Technician, or Technique Whore?

  When I've referenced Taika in conversations/lectures, I've usually referred to him as being a technician. I've encountered numerous individuals from other disciplines who were similarly inclined (in their respective fields), yet rarely do any possess the over-all knowledge level that Taika demonstrates. 

    

   I've often encountered individuals who possess a numerical defensive technique knowledge level. I don't consider many (if any) of these individual's as being “technician’s” though (at least as I would define one to be). From my own perspective, it's the equivalent of calling someone who has bolted a replacement part on a car, as being a mechanic. Though many of these individual's know numerous techniques, when queried as to the operating mechanics behind each, those individual's knowledge is lacking at best.

  

  For our students, the initially shown techniques are intended to illustrate individual principles of application. Each demonstrates a variation of the basic application methods. When these are in reference to a wrist technique, they're commonly applied to the ulnar side of the wrist. When applied to a limb, those motions are being applied so as to cause the affected joint to create a condition that can be exploited by the applier to control and/or physically nullify an aggressor's ability to continue any further aggressive behavior.

  

  For some students, this level of knowledge is unwanted, as well as being deemed unnecessary. Those students are (commonly) seeking the quick-fix (type of) techniques (usually to add to a preexisting technique base), and often fall into the technique whore category.

   

  To our concept of training students, it is necessary for our student's to understand every aspect of the application (and/or failure) of the techniques being shown to them. To simply be knowledgeable of a (large) quantity of techniques, means nothing. To be able to apply a single technique in a large number of different situations, means far more (to our way of thinking).

   

  This concept applies to both our combination techniques, and to the tuite techniques taught to our student's. It's rare, that a shown technique has (only) a single situational application. Though some student's aren't aware of it, the initially shown technique's (of both combination's & tuite) will commonly end up being the most utilized by a student (if/when they find themselves in a confrontational situation).

  

  Possessing a large repertoire of technique's may appear impressive, but when it comes to being able to utilize (any of) them in a confrontation, a more condensed amount will be more readily applicable.

  

  I believe that being aware of alternative applications is beneficial (if not necessary) for an instructor. But for the student (only desiring to learn to defend themselves) technique redundancy can become confusing (if/when it becomes excessive).

  

  Very often, it's those technique's that are disregarded (by student's) as being, or having no applicable use, that are the most utilized in actual confrontations. This usually is because of false practice methodology's being applied to those very technique's.

   

  Straight and/or cross-wrist grabs, pushes, slaps, these are all (very) common occurrences, yet people (student's) ignore their (very) probable escalation to more serious situations. Simply waiting until a situation becomes (obviously) serious, can be too late. When comparing how these situations usually occur, they usually happen under similar circumstances (as those that are being practiced).

   

  There's rarely any need to have a complicated/involved manor of responding to the majority of these situations. Possessing 30 different manors of responding to a wrist grab is (IMO) a debatable attribute. Granted, having only a single technique might be limiting one's ability's, but too many only becomes confusing. 

 

  When one is familiar with the mechanics of a particular attack, and the application of the various methods of countering that attack, deciding how to do so becomes more of a matter of individual comfort than necessity. There are usually numerous ways to counter any aggression, the difference between any of them is usually in the ending condition/positioning of the uke.

  

  If/when one understands the necessary motions to neutralize an aggression, then it should only be a matter of choosing the preferred manor of executing those motions. As a rule, there are only so many motions that are possible (for any given situation). It becomes a matter of choosing how one performs those motions.

   

  For our student's instruction, we have chosen to begin their study by introducing them to (only) several techniques, that will work for responding to several different common aggressive actions. These responses are appropriate regardless of whether the aggressor utilizes their Right, or their Left hand (the technique is performed in the same manor regardless).

   

  The first of these taught, is the 2-handed forearm strike (I described this technique in a previous blog). Another of these ambidextrous (response) technique's, is (what we call) the cover/strike motion.