Thursday, December 18, 2014

Continuous Motion Does Not Equate to Fluidity...

  I'm seeing a number of instructors pushing the idea that being “fluid” in one's application of multiple techniques and/or motions, means to (rapidly) apply them in a continuous barrage. Though (possibly?) “looking” very impressive (to the average on looker), more often these examples are totally impractical to apply (in an actual defensive situation). The majority that I've seen, have been exampled by the aggressor beginning an attack, then (once the “exampled” motion begins) they will “freeze” usually without any manor of counter or response to the attempted defense.
  These “defenses” will often include numerous (IMO) irrelevant “strikes” and motions after the aggressor's attempted strike has been neutralized. Perfectly valid (and effective) neutralization techniques are by-passed (or ignored) in order to include numerous (additional) unnecessary strikes. In the examples I observed, perfectly good (effective) neutralization applications were by-passed in favor of being able to continue the confrontation (through the use of repeated strikes being applied).
  The only (valid) reasoning that I can see, is that these individuals don't have adequate applications to effectively neutralize an aggressor (when being in an “obvious” position to do so). What “appears” to be the (their) most utilized method for doing so, is beating the aggressor into submission. For the physically large student, this could (might) suffice as a plausible tactic, for the average student though...not so much. It is rare that a (random) aggressor will attack a Larger opponent. The average (criminal) aggressor will more often choose to attack an “easy” and smaller target/victim.
  It is this “larger” opponent/aggressor that (most) defensive systems train to defend against. The purpose of one's training is not to be able to (physically) “beat” an aggressor into ceasing their behavior. It is only to negate their ability to continue that behavior. That can be accomplished via several avenues of response, the most legally defensible choice, being to immobilize the aggressor (while either suffering and/or inflicting the least amount of physical injury).
  Oyata taught that when delivering a strike (to an opponent) we provide the opportunity to be struck (ourselves). This is why (arguably) the majority of what is taught, is in response to an aggressor's actions. Every motion performed (whether a “strike” or a manipulation) is done in response to an aggressor's motion(s) and/or reaction.
  What is (commonly) being displayed as “Fluidity”, are a continuous (“flurry” IMO) of repeated actions (most often being “strikes”) that depend upon the Blitz theory of over-powering an aggressor. Though legitimate in certain (limited) circumstances (ie. When the defender is large/strong enough to accomplish the action), unless those requirements are preexisting, they are most often pointless, and accomplish nothing.
  The goal of one's training should be in regards to circumventing any (obvious) physical discrepancy's, and become proficient in the application of those ability's that the defender can effectively utilize. In the aforementioned examples, I watched the person apply an “arm-bar”, then (promptly) discard it, only so they could “strike” the aggressor several times (using what I felt were completely pointless/ineffective strikes). In any of those videos, I observed no use of a “simple” immobilization of the aggressor. There were numerous examples of (bizarre, IMO) rolling around on the ground, and elaborate applications that left (both) participants vulnerable to attacks (from 3rd parties). This manor of “submission” is both pointless, and dangerous.
  What Oyata taught as being fluid, was having the ability to react to an aggressor's actions, as they occurred. Though being possible to predict many of those responses, through correct application of the instructed defensive motions those “responses” would be limited in their (available/required) variance.
  There were also provided examples of “drills” (in the video montage). These routines had either/both parties (tori/uke) going “back and forth” with identical motions. I understood the intent was to practice the motion, but if/when either would “break” order/routine the motion would collapse(? Thus calling into question the purpose of the exercise).
  Continuous motion is a valid concept, the intent is (or should be) the “efficiency” (of motion). Efficiency implies productive results from the performed actions. If/when there is no productive result, then the motion was wasted. “Fluidity”, is the continuous transition between multiple motions, that produce an efficient result. In the case of defensive applications, that equates to the neutralization of an aggressor's actions. This can be (either) from their “choice” to desist, or because of an inability to continue that aggression (whether by submission or physical inability/injury).
  Oyata taught that his methodology was for “Life Protection”. This implies the life of both the practitioner and that of the aggressor. 


No comments: