Questions and Answers

 I've received a number of questions regarding various subjects of late, and rather than repeating "E-mails" (to various individuals) I've decided to answer a couple of them via this "Blog Post" (at the same time). I will continue to keep any "sensitive" subject matter (person's asking and "names" private) but I will try to address a couple of the more popular inquiries in this post.

 I've been asked my opinion about the latest collection of the various “Kyusho Pimp's” on-line selection of video offerings. (IMO) It's become obvious that these individual's (no one in particular) have run out of idea's for anything “unique”. Most all have sunk to the level of diluting what it is they're teaching to include any manner of strike to being considered as being “kyusho” and simultaineously addressing some of the "Tuite" questions with their own versions of Oyata's art.

 The word “kyusho” translates as “vital point”, admittedly, a rather ambiguous term, but not so much as is being applied by those individual's (seeing that there are more accurate terms available for those motions).

 The majority of what's being posted (on-line) and demonstrated in those seminars amounts to no more than (the more common) “Atemi” (detraction) strikes. Their “use” isn't really in contention, just their categorization as being “kyusho”. Evidently these individual's haven't experienced (actual) “kyusho” strikes. With a meaning that includes the word “vital”, one would think they could surmise that the effects from it's use should be at least somewhat catastrophic to the recipient. More often they are no more than a simple (...simplistic?) diversion (strike) from some manipulation that's being utilized (with that application additionally being considered to be “Tuite”).

 Few (if Any) of these people have ever studied with Oyata, so their claims of teaching (actual) “Tuite” are strained at best. Most often they're only teaching some manner of a Ju-Jutsu/Aikido application. Tuite and Kyusho have (both) become the popular “go-to” words to describe what people are teaching to their students. “Kyusho” has been generalized to mean any type of strike, and “Tuite” has become any manner of manipulation. Only because they utilize the word Tuite, is it an inaccurate description of what's being shown.  I've written previously about Oyata having introduced the word Tuite to Western practitioner's (no one was using the word prior to Oyata's use of it). Since his popularization of the word (through demonstration and seminars, late 70's, early 80's), it has become the (only?) word to describe limb manipulation.

 Because of Oyata's popularity, and recognized ability with these types of techniques, the use of the word (Tuite) adds a false association to what these individual's are teaching. Tuite is not a “generic” term (though it's being utilized as such), Oyata popularized it (it was not in use until he utilized it to describe what he was teaching). There are several other (Japanese/Okinawan) words that could equally be utilized (but “they” aren't as popular as Oyata's term)...but they aren't (because nobody would associate it to Oyata's techniques, that are KNOWN to work).

 Because Oyata's techniques are not as widely understood, it's fairly easy for these individual's to make the claim that they are teaching them (Most of which, have never even attended a seminar of Oyata's, much less having been a student of his).

 This leads them to include some manner of striking to be included with the instructed grappling techniques. It is evidently passé to use the term “Atemi” these days. These individual's choose to divert attention to the application of “strikes” to compensate for the inadequacy of their applications. A (true) Tuite application should not be dependent upon the inclusion of any additional “strikes” to make it work.

 Tuite is taught as a supplemental application, but that shouldn't imply that it can't be utilized as an independent application as well (when a situations allows for it). Knowing that the majority of confrontations are not “life threatening”, any defensive actions should be variable to match the perceived threat level. Tuite applications should be able to be modified to match the required (physical) level of the threat enacted as well.

 The manner of techniques being taught seem to be focused on providing the opportunity to (only) strike the aggressor (as if "that" were the only manner to defeat an aggressor). The intent of those methods is only to physically overpower the opponent. This is an unrealistic training method for many students. The most common aggressor is physically larger than their victim. This makes the ability to use “strength” or “size” (effectively) when defending one's self impractical.

 When the defender is physically smaller than their aggressor, the likelihood of their being able to utilize “strikes” (effectively) is minimal (at best). It's argued that a smaller person can't utilize Tuite upon a larger more muscular aggressor. This assumption is based upon the attitude that effective defense is based upon “strength”.

 This is a “Male” concept, It is also inaccurate. If it were factual, there would be no reason for the training that we do. It would (then) only make sense to “workout” with weights and focus on building “muscle” (strength) for defending one's self. It's also the “logic” that many schools focus their training towards.

 Depending upon physical prowess to provide defensive applications is unrealistic for the majority of students (it's why they choose to train in a martial art). If the majority of techniques that one trains in require a level of physical prowess greater than what a student can provide (I.E. most female students), that methodology is flawed.

 It was that premiss that Oyata developed his training method upon. Any student should be able to utilize any instructed technique and/or application upon any (size/strength of) aggressor. It's become commonplace to emphasize atemi (or what many are calling “kyusho”) as being the main emphasis in one's defense. If every aggression were “life threatening” this might (?) make sense. The reality though, is that the majority of aggression's aren't Life threatening, nor does the student desire every aggressor injured.

 Because of that fact, one's defensive training should be directed towards protecting the student from (serious) physical injury, and disabling and restraining an aggressor. That is more often accomplished with the application of Tuite (types of) techniques than with the exchange of impactive applications. Size then becomes an more irrelevant factor in one's defensive methodology (which was the main emphasis/intent for Oyata's methodology).

 My associate and one of our schools fellow instructor's are attending the association "Spring Seminar" this week. In addition to instructing several different classes, they will themselves be testing for their Regional Instructor Certifications. This (per association regulations) will allow us to conduct seminars both locally and throughout the country (as well as internationally). 
 While never having been restricted in our Law Enforcement or Oriental Calligraphy courses, there were some association restrictions in regards to teaching within the association (outside of our own dojo). Acquiring these certifications should absolve those limitations as well as eliminating any concerns regarding instruction outside of the association as well.
 This should answer the majority of questions that are commonly asked of me. If there are any others, feel free to send them. If you wish your question/subject matter to be kept confidential, just state that in you message (direct all inquiry's to this, or any of my blog's "comment" sections),