Tuesday, December 26, 2017

WTF, (Why Tuite Functions)

  I've received numerous commentaries in regards to my "review" (ok, some would say critique) of some video's that exampled individual's "versions" of Oyata's Tuite techniques. The majority of those videos were done by individual's who had "0" one-on-one experience training with Oyata. One of them even went to the extent of deleting all of the negative comments that had been made in regards to it (?). The majority of their content was (obviously) based on only observing Oyata (either via "videos" or at seminars) perform those motions/techniques. It's blatantly obvious that those individual's have only had limited (if any) experience with any of the demonstrated techniques (so can hardly be held accountable for understanding their own misapplication of them).
This leads to my own (biggest) "complaint" in regards to the videos. The fact that they hadn't devoted any time to understanding how (much less why) those technique's work or should be applied (or even how/why they won't work). The demonstrated actions were (all) based upon muscling the opponent's limb's into submission (with little to no concern in regards to how/why it should occur).
Anyone who has read our book should have immediately recognized the (numerous) ways that those individual's were misapplying the demonstrated motions. Virtually every principle that Oyata had directed (in regards to the use of those techniques) was disregarded (within those videos). Some of those misapplications were even (incorrectly) "justified" by those individuals. The majority of what was being misapplied was based on the person's "feeling" stronger (while doing the motions). This resulted in them attempting to overpower the individual. This is only possible if/when one is larger/stronger than the assailant/uke (as was the case in these examples).
This belief was (IMO) additionally reinforced by the lack of whole-body application of the instructed motions (I.E. "Force Efficiency").
The comment's that I received commonly asked for specific "problem's" (with what was observed in the videos). As I stated, take your pick, I had "problems" with all of it. Each of the aforementioned videos utilized the (what we call) "Push-Catch" or "Palm-Press" technique.
This application of (any of) the countering techniques (in regards to that action), should be applied so that the aggressor's ability to resist them is being minimalized in the most effective manner.
Understanding how this should be accomplished, requires the student to (initially) understand how that is most effectively done. 
There have been several (failed) methodology's that have attempted to promote their own "principles"(for this purpose), but each have only amounted to being a vague "List" of (general) procedures that contain no actual guidance within them. Our "6 Principles of Tuite", are (at least) specific in their execution and use. Their utilization is done in unison, so this will require that the student understand their individual application within the specific techniques. 
This will (in turn) require that the student understand what/how the aggressor is "strong" and/or "weak". Muscle strength is (or should be understood to be) a "non" factor. Within each of those examples (on the videos), the aggressor/uke's arm is "straight". This is the most difficult position to apply a (any) defensive application (upon the wrist, as it is being demonstrated within those videos). To further complicate the intended technique's application, the tori draws the aggressor's hand/wrist to their own chest (prior to attempting to applying the intended technique). They have "created" a muscle dependent application. The aggressor hasn't been "broken-down" or debilitated (at all). This is a demonstration of "muscling" a technique, if/when the tori is smaller than the aggressor, this will place them at an (extreme) disadvantage (and serves NO purpose in regards to the application of the technique).
This "tendency/habit" is based on the "tori" feeling stronger while performing the action in this manner. It ignores the reality of the situation (in regards to the aggressor's abilities or lack thereof). The majority of people that practice (their manner of applying this motion) depend upon speed and power for its success. The techniques should be applicable regardless of the speed, or the level of power utilized for their application. This is why we practice the motions slowly (and of course to reduce the chance of injury).
Within each of the chosen videos, the person's who attempted to "explain" their applications failed to address numerous issues within those applications. They (all) basically presented a manor of using their hands, while an aggressor was pushing at them. What little detail that was provided, was more often than not, incorrect in the majority of the conclusions made in their regard.
Prior to their deletion, there had been numerous query's in regards to technique application (within those videos). None of the aforementioned videos addressed (any) "specifics", and what was demonstrated only illustrated their lack of (any) awareness that existed for them. 
Our own "white-belts" scoffed at the demonstrated examples within those videos. Even with their limited experience, they recognized that what was shown would not result in the successful application of the demonstrated motions. The presenters seemed to believe that what they were doing was actually "correct". For themselves, within the presented situations, they may well have been (somewhat) "correct". But for the majority of practitioner's, what was presented would have more commonly resulted in a failed applications
My own feelings are only those of empathy (for those individual's). They are obviously promoting what they believe will work, I just happen to not (at all) agree with them or their methods.

