Saturday, September 7, 2013

The Instruction of Tuite

  The art of Tuite is an integral piece of Oyata's system of Te. Our student's instruction in it's implementation is began from the beginning of a student's study with us. As with most all of the taught techniques, the tuite motions are derived from the motions performed within the instructed kata. 
 Though many (if not all) of the other Okinawan systems teach some form/manner of torite, Ours is the methodology that was developed and taught (to us) by Taika Seiyu Oyata. Oyata is the one who coined the phrase "Tuite". Other systems seem to want to blur what torite/tuite (actually) is. Many claim that it's use is dependent upon knowledge of kyusho (which is only misleading and deceptive).
 Oyata's Tuite amounts to being the physical manipulation of joints on the human body. Though these manipulations could (roughly) be used in conjunction with (some) kyusho locations, knowledge of kyusho is not necessary (much less required, as some individual's would like to claim). 
  Our student's are provided with the 6 Basic Tuite Principles, these principles provide the student with the basic knowledge of how tuite should be implemented. What is commonly being taught now (by most instructor's of tuite techniques) is the Slam and Bash method of tuite application. Though moderately effective, this methodology is also limited in it's usability by their students, and upon it's effectiveness on the uke's.
  Our instruction is based upon both parties (in class) being fully aware of the technique being applied. Once the student (tori) has demonstrated their ability to implement the basic technique, the uke will begin countering their application, making it more difficult, if not impossible to apply (at least if the technique is not being correctly applied to begin with).
  This practice is performed slowly (making it even more difficult to elicit the correct reaction). Granted, if performed at a higher rate of speed, many sloppy techniques can then be forced to "work".   
 Although if/when faced with a knowledgeable uke, those same techniques can then (more easily) be countered/defeated (thus preventing them from accomplishing any productive reaction).
 It should also be noted, that what is commonly being considered as a "correct" reaction (by many schools) is a (simplistic) forward bending (at the waist) in response to a techniques application. This is NOT a correct response. Unless the uke's knee's (both usually) buckle in response to a techniques application (when enacted upon the uke's arm(s), the technique is being applied incorrectly.
  At no point throughout a techniques application, should the uke be able to respond (in any physical way) against the tori. Using only these two fundamental "checks", I can discount the majority of what and how tuite techniques are being (popularly) taught.
  With knowledge of our 6 Basic Tuite Principles, the tori is able to determine what, and/or how they are performing a technique, whether correctly or incorrectly (thus eliminating the need for an instructor to always be present for the practice/critique of the student's tuite techniques). If/when a student should discover (what they believe to be) a new technique, those same principles can be utilized to confirm that technique's plausibility (of it's effectiveness, and the ability of it to be countered by the uke).
  Our definition of what “Tuite” consists of, is “any and all limb or joint manipulations”. Though some instructor's might include strikes in that category, (at our school) we do not. Those types of strikes, we would consider to be atemi strikes. Additionally, kyusho (types of) strikes and locations are considered to be in a separate category as well.
 Although those types of strikes could (easily) be utilized to assist in the application of a tuite technique, they should never be considered mandatory to the technique's application or success. This type of "logic" is nothing but a manufactured excuse for poorly understood and/or incorrectly taught techniques. 
 One must also beware someone attempting to utilize the anomaly excuse as well. I've explained elsewhere that this "excuse" is not a reason for a technique's failure (more often it's only the performer's inability to correctly perform the technique).

No comments: