Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Developing Effective Motion

  When attempting to perform a defensive action, the involved motions need to be performed with as little wasted action as possible. That consists of not performing any motions that serve no purpose (in that defensive action).
  When a motion serves no (defensive) purpose, it is wasted motion. This includes any unproductive physical motions (of the arms, legs, head, torso). They should all be performed for a purpose.
  Effective motion can only be accomplished through the correct utilization of the limbs. Any transition of footwork should motion the defender's body (both out of the aggressor's effective range, and into the defender's effective range). It should be understood, that being farther away (from the aggressor) is not the only means of being “out” of the aggressor's (effective) range.
  It's (generally) accepted that defense is more easily accomplished when effected at an angle (to the aggressor). It's how that angle is accomplished that becomes the (defensive) debate. There is no singular answer, it is achieved through a combination of the available methods that are based on various factor's.
  One can (either) move themselves (to that angled position), or move the aggressor. Either method will work, just not in every situation, or by every practitioner. The ability to accomplish this feat is done most easily through the (body) motion of the defender.
  The average aggressor engages their victim directly. This is most commonly perpetrated from the front of the defender (the next most common is accomplished from the “rear”, this method is most commonly attempted by individual's with criminal intent). The majority of confrontations are not performed with criminal intent.  They commonly occur over “Alpha” conflicts, and/or perceived acts of “disrespect” (sic).
  In either situation, that aggression should be redirected to create an angled confrontation. Becoming situated at an angle to an aggressor (from the front) only requires the defender to rotate (in regard to that aggressor). Using a simple weight-shift and body rotation, a defender can accomplish both required (defensive) motions in one step. Once rotated, the defender is at the required angle to the aggressor (to accomplish an effective defensive response).
  It should be understood, that to avoid an eminent (approaching) strike, one need only motion a few inches (5 is usually more than sufficient). Once an aggressor has committed to delivering their strike, it is extremely difficult to “re-direct” that strike.
  The aggressor may dissipate the (original) level of the force that was being committed to it, but it requires more energy (and time) to fully retract it (to it's initial position) in order to repeat a re-directed strike (using that same arm/hand).
  It is one reason, that we don't teach “blocks”. It is more efficient to perform a strike (to an aggressor's arm), than to deflect/block it (and one accomplishes the same object, plus potentially injuring the aggressor's striking limb).
  Oyata has always taught to strike the aggressor's (attacking) limb, and then strike the aggressor's body/head (in one continuous motion) using the same arm.
  Taika equated this to attacking a castle. Once you tear-down the wall's (arm's and leg's), the castle has no defense, so it is more easily defeated.
  One's defensive strikes should always initially be upon the nearest limb of the aggressor, most commonly, this is the arm's/leg's (that are being used upon yourself). Once these are rendered immaterial (injured), if still necessary you can strike the body of the aggressor (as they no longer have any defense to prevent you from doing so).
  One needs to remember, that we're only talking about a few seconds of time being allowed for the entire defensive action. This includes the defensive strike, the retaliatory strike and any neutralization actions being attempted (arm-bar, neck restraint or even escape).
  In actual use, the instructed motions must be performed quickly. This is why (initially, during “class”) we practice the motions slowly (to ensure correct application of the motions). As students increase their ability level, we allow them to increase the speed of their application (and level of control).
  This drives our critique's nuts. They (apparently) believe that unless you (only?) practice a technique quickly, you'll never make it work (or even occur). Our philosophy is a little different.
  We don't expect a student to (immediately, i.e. when they walk out of the class, LOL) be able to perform the instructed technique(s) after having just been shown a (new) motion. This requires time, and practice.
  It is that “Fast-Food” mentality, that has corrupted the self-defense industry already. People expect immediate “ability”, it won't happen (regardless of what system/style that one studies). There are too many variables (to any defensive situation) to account for.
  Most of the “Quick-Results” (types of instruction) that I've observed, train their students to respond one-way to this type of attack, and another-way for that type of attack (amounting to dozens of different defenses). We train our students to defend one-way for a dozen types of attack.
  That's probably why it drives them so crazy, LOL. It's why we have our students begin slow, and increase their speed over time. Yes, it requires longer, and more practice. Though those other guys students can run out the door and cry “lookie, lookie at this (one) thing that I can defend against”, (over time) our students can say that they can defend against All of those things, with one motion.

No comments: