Technique Considerations

"Technique” Considerations for Training

 A common class period for our student's is spent learning new individual application motions. These can consist of singular actions, as well as multiple motions.

 During the application portion of our class we combine these individual motions to be applied in (either) successive or collective application. These are commonly being practiced in (1-3 Step) two person kumite exercises.

 The most common misunderstanding, is that the application of these motions are “set in stone”. They are completely capable of being (instantly) modified to deal with a continually changing situation.

 As with anything, there first needs to be established a foundation set of guidelines/priority's for determining these motions acceptance (of/for use).

The following guidelines are what Oyata established as being general guides for this purpose. To begin with, the following are the (required) general preferences.

#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 technique User, or the Receiver.

 This is not to say, that there won't be some motions/techniques that fall outside of these guidelines. Only that they may very well not be suitable for use by every individual (student).

#1 The Motion's Priority, Is to Protect the User.

 It should go without saying that this is a primary concern for someone training in the (any) Life Protection art. It shouldn't imply that there is (then) a disregard for any other person's life (including that of an aggressor). The implication should be that every motion is taught for a practical (useful) purpose/application in accomplishing that defensive objective.

#2 The Motion Should Be as Natural as is Practical.

 Any instructed motion should not mandate that it's replication require any undue (physical) strain or labor. This should imply that not every technique will “look” (exactly) the same between every two individual's when it is performed. Physical differences will mandate the manner a technique will be performed (by each individual), but it should not alter the desired result for the technique being performed.

#3 The Motion Should Be Able to be Performed Equally by the

     Majority of Individual's.

 This should illustrate the idea that neither size nor strength are a determining factor in a technique's successful use. There may well be differences in how that technique is performed by any (single) individual, but the primary concepts, results and their execution remain the same.

#4 The Motion Should Not be Orientated to Either (Specific)

     Side of the User.

 The implication is that the user should not train, focus or orientate their practice to utilize only one-side of their body's defensive motions, nor should they limit their (own) responses to only utilize one-side of their body over the other. This shouldn't imply that a particular manner that a technique is applied, is done in the exact same way when utilized upon the aggressor's opposite side/arm. 
 What confuses many students, is that Oyata trained us to focus on "1" side's defensive motion, to react to an assault from either of the aggressor's arms. This resulted in faster responses to an assault.

#5 The Motion Should Not be Dependent Upon the Size or

     Strength of either the technique User, or the Receiver.

 Regardless of (any) physical discrepancy's between an aggressor and the defender, any application utilized should possess the ability to be utilized successfully. This doesn't imply that the manner which an application is utilized remains exactly the same in every situation, only that the user should be knowledgeable of a technique's strengths and weaknesses as well as understand how to utilize them in varying circumstances.

 The use of these guidelines can (often) limit the scope of applications that are being taught (in a typical “martial arts” class). It is not the purpose of these guidelines to “increase” one's instructed content. The intended purpose of these guidelines, is to modify the content and intent of a Life-Protection class to serve that purpose (without discriminating against student's who do not meet the expected student “type”. I.E. young, male and physically fit).

 These guidelines actually place a greater burden upon the instructor. They require that the motions/concepts that they are teaching meet the listed requirements, and that their students understand how they need to implement them in varying situations/circumstances.

 In many aspects, it removes the “burden” of learning these types of motions from the students, and places it upon the instructor's ability to teach those students (where it should have been anyhow, in specific individual instruction, instead of generalized group instruction).

 These guidelines in no way remove the requirement that a student must practice the motions and techniques that they are being shown. It only mandates that an instructor must show that what they are teaching is “possible” to be learned and utilized by anyone who practices them (as taught) and understands their use/application.

 When an instructor examines “all” of the technique's that they are teaching to their students, they (most often) find that there have been technique's that (either) they (themselves) do not fully understand how/where/why to use them, but additionally that some that are simply worthless or impractical for the common student (except in particularly uncommon/unrealistic circumstances, and/or by particular individual's).
 By continuing with their instruction (knowing the deficiencies of the application/technique) they are performing a disservice to their students, and to what they are teaching.