The Many Faces of Tuite

 Obviously, from the many “posts” I've made in regards to it, LOL. The application of RyuTe's version of technique's can be difficult to explain (to those unfamiliar with them). I was viewing a video that someone had on their dojo web page, and they provided an example of a technique which had been taught to them during a seminar (by a RyuTe practitioner). 
       
 The technique was a version of what we (at our school) call a Push/Catch. These individual's went on, and on, about how great this technique was. But, as I sat and watched their execution of it, all I could do was count how many things they were doing wrong, and the counter's (to the technique) that these individual's were creating, from their version/example of doing the technique.
      

 Knowing who showed them this technique (the name was provided on the site), I know, that the technique was not taught in the manner illustrated by their example. But it did make me wonder, how many people would/will view this (supposed “example” of Tuite), and presume that it is correct? And further, how did these individual's so bastardize a perfectly legitimate technique, into the convoluted mess of confusion that they presented on their site?


 Anytime I see the word “Tuite”, included in a description of what some school is teaching, my first presumption, is that their teaching “RyuTe”. Usually, from reading further, I discover that they have only “changed the name” of what they do teach, TO Tuite. These are the individual's whom I will immediately label as Jack-offs. I've written elsewhere as to how that term (“Tuite”, not “Jack-off”, LOL) came into existence. 
      
 There are some who (at least) have chosen to use the (Japanese) “Torite” pronunciation, which doesn't bother me, and a few who use the Okinawan “Tuiti” (pronunciation). In any event, it's the latest trend to rename your “grappling/Jujitsu”, even “Hapkido/Aikido” to (now) be called “Tuite”. I guess it's important to stay up to date with the latest trend/catch phrase.


 Seeing that (Taika's version of) Tuite, is what I have taught over the years, I've had no need for a name change, but I've encountered numerous individual's who insist that their system teaches the same techniques (as RyuTe does). I inevitably ask them to show/demonstrate to/for me. I am routinely disappointed.
      
 When I (in turn) show them (and slowly I might add) what I am (meaning “RyuTe”) teaching, they proclaim that “I” did so (too) “hard/fast/slow/different”, and did so, with intent to cause damage/injury to them. The fact that they weren't hurt (in any way/manor), seemed to be an irrelevant factor to their argument.
     
  They claimed, that only because of their training (in their what-ever system) were they able to escape injury, and that proved their point (?). OK, what-ever. These sorts of individual's, I have no time available to waste on.


 It should be clear from everything that I've written previously in this blog, that I enjoy teaching. While doing so, I garner further knowledge that helps me, to continue to develop the manner which I do so. At our school, the instruction of Tuite, is considered one of the major focuses of student instruction/knowledge. We also do an extensive amount of control and manipulation (of an uke) following any/all of the technique applications. The study of either of these aspects, requires our student's to spend a fair amount of time on understanding the human body's motions and reactions, and the limit's of those motions.


 Tuite, though only a piece of the RyuTe system, is unique enough (from other forms of it) that it does require extensive amounts of practice. I welcome others to demonstrate their versions upon myself, I only ask that they do so slowly (I'm not stupid, LOL). This (doing so slowly) often is the telling example of any inadequacy of what they are doing.

 Some will admit this weak-point, and others only dismiss it (feeling that the technique is adequate enough not to be effected by the weakness). Those that dismiss it, I view as being either too lazy (to further improve their own techniques), or too arrogant to lower themselves (and hence, admit the inadequacy of their technique's) to further improve what/how they teach.