Friday, August 16, 2013

Is Your Trainiing Applicable To The Situation?

  When talking to, or reading about what people “do” during their training, it (often) makes me wonder how many people have actually been in a confrontation? A vast majority of what's being done, doesn't seem to have any basis in “actual” confrontations (or at least any serious one's).
  The premiss of the practice of “Te”, is defensive training for “1-on-1” confrontations. I'm aware of (numerous) system's attempts to “train” individual's to deal with multiple aggressor confrontations. These are little more than fantasy excursions for people who have no (actual) experience in real confrontations.
  Regardless of one's "style" of training, the ability to successfully “defeat” multiple aggressor's is more often only the daydreams of those individual's who have no (solid) connection to reality.
  Fortunately, for the majority of situations, the involved perpetrator’s (ie. “criminals”) are rarely, if ever “trained” in any consequential “martial art”. That doesn't mean that they have no ability's, only that they're not as specialized in their training as that of the average martial artist.
  The tactic of “swarming” an individual, is one that is utilized by Law Enforcement and criminals alike. Why? Because it works. Regardless of any individual's claimed abilities, they can be overpowered (by larger numbers).
  For the criminal, that works out well. The average individual doesn't travel in “packs” (and if they do, they aren't likely to be attacked anyway, LOL).
  Despite all of the “B.S.” claims made by (numerous) martial arts, they were designed to be used by an individual, against a “single” aggressor. Nothing more, Nothing less.
  That doesn't mean that those skills couldn't be utilized against multiple individual's (nobody's saying that “criminals” are necessarily all that talented either, LOL). Only that it is not what those systems were designed to be for, or what they are intended to accomplish.
  Until that “objective” is understood (and accepted) by the student (and regardless of the system they've chosen to pursue/study) they will never advance in their training.
  Though the majority of schools will often instruct technique application against a (supposed) thief/robber, the majority of confrontations are going to (actually) be “Alpha” situations (which amount to being supposed “respect” infringements).
  If/when the “goal” is to be able to protect one's self in the most common of confrontational situations, that training should include those situations that you don't (necessarily) wish to cause permanent (or any at all) physical injury. Preferably your response will be to primarily protect you, while causing no (serious) injury to the individual. And Why you may ask? Because there is a high probability that the aggressor will be someone that will (commonly) be a known (if not related) individual. This makes all of the “beat em' till they bleed-out” scenario’s (one would think, LOL) impractical as being a primary practice model.
  The ability to gain control over an aggressive individual without causing injury, can often be an assumed ability (having rarely been taught, much less practiced).
  This can often be the ignored training, that will most often prove more applicable (and more so than any “unknown” robber/attacker” scenario ever will be). 
 The simplest response (IMO), can (very) often prove to be a Tuite technique application. And the most common response (when I state this) is that who ever "will just hit the person attempting the Tuite technique". This statement is often made from someone who "thinks" they know what/how a Tuite technique is used (or for that matter, what it even "is"). Most often, they are wrong.
 A great deal of our training is with/for L.E. application. What is being commonly taught (in many schools) is completly impractical (if not illegal) for that purpose. Very often, it is Tuite that can fill that niche of our civilian students training agenda as well as that of our L.E. students. 
 Tuite is a subset of Oyata's (overall) system of Life-Protection. What was taught 30 years ago (by Taika) was different than what he was teaching towards the end of his life. He was constantly improving his applications, and defensive logic. That doesn't invalidate those earlier teachings, it only means that he moved-on, further improving the techniques that he taught, and abandoning those he felt were ineffective and/or impractical


No comments: