Wednesday, February 18, 2015
The Most Commonly Used “First Action” Attacking Methods:
(Right or Left Side being utilized by Aggressor)
The majority of Oyata's Life Protection methodology is based upon instantaneous responses to any attempted assault. That mandates that the student be familiar with what are considered to be the most "commonly" occurring opening confrontational methods (and having practiced responses to each of them).
Those "choices" are not as varied as one might initially suspect. His methodology was based upon the (obvious) premiss that an unarmed aggressor, can strike you using their arms/hands, or their legs/feet. They could also grab you (whether to "take you" somewhere, or to throw you to the ground). To do any of these, they have their own 2 hands, and 2 legs to utilize in completing their objective.
The aggressor, as with the defender, are only able to utilize 2 arms/hands and/or 1 leg (of those 4 limbs) simultaneously at any given time. Though all of these limbs are available to an aggressor, it is far more common that only "1" of those limbs will be utilized for the "initial" strike in a physical confrontation.
When developing one's defensive methodology there are certain prerequisites to establishing validity to that study. A defensive technique should accomplish several objectives:
#1 The Motion's Priority, Is to Protect the User.
#2 The Motion Should Be as Natural as is Practical.
#3 The Motion Should Be Able to be Performed Equally by the Majority of Individual's.
#4 The Motion Should Not be Orientated to Either (Specific) Side of the User.
#5 The Motion Should Not be Dependent Upon the Size or Strength of (either) the User, or the Aggressor.
These were Regularly voiced by Taika, and have since become the cornerstones of our protective teachings.
Size or Strength is not Relevant to a Technique's Effectiveness
Utilize 3 Defensive Motions at Once
Avoid Moving directly to the Rear
Hand Motions Work Best, Above the Waist,
Leg Motions Work Best, Below the waist.
When Applying Technique, Square Your Body Towards Your Opponent
Learn Your Own Weaknesses, In Order to Know Your Enemy's
"Surprise" is the only real advantage that an aggressor will commonly have. Through training the determined student can minimize and/or negate that advantage.
Though commonly proclaiming that there are "Endlessly" different ways that an unarmed individual can assault someone, the truth is, that there are actually only a limited number of (generalized) ways that an assault can be accomplished.
Using thousands of documented accounts (publicly available gov. records and personal recounting's) of unarmed physical altercations, the most commonly occurring "initial" physical actions are what we use to base our students training upon.
Opening “First Strikes”(using the hands/arms), are most commonly aimed at the Head/Face of the defender ("Tori").
Arm Strikes: “Roundhouse” Punch
"Punch from Waist"
The following "kicks" are commonly intended to strike the groin or face of the defender
Leg Strikes: Knee Strike
“Spinning” Kick (type irrelevant)
Pushes, are commonly intended to "taunt" a person into initiating a physical confrontation. It should be remembered that any "physical contact" can/will be regarded as "battery". Grabs are the more obvious form of "battery" (often used to "steady/restrain" a subject while simultaneously striking the victim with their free hand).
Grabs & Pushes: Push to Chest/Shoulder (1&2-Hand)
Forearm Grab (High-Straight & Cross)
Upper Arm Grab (Single/Cross-Straight, Double/High-Low)
Bear-Hugs From Rear (Outside & Inside)
Throat-Grab (One and Two-Hand)
These are the most commonly encountered “First Action” aggression's that are encountered in a typical (unarmed) altercation. The most commonly taught response/reaction that is taught to “new” students (from the majority of martial arts methodology's), is to respond by retreating/backing-up. Though seeming to be a logical reaction (and often based upon the premise that one will do so naturally anyhow), by doing so, it more often places the defender/tori into a more perilous position.
By “backing-up”, the tori has started his body-weight motioning in a rearward direction (away from the aggressor). This will cause any counter-strikes being made (on their part) to be less effective.
They are also moving (further) into the effective range of the aggressor's (initial) strike. Successive strikes are very often performed in sets (of 2 or 3), with the first, and the final strikes of the set (that's being performed) intending to be the most damage producing blows.
This strategy is intended to cause the defender to “cover-up” (defensively), and thus causing/creating openings for the aggressor to exploit. This is a time-tested (and proven) tactic, that is very often completely effective (which is why many people/systems use it). It is also (but one of the reasons) why, we don't train our student's to back-up.
We (as most every other system) begin our (new) student's with learning the basic motions and stances. As they become more familiar with these, we introduce them to basic applications (of various types, IE. Grabs, pushes, strike attempts, etc.). Once they've became familiar with those basic motions, we have them begin to utilize them in various (combined) defensive/protective sequences.
Although there are numerous responsive actions for each of the individual aggressive manors presented, we (initially) have them work on (singular) motions that can be used (equally) for any of the various methods of aggression. By "that", I mean that the motion should be able to react to any of the listed striking methods (equally).
As the student progresses, they can/will determine (for themselves) which method is the most natural (and productive) for their own defensive practice.
Though far from being the most efficient manor of striking someone, the “Roundhouse” punch is certainly the most popular of striking methods utilized (by the average individual). Used by both males and females, this manor of striking someone (in the head/face) is the simplest for the average person to use (as well as being similar to the “Face-Slap”). When utilized as an opening strike, it is (usually) intended to be a “surprise” strike. Though occasionally used in conjunction with a grab (performed with the opposite hand), it is more commonly performed as a singular strike to then be followed with repeated strikes.
A “Shoulder-Cocked” punch is more often utilized by individual's who have had experience in physical confrontations. Though not utilized as often as the “Roundhouse” or “Hook-Punch” (as the previous strike is also referred), it is the 2nd most commonly used striking method. This manor of strike is akin to the “Wind-up” manor of punch (where the aggressor pulls their striking arm behind their body, in an attempt to coil their entire body(weight) into the strike, then un-coiling it as they propel the striking hand forward (this same action is often displayed when performing the “roundhouse” strike as well).
A Punch that is thrown “From the Waist” is normally performed by persons who are experienced with physical confrontations. This manner of punch is intended to be deceptive (through it's suddenness and speed). Though not as likely to (normally) “connect”, it's main advantage is the limited response time allowed (for it's interruption). This strike and the “Uppercut” both share similar traits in their execution (as well as in the required responses).
These strikes are the most commonly encountered aggression attempts. They are utilized in the majority of attempted aggression as opening strikes. The instructed defenses are designed to be “generic” responses that will (initially) work for the student's defense against them. They are then most often modified by the individual student to work the most efficiently for themselves.
“Kicks” are rarely used as an initial means of aggression. That's not to imply that it can't happen, only that it is less likely. If/when it should occur, there are several factors that will effect the kick's ability to cause injury. #1 is Distance, the closer that one is to their aggressor, the less likely that they will attempt a “kicking” manor of assault (aside from the “Knee-Strike”, which is most commonly performed to strike the groin of the defender).
Aside from someone who has spent an amount of time training to do so, the ability to hit a target (with your foot as the impacting limb) is a fairly difficult accomplishment. Other than possibly having played “kick-ball” as a youth, the average person rarely uses their foot for many applicable purposes, beyond walking. For that reason, it is not uncommon to recognize when someone is going to attempt a kick upon you (this is true for “trained” individual's as well). The “kicking” person will inevitably look at where they are going to kick. Only through their own training will the student gain the ability to recognize and capitalize upon this weakness.
The student should never assume that (only) they are the one's who have received any training (in kicks, punches, throws, etc.). Rarely have I encountered anyone who hasn't participated in a “community center/after-school” (type of) course, or that a “friend” hasn't shown them (some manner of) basics for a “martial art” (sic). This means that the student shouldn't assume that (only) they will recognize, and/or have the ability to perform a “martial-arts” type of kick.
Should a confrontation (actually) begin with the aggressor attempting to “kick” the student, the student need only be able to identify which manner of “kick” the aggressor is attempting to use. This isn't as difficult as might be initially thought. The less training that the aggressor has had, the more that they will telegraph their intent. With even minimal practice, those attempts can be easily recognized if/when they occur.
When the aggressor attempts a forward manor of kicking attempt (ie. A “Front Kick” or “Forward Thrust”), the aggressor will commonly lean forward (at their shoulders) as they do so, or will lean backward (if they have had no or minimal training). It is more common, for an aggressor to lean towards the opposite side (from their “kicking” leg) when that attempt is made utilizing a Roundhouse or thrusting kick. This is most commonly done to achieve greater height with the kick (or to maintain their balance).
Using any of these kicking methods require that the aggressor have sufficient room to do so. This in turn requires the aggressor to maintain the distance to do so. This illustrates some of the reasoning behind remaining within arm's reach of an opponent. Doing so tends to restrict the aggressor's options to the use of (only) their arm's for any aggressive actions.
In regards to defending against an aggressor's kicks, the closer that the defender is to the aggressor, the lower the aggressor's ability is to perform them. If the aggressor is determined to perform (some of the more popular types of) “kicks”, they will need to establish sufficient room to do so. This will mandate that they move (sufficiently) far enough away from the defender to use that kick. It also places the burden of recognition of that attempt (prior to it's occurrence) upon the defender.
For the majority of kick attempts, the easiest manor to foil their performance is to step closer to the aggressor. This is contradictory to how (many) systems teach their students to defend against kicking attempts made upon them. The most commonly taught defensive method, is to retreat away from the kick (which does nothing to prevent it's recurrence).
The most common attempted “kick”, is the Front Kick. Though not always performed correctly, or even effectively, (almost) anyone can perform some manor of this kick. It is quick, easy and will accomplish (at least) some level of result from it's use. Because of flexibility issues, this kick is commonly performed upon the legs of the defender (most often intending to impact the groin).
For the untrained (and those who have the ability to do so), one of the most common types of “kick's” that are utilized in an attempt to intimidate (though not as commonly used), are often made in an attempt to kick the head of the defender. Though considered to be “Flashy”, any attempt to kick someone in their head is a stupid tactic, and should be (easily) suppressed by the defender kicking the aggressor's supporting leg (during their kicking attempt). Though it's common for an aggressor to be concerned with being struck in their groin (while making their “head” kick), rarely do they seem to be concerned with their support leg? (while attempting their “head” kick). This is commonly excused(?) by their practice of “sport sparring” where doing so is against the rules. Those that would claim to be able to do so too fast for that to occur, have never done so against anyone who has spent 5 min. practicing against it's occurrence (it's that easy to counter).
Spinning (types of) kicks are (IMO) probably the easiest to counter/defeat. Regardless of the “type” (“Straight”or “Round”) of spinning kick, one need only step into the kick to neutralize any of it's potential for causing injury. This is another example of “closer is better/safer”. The most common problem with this defensive method, is that the defender doesn't step-in close enough. If/when the aggressor is allowed any amount of “space” (between the two individual's) the potential for them to complete a successfully attempted “spin” kick is increased.
Grabs and/or Pushes, are used when the aggressor feels more confident with their ability to respond to any offered resistance. The aggressor may also be “baiting” the defender to escalate the situation (thereby providing some level of (self) “justification?” for escalating the encounter. Regardless, grabs or pushes can commonly be ignored, or (if/when they are performed with significant force) be utilized as cause for an escalated defensive action being utilized.
Any physical contact from a perceived “threat” (the aggressor) provides legal justification for the defender to respond with sufficient force to nullify any further aggressive actions occurring from the aggressor. Continuing beyond that point though,... raises the probability of (then) being considered to be the (“new”) aggressor in the situation.
For that reason, we train students to (first) protect themselves from receiving injury, then nullify/restrain the aggressor (if/when they are capable of doing so).
This is commonly accomplished through the use of “Tuite” techniques. Numerous individual's take the position that these manor of techniques cannot be utilized in “combative” situations. The only viable answer to that critique, is that those individual's haven't learned, or practiced in how to do so.
The listed “Pushes and Grabs” are the most commonly encountered manner of assault. The student should (initially) focus upon having a “response” to each of them. There are normally several responses that are taught for each of these situations. The student should have at least one (and preferably several) for each of them.
The newer student is usually most concerned with learning defenses for “striking” attempts. As that student acquires (training) experience, they will learn that strikes are more easily evaded and are less likely to occur when the student has practiced to circumvent the aggressor's (ease of) ability to utilize them. It will then become more likely that a “grab” or “push” will be the choice of the determined aggressor (when the ability to easily strike has been compromised). This mandates the students familiarity with the use of Tuite techniques.
Those that believe that Tuite is a "passive" defensive method, are (obviously) unfamiliar with Oyata's method of Tuite application (there is nothing passive about it).
Though not providing any "detailed" descriptions (here) of our training methods (we have books in varying stages of completion and publication that cover those subjects), this article provides a basic explanation of how our instructional method is formulated and provided to our students.