The failure of a Tuite
application can occur because of numerous reasons. The most common
reason is from miss-application. The
ability to apply this type of technique requires a good deal of
practice to utilize it correctly. The most common “remedy” (for
most systems) is the inclusion of a strike.
This doesn't fix the
Tuite technique, but it provides time to (either) correct the
application, or change
to one that would then work.
Unfortunately
for many students, the inclusion of a strike has (or creates the appearance of) become the only
way that they can use the Tuite (like) applications that they
have been taught. Most often this is because they aren't aware
of what (exactly) it is that they are doing incorrectly
with the (Tuite) application.
Numerous
systems have delegated the role of Tuite applications to a third or
even fourth grade/level (priority?) of technique usage/application.
This is usually because the systems priority, is how/when to utilize
the instructed “strikes”.The majority of this (IMO) is the
general belief that a “martial”art is a (yet another)
method of “striking” an aggressor. The majority of time spent in
training, is in relation to learning how to strike an aggressor.
This
obviously is a part of learning how to defend one's self, but
depending on how one trains this (striking) is only a small part of
that (or any) defensive method.
Being
the most dramatic, and the fact that it is the easiest for (new)
students to understand, it is what most students spent the most time
working on. Most any (new) student knows some way to “hit”
someone. It (usually) isn't the most efficient, but they are able to
deliver some manner of
a punch. This means the instructor only has to “modify” the manor
that the student is presently using (to reflect the manor that the
system prefers a
strike to be delivered). The ability to apply a Tuite technique
requires a great deal more practice. The motions are not commonly as
natural as student's expect(?)
them to be.
The
manor that many systems teach (their) Tuite (types of) techniques
varies. The most common is that they are practiced quickly,
and applied with force.
In (actual) use, that would be fine, but for the purpose of practice
it is counter-productive. Class-time practice is intended to learn
and understand how and
why those applications work. Just as with practicing a kata,
Oyata would commonly tell us to slow down
(when practicing Tuite applications).
I
believe much of the confusion came about because Oyata would
demonstrate the techniques (for us) quickly
(so that we would see what it would look
like when utilized). This is not
how he intended us to practice them (and clearly said
so every time we were working on them). You don't get into a car
(when first learning how to drive) and “floor” the accelerator
until you arrive at your destination.
Students
tend to view a Tuite application as a whole.
Just as when studying/practicing a kata,
you break the technique down
into individual pieces. Every Tuite application has a set-up
stage, an engagement
stage and an application
stage. If/When these three stages are completed (correctly) the
student can then apply a variety of Follow-up
applications (dependent upon the situation). Although it is possible
to blur (or even
screw-up) individual
sections of an
application (and still have it “work”). Until those sections are
successfully completed, the control and/or neutralization of the uke
cannot be secured.
I've
read numerous articles from “instructors” that proclaim that
without striking (the uke) in conjunction with a (any) Tuite
application, it will likely fail. Aside from being a very pessimistic
view, it excuses the premiss that the student/tori failed
to initially apply the Tuite application correctly.
It's
equally popular for instructor's (when a technique repeatedly fails)
to not accept that “they” applied the technique incorrectly.
It's more common for them to blame
the uke (?) and they will make the claim that the uke, is an
“anomaly”. I've
had numerous students (and others) who have made this “claim” (to
me), stating that Tuite doesn't work on them. After eliminating the
unrealistic scenarios
(that would never occur,
or that wouldn't require a defensive response anyhow), I would ask to
see their “anomaly” in response to me applying the technique (and BTW, I do so slowly, I have no desire to cause them injury). I
have never had an application fail
to function as expected.
There have been situations where those
applications were (slightly) modified (which isn't unusual for any
technique), but I have always
elicited the response I desired. I have also (always) applied the
technique in a slow,
controlled manor (again, it
was not my desire to cause injury). If they had actually been an
“anomaly”, it would of made no difference what speed I applied
the technique. Tuite techniques (at least Oyata's) are not dependent
upon speed (or power)
for their successful application.
When
I see these “seminar master's” (literally) slamming
their students to the ground, I am appalled
(as an instructor). This is not
“instruction”, it is (only) abuse
and/or for feeding the Ego
of the instructor.
Many (if not most)
schools that teach some manner of Tuite (whether Oyata's or not) have
their students practice those applications quickly
(and even emphasize the need
for that speed). When doing so, this reduces the amount of time that
can be devoted to that study. It additionally ignores
the student's understanding of the individual
pieces of the techniques being practiced.
That which you don't understand, is inclined to fail.
That which you don't understand, is inclined to fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment