hamstring near the knee when showing his lift, and actually finishes with a cartwheel, assuming an elbow block. (As an aside, i hope it continues to become more obvious how insisting that the generic term 'high crotch lift' refers only to a single certain kind of lift in particular quickly becomes problematic.)
Watching a high level practitioner like Cormier perform a move
in praxis though, dealing with very heavy 'loads', when he does do a major lift, he does not usually go in elbow deep, and he does usually keep the hands locked, and in a lot of cases, his head is outside too. A man of Daniel's build against the sort of opponents he usually faced would have little trouble getting in elbow deep with the help of the cage, if he so desired, yet almost every time, he would go hands deep and lift with the arms extended. I don't think it is for no good reason. The biomechanical similarity to how one might jerk a barbel a number of times one's own weight is, i would wager, not a coincidence.
