Friday, June 27, 2014
I was recently queried as to why I don't “acknowledge” (numerous) proponents for whatever(?) it is that they are teaching for their own versions of Tuite. Well, first off, what the majority of them are teaching is poorly executed finger/arm manipulations that wouldn't work (as advertised) on the majority of aggressive individuals.
Second, they are emphasizing a belief in a methodology that is fraught with inconsistencies (IE. “TCM”) and serves no beneficial aspects to the art (nor the performance of these techniques). Third, the “rules/principles”(sic) that they promote only serve to distract their students from any productive practice and (in fact) lead them in a non-productive direction of training (it's blatantly obvious that they haven't researched any of those, meaning “their” instructed “principles”).
All of these people add their own “caveats” as to when/why their techniques fail. The most common of which, is the “Anomaly” (excuse). This argument purports that an (unspecific?) number of the population, is unaffected by the application of these techniques (or at the very least, some of them). Those same persons experience 1 or 2 (at least) of these anomaly (individuals) at nearly every one of their seminars (which kind of discredits their concept of “anomaly”, doesn't it?).
Looking over their “10 Principles”, only a couple of them even resemble an applicable practice. The majority are generalized concepts that are so general, that they have numerous possible definitions. Hardly a way that “principles” should be presented. They've also posted (several) videos of their “instructional” seminars regarding these (their) “principles” and their application of/for them. They would have been better served, to have not done so.
The purpose of an “instructional” seminar, is to instruct. What was presented, was more of a “Look at Me, and what I (supposedly) can do”, recruitment fest. They (meaning I've watched several versions of them, put on by various individuals) perform examples of their techniques, upon their own people, and elicit the (kind of) “reactions” that they claim to be “correct”.
As I stated previously, some of what they promote are valid methods (just not in the manner that they are presenting them). For the majority of what they're selling, if you remove the “TCM” nonsense from their curriculum, they are left with nothing (to validate their applications/principles or the manner which they are presenting them).
When I was approached about this subject, I was also “informed” that no one is really that familiar with what (and how) Oyata taught tuite. I would have to agree with that summation (though I would say that only some were familiar, rather than no one). I would be inclined to also include many of the members of Oyata's own organization (in that category) as well (over the years). Not because he didn't demonstrate how to do so, only that student's didn't learn (“study”) how his examples actually worked. Though clearly having been shown Oyata's methodology by him (we have the video to demonstrate that fact), and having witnessed him explain the principles of how to apply it (correctly). The average student (none the less) commonly muscles their application of tuite to produce a response. Unfortunately (IMO), Oyata was very “big” on demonstrating a technique, and then saying “Now you go work on it” (implying that the student, meaning “us” were to research the correct way to implement them). Strength, was never a prerequisite to the proper application of any of his tuite methodology.
This is how the myriad of weekend “seminar” attendee's, became “Tuite Experts” (and now offer their own seminars for their versions of tuite). Some of those “experts” had even studied with Oyata for some period of time, yet still didn't learn how to perform the techniques correctly. The ability to achieve “a” response, is not the same as producing a correct response (Oyata also taught his instructor's what that entailed as well).
Tuite is not a “sub” art, of his methodology. It is an integral piece of that methodology. It isn't based on any form of “Chinese Medicine” (nonsense), nor is it dependent upon any manner of “Kyusho” (point) manipulation to elicit a correct reaction. It's based on natural body motion/reaction, and how the body does, and doesn't work.
Kyusho is a (completely) separate field of study/application. They can (each) be applied separately, or in conjunction with one another. That should not imply that either, is dependent upon the other. Yet, if one does a “Google” search for “Tuite”, it will produce a (90%) result for their version of “kyusho” applications (which only demonstrates how badly these guys have distorted the field of study for Tuite). The majority of what these people consider to be Kyusho, is (more often) simple “atemi” (distraction) locations.
If one wishes to “test” someones (anyone's) “Tuite” abilities/knowledge, have them perform their application of tuite technique slowly. If they can't produce an (obviously) equal response from the uke, they don't know what the hell they're teaching (much less talking about). If they attempt to include any “TCM” (in their application and/or explanation), again, they don't know what they are talking about.
Oyata (repeatedly) emphasized that tuite should be practiced slowly. Not because it was so dangerous, but because you couldn't learn anything if/when you did so with speed. Any idiot can make a Fast application produce a result. Doing so slowly, requires that the performer understand how, and why the technique works. With that understanding, a student can elicit the (or any) response that they, or the situation requires. Achieving this level of ability, can provide the student with a far wider range of responses to utilize against an aggressor.
One's ability to do so, requires practice (of all of the shown Tuite applications). More often than not, it is the “simple”(if not “simplistic”) applications that are the most commonly utilized in a confrontation. They are also the most often ignored (by students).