Of
late, I've been doing a lot of research on what and how
(other) systems are teaching their methods and precepts for
the training of their students over the performance of applying their
manner of grappling/manipulation techniques.
Though
usually calling their techniques (or whatever it is
that their doing) “Tuite”, unless those techniques were taught by
Taika Oyata, they're not (actual) Tuite (which I have
explained elsewhere).
Seeing
that we're rewriting our school's Tuite Instruction Manual, I was recently
looking-up something on the internet, and came across something
similar to our 6 Basic Tuite Principles. I've listed
them (theirs) here for comparison purposes, and to be frank,
their pretty disappointing.
In
comparison, they have 9, where as we have only 6, (at least for our
basic principles). Some of theirs are just ridiculous
IMO. They should be considered obvious enough to not be
required as being “principles”, much less as the vague
concept that their implying (ie. #5, The first half of #6, and #8).
They also have a few of them that are simply re-stating the
same thing, in different ways? (#2, 3, and 4).
Their
“principles” are as follows:
1.
Use pressure points, every joint is controlled by at least four
points
2.
Apply complex torque, move a joint in more than one direction (bend
& twist)
3.
Utilize two way action (push & pull)
4.
Generate confusion, confuse the mind or the joint. Mind-slap, kick,
strike before tech. Move
joint in several different directions to
confuse it before technique.
5.
Work against a base, create a base, either you leg, body or hand.
6.
Create mechanical advantage, position yourself where you are the
strongest and they are the
weakest. keep your arms in close to your
body.
7.
Apply variable pressure, change the frequency of the tension applied
to a lock. our body
eventually will compensate for the pain. change
pressure to prevent that.
8.
Stick to opponent, always keep in contact with attacker. sticky
hands theory
9.
Utilize Redundancy, means to apply several principles at the same
time or in rapid succession.
Their first one
(#1), to myself is just stupid.
By making this a principle,
their implying that one has to learn those (supposed)
“4”
points (which again, is just stupid),
the implication that these “points” even exist,
is that someone has to learn them
to cause the techniques to work. #7 is the only one that actually
makes sense
(though we don't include it in ours,
because it should already
be understood by the student with the learned application of any/all
general technique).
Having
actually read
the texts that these are based
upon, I'm already aware of how incorrect
their application methods are (as well as the premiss for their
methodology). I've stated before that those texts are used by
us, for our students to point-out
the things that they're
doing wrong
in their provided photo's.
My associate was
even recently contacted by someone who was going to be working in
town (K.C.MO.) over the next few month's, and was curious about
attending our class. His (main) question
was regarding whether we taught these (listed above) “principles”.
After
informing him that we (or Taika) did not,
he replied with “Thanks”,...that's all, just “Thanks”, LOL. I
find it incredible to begin with, that anyone
follows the idiot
that this individual was enamored with, but to pass
on acquiring hands-on
experience? (because that someone didn't follow the same
theory that you had seen,...once
before?).
When these guy's
came out with their “No-touch” knockouts (mid 2000's), I figured
everyone would then
(have
to) realize
that they didn't know what they were talking about (except for the
loser's that live
for the bizarre,
LOL).
For
the most part, they did
lose
what little
credibility
that they did have. It seems it's only the real
loser's (and of course the Charlatan's that provide
these
seminars (in stupidity,
LOL) that follow what these moron's
are preaching.
They
pretty much amount to anybody
that's willing to do anything
to get your money, while making themselves
out to be something more
than what they are (and of course figuring that there are people that
will be too ignorant
to know better, LOL).
I do know that if/when comparing what these people are teaching (to ours), they are basing theirs on pseudo-science instead of any real science.
No comments:
Post a Comment