Friday, December 22, 2017

Visual Training

I am acutely aware that there are "different" ways to apply the Tuite techniques that Oyata had demonstrated to individual's during his years on the "seminar" circuit in the "80's" and "90's". Unfortunately, the majority of the attendees of those seminars never sought further instruction in the performance of those techniques. The majority just "took" what they saw, and assembled (something) that they thought was being demonstrated.
The vast majority of those individual's (simply) based what they had seen upon their own ideas of what was being done (and were typically incorrect). That has been clearly demonstrated by the resultant video's that have been presented by those individual's on "U-Tube" and the various available formats.
This is the (all to common) tendency of "Visual Training", where people only "see" a technique and then attempt to replicate it. When this is done, they commonly resort to muscling that technique, and if/when they are big or strong enough, they come up with some manner of motion, that "they" can perform (somewhat) similarly.
I've seen 2 or 3 videos that have attempted to "explain" how those techniques should be performed, and what was shown (at least to myself) demonstrated the complete lack of understanding (or study) that those individuals have devoted for the demonstrated applications. Each one was (IMO) "muscled" (to make it cause some manner of reaction).
Two of those videos used (what "we" call) the "push-catch" or "Palm-Press" application for demonstrative purposes. This technique is not the "easiest" of applications to (initially) utilize, but it is very useful for the instruction of the 6 Principles. In the aforementioned videos, (virtually) "all" of those principles were applied incorrectly and the "demonstrator/tori" didn't have a clue that they were doing so.
What I observed (within those videos) were "technique's" that those individual's had developed, and were now (obviously) teaching, but they had no (serious) relationship to Oyata's versions of them (despite any "claims" of having learned them from him).
"Tuite" has (repeatedly) been placed in the "sub-art" category of instruction. Because of that classification, the involved motions and techniques have been minimalized to being "bulk" limb motions/applications. The execution of "Block's"(sic) are given more attention than what was demonstrated within these "examples" of the applications. It's obvious (to us) that little to no time has been spent actually "studying" the execution of these motions (as is clearly demonstrated within those video releases).
We found it "interesting" that each of those videos relied on escalating "their" manner of executing the technique's to include some manner of "strike" to make it "effective"(?). This is one (of the numerous) things that make us doubtful of the individual's having (actually) "studied" the applications (at least in the manner that Oyata had stated should occur). When the techniques are being applied correctly, there's rarely a need for the inclusion of those "strikes". These "additions" are commonly the result of some level of technique misapplication (if not failure) of it's (correct) use.
In each of the aforementioned video's, the individual's focused (only) upon the aggressor's "wrist"(during the application of "their" technique's). It's obvious that these individual's "compartmentalize" their technique's and fail to consider or apply "whole" body application (of the demonstrated technique). This examples the fact that they are "muscling" (their own versions of) these techniques.
In each of those videos the individual's "suck" the aggressor's hand into/against their own body. The is done because people "feel" stronger when a motion/application is performed close to their own body. It additionally makes the opponent more capable of resisting the technique. By doing so, they have forced themselves to (then) have to "muscle" the application of the technique. If/ when the student has (even minimally) studied the application of these technique's, this becomes obvious. If the person's within those video's had used "larger" uke's, it's doubtful that any of the shown applications would have worked (as Oyata had demonstrated them). It was for that reason that (within our book) we had the smaller person performing the majority of the demonstrated applications.
The use of Tuite is not a manner of overpowering an aggressor. It is the application of motions that undermine the ability of the aggressor to resist those applications. Within the aforementioned video's it wasn't (just) a single factor of the applications that were being misapplied, it was (virtually) all of them.
Video's that (only) demonstrate "technique" application, (IMO) are pretty much worthless. Those videos exampled NO "Principles" for the completion or application of any of the demonstrated applications. What was shown, was how to "muscle" an aggressor's limb into a submission...maybe. The inclusion of Oyata"s name during their demonstration, does not provide any amount of validity for what was shown (as those applications included none of his application methods or principles).

If someone chooses to develop (?) their own version of Tuite (and subsequently) "teach" it, that's their business (and I could honestly care less). But I do care when they attempt to use Oyata's name to validate that instruction.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Changes, Transitions, Progress

It is repeatedly stated that "martial art's" needs to (must) "return to its roots". Which sounds (very) prophetic, but what does that really mean? The majority of martial art systems began with an individual's determining the most practical manner of defending themselves, whether in "combat" (with an enemy soldier) or defending themselves from a roadside thief. Today's practitioner will (commonly) only be doing so within the limitations that are allowed within the social constraints of the society that they live.
For the majority of us, that means that if/when we find ourselves involved in a physical confrontation, we should be capable of protecting ourselves (and/or other's) from suffering physical injury when being involved with protecting ourselves.
How that is accomplished, is commonly dictated by how society allows the individual to do so.
Oyata's instruction has gone through numerous changes over the years. Numerous practices that he once endorsed, were later abandoned by him (as being impractical and/or diversions from his methodology). "Sparring", (constant) use of the makiwara, the emphasis of "power", each of these practices were abandoned as diversions from actual technique application. Though power is important, it should never be the emphasis of one's training. Believing so, only limit's the student's understanding of technique application.
There have emerged numerous "groups" that state that they are teaching Oyata's methodology. For the most part, they are more often teaching a version of it. But much of that instruction is based upon his prior teachings. In his later years, Oyata's emphasis was on understanding the what and how of utilizing his techniques. This included the manner that he wanted students to perform motions within the kata. These were shown to affect the manner that those motions were to be applied with technique, and the results thereof. Those changes affected everything from "strikes" to how Tuite should be utilized.
These changes equated to "Sui-e" (Changes, Transitions, Progress). This was a concept that Oyata promoted for his student's to adhere to. It was never a "mandate" that one remain trapped by tradition or public practice methods, but one of constant advancement (in one's training). It was a belief that "life" was important (whether that of the student, or of an aggressor).
Sui-e dictated that one should be constantly improving (whatever one practiced). It implies that one should be constantly improving what(ever) they do and that it achieves a higher level of skill while doing so. It implies a greater level of moral achievement as well. In the practice of a "Life Protection" system of defense, that means that the student should strive for greater skill (in performing that art) to guarantee the concept of protecting life (all life).
In Oyata's (later) years of instruction he stressed the application of motions that depended not on power, but on technique. In the early years of his instruction, he stated his system's priorities. Those priorities were that the size of the participant's (aggressor or defender) made no difference in the effectiveness of the instructed techniques. That the kata illustrated the principles for utilizing the techniques, and that the student need only study their own body to learn where an aggressor was most vulnerable. Numerous systems are including additional "studies"(sic) to be practiced by their students. Oyata stated that those practices were a waste of (the student's) time (and detracted from their progress).
Many systems are now stating that their instructors were awarded "scrolls" that illustrated the use of these practices. They may well have been presented with those scrolls, but Oyata did not provide nor feel the need to provide those types of scrolls. Oyata's methodology is based upon basic application principles. The scrolls that he did receive (and then provided to us), illustrate those concepts.
"Returning to one's Root's" often only means to utilize basic, recognized concepts. The inclusion of confusing (if not meaningless) practice methods and teachings does nothing to advance one's training.

The study of individual and "whole-body" limb (I.E. "basic") motion will lead the student to question numerous commonly taught practices. Kata motion (study) has the potential to illustrate this practice as well. This is (often) the intent of Sui-e.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Video Releases Coming


 Because of the number of requests and inquiry's that we've been receiving, we have now begun to produce DVD's that will address the defensive system that we teach ("Oyata Te"), and methods of instruction that we utilize to do so. These DVD's will focus on demonstrating and explaining much of what I've written about here. They will also demonstrate what we have discussed at the seminars that we've been recently attending. Our initial focus has been on developing (actual) training Video's that demonstrate the principles and technique's that I have written about (in this blog). We are additionally considering the inclusion of a Web-site, to address any questions that may arise from the viewers of these DVD's.

We have been teaching these principles and technique's to our student's for years, and now believe that we have the time (and the tools) to be able to provide this information to interested parties in a quality product (including multi-camera perspectives, High/Slow speed video shots, etc.).

Personally, I have never been a particularly big fan of "Martial Art's Video's". Having made that statement (again), my reasons have been because they are commonly of poor quality and (more often) have only been provided to "show-off" the individual's skill (or lack thereof).

We've devoted a generous amount of time to the attendance of various "Training" seminars over the last few years, and although we have encountered (numerous) individual's that were skilled at presenting whatever it was that they were demonstrating, the quality of the (actual) instruction was often "lacking".

The focus of our videos will be on the viewer understanding the material being presented. Though what we teach comes from the perspective that was provided to us by Taika Seiyu Oyata, the material is applicable to most all forms of defensive practices/arts.

Our plans are to initially provide DVD's for "Female Self-Defense" applications, and various (individual) "Movement and Application" video's. We will also be producing DVD's that will address numerous subjects, including the application and correction of (commonly) misapplied "Tuite" techniques, "Force Efficiency" and (of course) individual "Weapon's" use and application videos.

Our "choice" of subjects to address will be guided (in part) by consumer interest (thus the probability of a separate web-site for that purpose). Although we have a plethora of subjects that we want to present, those subjects that generate the most interest will be addressed initially.

The greatest "fault" that we've encountered (in our attendance of "seminar's"'), has been the Lack of Details that have been provided (or allowed, because of "time" restrictions). To a great extent, providing that information via "DVD", will allow for (on average) a greater amount of time per/subject to be provided. It will also allow for multiple perspectives to be provided for those motions and explanations.

I still believe that video's can only provide a limited amount of "information" (albeit via example). The viewer still needs to perform the demonstrated motions upon another person themselves (and preferably do so upon multiple individual's). Our goal is that the provided information (on the DVD's) can be utilized in conjunction with that objective.

Although we will be focusing on providing DVD's that will address specific subjects, we are continuing the work on our books (covering many of these same and additional subjects). In many cases, our plans are to create "companion" DVD's for the books that we already have, or will be soon releasing.

Becoming (More) aware of the time required to assemble these (written and video) projects, We're anticipating releases to begin to become available sometime after the first of the (next) year (2018). The majority of the written material is completed, but the video portion requires copious amounts of editing and production (no, they're not just "Hey, hold the camera while I do this" video's).

If you have any opinions on subjects that you would like to see us address (whether in written or video format), feel free to E-mail your suggestions to this blog.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

The Consquences of “Restraint”

 Regardless of what initiates a physical confrontation, the student's goal is to protect themselves from receiving (serious) injury, and preventing the aggressor from continuing their assault. Whether that entails creating sufficient injury (to the aggressor) or restraining them, will be decided by individual circumstances.

One's ability to perform these actions is based upon the amount of practice that one devotes to the performance of the basic defensive motions that are taught within a classroom environment. Within that environment the student is able to explorer the variables that are applicable to the practiced situations.

Initially, one should focus upon the striking arm. Once that arm is deflected (and the aggressor is attempting to retract it), an aggressor will commonly attempt to utilize their other (free) arm (to strike or grab with).

Practiced motions should be made with this fact in mind. A manipulated arm can (and should IMO) be used to assist in negating the aggressor's ability to utilize their free arm (to continue their aggressive actions). This can be achieved by causing the aggressor to rotate away (from the student) and/or prevent the aggressor's ability to (effectively) deliver a strike with their “free” arm.

If/when injury (or “pain”) is inflicted upon one arm, an aggressor will commonly attempt to utilize the “other” (free/unaffected) arm. Depending upon the level of pain/injury applied (to the initial arm) will determine the manner of use by the unaffected arm. When the initially affected arm sustains minimal injury, the secondary attempted use (by the aggressor's “free” arm) is commonly a strike. When the initial arm sustains substantial (or at least “painful”) injury, the second arm (when used) will more commonly attempt some manner of “grab” (or manipulation).

Once understood, this can assist the defender in their choice of defensive actions to then implement. When an injury (or a substantial level of “pain”) is inflicted during that action, a moment of hesitation is commonly created (upon the aggressor). It during this hesitation that the defender should be applying a (more) solidified controlling application. This can be achieved whether the aggressor is retracting that arm, or if/when it remains extended.

In either case, the student's (actual) “threat” is the aggressor's unrestrained/free arm. Though it may be unable to either “reach” or come in contact with the student, it still aids in allowing the aggressor to relieve or reduce the effects of the manipulation being attempted (and/or acquire or use any available “weapon” that they may have access to).

For that reason, it is imperative that the student be aware of how the manipulation of the controlled arm can be used to restrict the aggressor's use of their “free” arm. This is most commonly achieved through the manipulation of the controlled wrist/elbow to effect reactions made by the “free” arm.

In regards to the control of an assailant, the student's understanding of a restrained individual's capability's and limitations is imperative to maintaining that control. Whether those vulnerabilities are natural or created, the student's understanding and ability to utilize them are learned and practiced in the controlled environment of a class. Student's require the experience of both positions (i.e. both that of the aggressor and the defender within those manipulations). There should be consistent verbal interaction between both practicing individual's that will provide “feed-back” for effective application of those applications. Though individual exceptions may present themselves, those reactions will have a general consistency that can be applied to the majority of similar situations.

It is imperative that those applications should not be dependent upon the size/strength of either the Tori or the uke (in regards to the use of those taught applications). Though “pain compliance” is the most popular aspect for this manner of manipulation, it should not be the main basis for a techniques use. Whether the subject experiences (any) “pain” during the motions use should be irrelevant in regards to it's effectiveness.

The student should note the “general” (type) of application being utilized (to maintain the restraining position of the Uke). When the technique is of the (over/Hyper) “Flexion” variety, the subject will be inclined to motion towards a “Fetal-Position” (thus any motion that positions the subject closer to, or within that position will be the most likely to be attempted). When the technique is of the (Hyper) “Extension” variety, applications that exploit those limitations are more likely (and capable) of presenting fewer options for the subject to effect an “escape” from the applied technique.

The most difficult aspect of “restraining” an aggressor, is causing the minimal amount of damage/injury to that individual. Though some (many) would argue that this is of minimal concern in a defensive situation, not “every” situation (and I could easily argue that the majority of confrontations fall into that category) and/or situations will require that the aggressor needs to be “injured” in order to maintain the safety of the user. In regards to legal (financial) repercussions of restraining an aggressor, the less damage incurred, the better. This shouldn't imply that inflicting (any) injury isn't justifiable (in certain situations), but any unnecessary infliction of injury, can definitely be used against the person who does so. An inflicted “sprain”, can cost the person several thousand dollars, a broken/dislocated “joint”, will (easily) start at $10,000 (and up). If you are found to be Liable (for that injury), you will (additionally) have lawyer expenses to contend with (both theirs, and your own). Forget about “humanitarian” reasons for not inflicting (unnecessary) injury, keep the monetary reasons in mind for not doing so.

Various arguments are (often) presented that (attempt to) disregard this concern. The “I was in fear for my life” is the most popular at this time. That argument is very weak (in the majority of confrontational circumstances). The fact that you were able to place the individual into a position of restraint (to begin with, whether successful or not), negates the majority of that argument.

The “Better judged by 12, than buried by 6” argument is a simplistic (if not ignorant) over simplification of the realities of a physical confrontation. The average confrontation (“fight”) will be “judged” by a singular “judge”, and not a “Jury”. It will amount to who has the most money (to buy their lawyer) and who can afford to go to court. Whom ever has the most money (most commonly) “wins”. Regardless of how confident you are with your reasons (for being involved in the confrontation), that story can be manipulated by an (expensive) attorney to favor your adversary. The fact that you participate in a “Martial Arts” class/training will (undoubtedly) be used against you as well. Not “IF”, but When you go to court, you will be (much) better off if you have made every reasonable attempt possible to NOT cause serious injury to your adversary.

Because of these and additional possibilities, our student's devote a large portion of their training to the manipulation and control of an aggressor. If achieving the ability to prevent receiving physical injury was the only factor of training, the whole “martial art” thingy, would be a fairly simplistic task. Reality kind of makes that a bit more involved than what most people presume that our training consists of.

Friday, September 1, 2017

What our school is teaching

 A number of individuals have contacted us in regards to what we are now teaching, and how we are advancing Oyata's art. For the most part, we are teaching the same things that we always have, Oyata's Life Protection art. Being that this instruction came directly from him (Oyata) we have always been aware of where he desired that instruction to lead. We have removed (numerous) practices from our curriculum that were believed by Oyata to be irrelevant to that purpose. The decision to do so was additionally influenced by the fact that we do not instruct minors, and we do not participate in competitive demonstrations (sport “sparring” competitions). Our classes are focused on “personal” self-defense and the repercussions of those actions (both legal and personal).
The majority of our student instruction is based upon the guidance we received from Oyata in regards to his performance of the open-hand kata that he provided to us. Those “traditional” kata are taught by numerous other systems as well, but he had modified them to better reflect his own interpretations and applications. Those modifications were based upon his own research and the instructional scrolls he received from his instructor's (Wakinaguri and Uhugushugu). Those scrolls emphasize principles of motion and application of the instructed motions, NOT specific “techniques” (as is commonly promoted and/or believed).
Although Oyata studied with several additional (Okinawan) instructor's, that study was focused on the learning of various additional “kata” that his instructor's had not taught to him. It was those kata that he incorporated into the kyu-level curriculum for his system. The kata taught to him by his 2 (actual) instructor's was reserved for his Yudansha level students. Oyata additionally included several “exercises” to his curriculum (“Turtle”, “Spiderweb”, etc.). These were (essentially) Lead-Ins to Shi Ho Happo and Mei Ho Happo (the Yudansha kata).
A major portion of Oyata's Life-Protection methodology is centered around the use/application of Tuite. This is the “grappling” art that is demonstrated within the various kata. Oyata recognized that the majority of confrontations do not require the student to inflict injury (or serious damage) to an assailant. Confrontations can (often) include individual's known to the student. The infliction of injury (upon an adversary) can easily become detrimental to the student (for various reasons). Tuite provides an effective means to defend one's self without that concern. It (additionally) provides the means to escalate as well (should that need present itself).
Obviously, striking and kicking methods are taught as well, but they are focused on the neutralization of an opponent's ability to continue their assault (rather than the physical defeat of that assailant). Though often considered a matter of semantics, this is a distinct difference (from how many “martial art's” are presented/taught).
Person's who choose to study with us, are commonly interested in their own “self-defense”. This requires that they learn Oyata's approach to doing so. That study includes numerous (seemingly) minor variations from how (and why) particular motions are performed. Our classes include lectures on how an assailant does and doesn't move, how an assault is (physically) initiated, and what reactions are commonly performed (in regards to a technique's application). The student is shown the differences in how/why applications will be applied, based upon the size of the student (as well as the assailant).
Oyata taught that the physical size of the student should be irrelevant to a technique's effectiveness. He regularly demonstrated that a student's physical size/strength were irrelevant to a correctly performed technique's application. For that reason, a student must be well versed in the human bodies natural range's of motion (ROM) and the (common) limitations of those motions.
Unlike many (if not most) classes, we do not emphasize (or provide) “calisthenics” as any part of our student's practice. If a student is interested in furthering their personal “physical fitness”, we suggest that they attend a gym (to do so). Though (minor) increases in a student's physical abilities may be achieved, that is not our classes emphasis.
Our classes are kept small for a reason. This allows us to provide individual guidance of the instructed motions, and the reason's for how those motions are performed. The average class is 2 hours in length. Every student is (physically) different, and therefore performs the individual motions (slightly) differently. Though it is popular to teach a class “as a whole”, motions will commonly require individual instruction (in regards to use/application). Though I'm sure there are individual's who have “mastered” the ability to do so, I have found no (viable) examples of how that is efficiently achieved.
There is no “group” testing of our student's (in regards to kyu-rank advancement), every student is addressed/taught on an individual basis. We rarely even inform a student that they were under review (for a kyu-rank advancement) as we conduct no “formal” testing of kyu-rank students. Those students who thrive on “rank” advancement, are often disappointed (by our instructional methods). Expanding on Oyata's desire's, we don't require the wearing of (any) “belts” (colored or otherwise). Student's are aware of their present “kyu-level” (of instruction), but that awareness is only provided for their reference for what information has/has not (probably) been shown to them.
Student's are given a “basic” requirement list, this list provides a reference for the student's awareness of shown (and/or not shown) principles and technique's. As student's vary in their frequency of attendance, the average time for achievement of a Yudansha grading will vary (though the average is commonly between 3 and 6 years). Once a Yudansha has been achieved, students are encouraged to become a functional part of our research group (exploring the continued and advanced application of/for technique and instructional research).
Though no longer affiliated with the “Ryu Te” organization, we continue contact with individual members of that organization. We regularly associate with (and conduct/attend seminars with) various “non-Oyata” based organizations/groups. Our (Oyata Te) group provides instruction and guidance for those persons who have an interest in Oyata's instruction and applicational methods.
The use of “Japanese” terminology is kept to a minimum (per Oyata's directives). We do provide (and to a very limited extent, require) an “awareness” of commonly utilized/encountered (Japanese) “kanji”.
That awareness is commonly coupled with some of Oyata's teachings (in regards to “body-motion”, technique application, etc.).
Oyata stressed the practice of “Weapon's Kata” to emphasize the motions relationship to “Open-hand” technique application. Different weapon's manipulations and motions mandated (different) hand/wrist motions. These motions are directly related to the instructed “Open-hand” (technique) motions. The use of the “Bokken” (weighted wooden sword) was the only “physical” development tool utilized (in regards to forearm strength).
We regularly admit that what/how we teach, is not “ego” enhancing. But for those who study diligently, the results will be more than a little enlightening, and prove to be more than adequate.

If you should have any questions, feel free to inquire. I/we commonly respond within a few days (we obviously have "other" things going on besides this "Blog"). 

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

New T-Shirts and Meaning

 We recently received our “new” school “T-Shirt” orders, and I find myself (again) having to explain what's printed on them (to people that I encounter outside of the dojo). The “back” of the shirt displays the “Ka Han Shin- Jo Han Shin” logo that we put together. It additionally includes the kanji for “Left/Right, Forward/Back” as well, but many (well...most) people are confused by the relationship.

This principle was taught by Oyata to explain application and responses to/from the instructed techniques learned in his system.

In it's “basic” form, the assertion is that Left controls Right, Right controls Left. When (further) applied to all body motion (whether in response to, or application of motion) it includes Front to Back, Upper and Lower. What's more commonly seen, is a “separated” display of individual limb action, applied (and related to) as being independent of any other actions. Oyata's main goal, was for the student to understand that there is a direct correlation between an action/motion and the opposing side of the body during that motion. This was a physical (and natural) response.

I was recently watching one of the “TCM” guy's, doing a spiel for that methodologies application of technique/motion. It was (as expected) over dramatized and somewhat confusing to follow the (non-existent) “logic” of the shown application. It utilized various “meridians” and “organ” references (“channels, etc.) but mostly amounted to making it confusing (enough) to prompt further attendance of their seminars.

Once one removed all of the trivia, what was stated (and was somewhat accurate), it was so convoluted with the additional (if not misleading) garbage, it became nonsensical. Numerous things that were shown had “some” validity, but they continued to confuse the issue (of application) with their (additional) “nonsense”. What I found most troubling (confusing?) was the fact that they routinely ignored “natural” body-motion(s). They chose (instead) to proclaim that “they” were adding/diminishing Ki/Chi etc. when in fact, all they did was rotate their body, so that they could (physically) be able reach/motion something (on the aggressor/victim). It had nothing to do with “modifying” one's “Ki/Chi flow, it was simple (and obvious) bio-mechanics.

This shouldn't be mistaken as any level of endorsement for what was (generally) being shown by these guys (as I disagree with almost everything that they're commonly selling), IMO what they are promoting is (more often than not) redundant nonsense that is intended to confuse the issue (for the student/observer). This leads to a “further” attendance of seminars (for more money). It additionally makes it more confusing if/when the student decides to practice the application of those (taught) “principles”. By keeping that methodology in the realm of “Ki/Chi” (ie. “mystical”), it allows for more variances (and excuses for failure) to that supposed “theory”.

A far more practical field of study, could be achieved in the study of Kinesiology. This is the scientific study of human (or non-human) body movement/motion. Kinesiology addresses physiological, bio-mechanical, and psychological mechanisms of movement. Any/every topic addressed in Kinesiology is explained without the use of any “mystical” aspects being utilized (and is far more easily understood by the casual practitioner). It also does not include all of the inconsistency's (and direct contradictions) that exist in the TCM methodology. But, you will lose all your “mystical” reasons for whatever it is that your doing.

The study of (even simplistic) Kinesiology will address those motions and responses with an easily understood rationality (that can be easily incorporated into one's instructional methodology). Because something appears to be “mystifying”, doesn't mean that it is. We are a modern (hopefully educated) society, rather than believing some mystical nonsense, try doing some research. The answers are available, try Looking for them (instead of listening to the first and/or every “snake-oil” salesman that comes along).

Saturday, August 12, 2017


  I was asked recently by a student to define the difference between Goshin (“self-defense”) and Jissen (“real/actual or non-consensual” combat), types of Kata. Though (IMO) often being a matter of semantics, I believe that the differences are with how the motions are being interpreted. I've seen several articles that attempt to “categorize” Kata into one or the other of those groups, but I believe this to be a myopic approach to viewing the Kata.

I tend to consider any/every kata motion (regardless of the kata it is being illustrated in) as having multiple interpretations. This was how Oyata defined and exampled them to us. Viewing those motions (much less the entire kata) as being One or the Other, seems a little pointless (and extremely limiting).

The implication being, that a particular kata was assembled to only example motions that could be used for one or the other is ridiculous.

I believe this has more to do with the instructor, than with the individual kata. I could see individual bunkai for a kata being “categorized” in this manor, but to proclaim the entire kata (and all of the bunkai for that kata) as being one or the other is a bit drastic (if not simplistic and limiting).

That being said, Oyata had in certain instances labeled certain (weapon's) kata as being “Jissen” (kata). Weapons kata were (mainly) taught for their benefits in regard to “open-hand” applications. The manipulation of the individual weapon would often illustrate a particular motion that was (directly) applicable to a commonly utilized open-hand application. If/when the kata was being shown to emphasize the use of that weapon (and of the motions contained therein), he would commonly call it “Jissen”. Doing so did not “change” the kata (per-say), only in how the student should be considering the motion's application.

Numerous systems teach “simplified” exercises/forms for beginning students (IMO, the “Pinan” kata fall into this category). Though often defined as having (only) “basic” bunkai, those motions were extracted from the classic kata, so the bunkai associated to them should (also) have the same interpretations as the kata from which they originated. It is this avenue of logic that I apply to the Pinan kata. Though personally preferring to practice the classic kata, I can appreciate the motions contained within the Pinan kata (though I don't particularly care for the practice of them).

Wednesday, August 2, 2017


 Training with Oyata would commonly expose a student to numerous uncomfortable situations. The most awkward of those was the preference for a student's use of their dominant side/hand. Having watched Oyata (on numerous occasions) perform a technique, it was obvious that he demonstrated no preference in his use of either the Left or Right hand/side. It was also common to hear him ask a student why they could not do likewise?

It has always been my own belief that Oyata was born “left-handed”, and raised (as the majority of society's do) to be “right-handed”. I believed my own father (who was of the same age group) was raised similarly. Both of these men would perform the majority of their actions, using their right-hand. But demonstrated only limited (if any) awkwardness when using the other (Left) hand. Within both Eastern and Western society (during that time), being left-handed was considered to be a “defect”. Children were commonly instructed to use their “right” hand for any/all manipulations that required the use of a single-hand.

Speak to any “left-handed” person that you know, and they will readily point-out how much society has been developed to/for (only) Right-handed people. My son is left-handed and I became aware of this “side-preference” (by society) when he was very young. Though he was raised to use his left-hand (for writing, shooting, catching a ball, etc) he has had to make numerous “adaptations” to comfortably function in society. This has become increasingly obvious to me in the commonly utilized training methods that are utilized by many, if not most systems.

The most dominant example (for those who train in Oyata's methodology) is that he taught us to begin an altercation “square” to an opponent. The majority of defensive systems will preach about how doing so is (in some way) a disadvantage. This has more to do with how an aggressor is anticipating their own attack, than in how one should be protecting themselves (as the defender should commonly be doing).

The assumption of any (side-dominant) “stance” prior to engaging in an altercation (in fact) limits the number of possible responses available to that individual. By beginning a confrontation “square” to an opponent, the student allows for (any) motion (equally) in any direction. This is often awkward for (most) students, as they are commonly only considering how they will enact their own “attack” (using their dominant hand). The student's practice should be focused upon their defense, rather than their (own) attack upon an opponent.

This is how the concept of “Defensive Striking” is commonly emphasized within Oyata's methodology. By not having a “side”(leg) forward, one can move to either direction more readily. Defensive striking does not focus upon enacting a “knock-out” strike, it emphasizes debilitating the opponent's limb's (initially) as these are what will deliver the aggressor's potential to create injury (upon the defender). Once the student has completed their defensive action, they can more easily move to any direction that may be required (to deliver a defensive strike or motion as required).

When one assumes the (commonly used) defensive posture of “one leg forward, one leg back”, the person's dominant side is usually the rearward side. Though (obviously) done in order to achieve greater momentum with the striking hand, doing so additionally limits the available ways that a strike or any defensive motion can be implemented. Any additional ability's “Defensively” are likewise restricted.

Defensively, this lets the defender “recognize” how an aggressor is likely to attempt a strike, and with which hand. Tactically this is enormously useful knowledge. The defender is then aware of how the aggressor is likely to attack (and can arrange their defense accordingly). Being that a strike to the head is the most likely (opening) “attack” made by an aggressor, the defender can then perform their defensive action accordingly.

Numerous people have made the (their) argument that “they” have been struck in the arm's numerous times (often by person's who practice Escrima and similar arts) and are completely capable of continuing their assault. This (IMO) this is a false equivalency argument. Being struck by a hand is very different than being struck by a “stick”. The perception is that being struck by a “stick” is more debilitating, I would argue (and demonstrate) that the hand can be (much) worse. A stick is capable of delivering a focused blow (impact), a hand can add numerous variables to that impact (and with less “power” being utilized with that strike).

The fact also remains that the majority of individual's don't “walk around” with a single (much less multiple) “sticks”. It's awkward and in most cases illegal to do so. I believe those arts have (some) merit, but take the “long-road” to the development of unarmed defensive tactics.

Unlike those methodologies, Oyata's system focuses on the natural motions of the student's limbs. Weapons are commonly taught in relation to those motions that can (naturally) be accomplished without the inclusion of those weapons.

When student's of Oyata's methodology begin their training with us, the ability to begin a confrontation being “square” to an aggressor requires time to acclimate to (in its implementation). Many systems attempt to “skip past” this (initial) portion of a confrontation and/or train to actually “wait” until (what they perceive to be) the (physical) “attack” begins. Oyata strove to change that perception.

That methodology was much simpler than most students assume it to be. In its simplest form, the right-hand will perform actions to the right side of the student, and the left-hand will perform actions to the left side of the student. The concept is focused on efficiency (without any further implication of any dominance in regards to “side” of a technique's implementation).

People who trained with/under Oyata would commonly speak of how “fast” he was, it wasn't that he was (exceptionally) “fast”, more that he was efficient in the performance of the instructed motions. He did not “include” any motion that did not contribute to an action's efficiency. This efficiency was exampled in every aspect of his art, he considered every motion made, to be an entire body motion/application.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Video Inconsistency's

  I am occasionally queried in regards to the video series that Oyata released in the early 90's. Mainly in regard to how the kata are (now) being taught (in comparison to those videos). There is a number of things that need to be understood in regards to those videos. At the time of their release, Oyata was in the midst of converting to teaching his system of RyuTe. What he was teaching was no longer (purely) “Ryukyu Kenpo” and he wanted to emphasize that distinction. Those video's did not clarify those differences.
What was shown on those videos, was (more accurately) “Ryukyu Kenpo”. The manor that he (later) wanted the kata to be practiced included (numerous) changes that (in his mind) clarified many of the kata motions bunkai. Those motion's changes included many of the differences in how he wanted the motions to be performed, so as to emphasize the fundamentals that he felt were applicable to what he was teaching. He stated that we (his students) hadn't been seeing those motions (on our own, without his guidance).
By changing the name of what he was teaching, his goal was to stop students from referencing “old/other” examples (which he stated were “inaccurate” for what he was then teaching).
Oyata stated that those additions were always present in the kata motions and that (prior) instructor's had not corrected them (within their students performance of those motions). He additionally stated that some instructor's had performed the motions/positions incorrectly (or more precisely, inaccurately). In the case of one (famous) instructor/master, that person had an (anatomical) “defect”(?) that didn't allow him to perform a “horse stance” (correctly). That instructor was (naturally) “splay-foot” (he was unable to turn his feet inward/towards one another). By (his) example, this anomaly was passed on to the manor his student's performed the stance, and became “canon” for the system he taught.
To that end, Oyata rarely used himself as being an “example”. He would often demonstrate (how “he” performed a motion), but would commonly (only) correct specific inconsistency's in how a student would perform that same motion. Oyata understood that each student would motion (slightly) differently. Those differences wouldn't change the principles of the motion being performed, though how the motion looked may vary (slightly).
My (personal) belief is that this was why he didn't want to do the videos (to begin with). He didn't want students to consider “his” performance (of the illustrated motions and kata) to be considered the only (or final) correct example (as was exampled through his continued modifications to those kata). Doing so would additionally restrict/limit the student's inclination to continue improving what was being taught.
Oyata considered the videos as being “promotional” (advertisements?) for prospective students (NOT as training references). They exampled numerous “popular” applications (bunkai) for the kata motions, though “skipped” twice as many of the basic (bunkai) motion examples. The videos additionally fail to demonstrate any of the instructed principles that permeated his system of Life Protection (though several “basic” concepts are mentioned in the included audio).
It should be notated that the majority (if not all) of the individual's that appear in those videos (in the role of “uke”) were ejected, or quit soon after the release of those videos (mid “90's”). That's not to say those persons had no talent or had no “skills”, only that they were not present for the numerous changes and additions that Oyata made in regards to how he wanted his methodology to be taught.
Those changes were the reason why Oyata didn't want those tapes to be used as “reference” (for his students). They were intended as “student recruitment” videos, not for (present) student training or reference. What was taught during the “Ryukyu Kenpo” years was legitimate, but it was (very) different from what (and how) he taught that information (until his death 15+ years later).

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Putting "Power", in perspective

  The majority of striking methods used in the commonly taught styles of “martial arts” (regardless of the method taught), are based upon the amount of force used to deliver them. There are 4 factors involved with that delivery, mass, speed and momentum all of which are utilized in regard to the fourth element, placement (or accuracy). The quantity's of any of the first 3 factors will determine the level of result achieved, and the type/manner of that effect, will depend upon the 4th factor (accuracy) for the delivery for those (combined) elements.
“Effect”, is the result from an applied action. When analyzing one's technique application(s), one has to first evaluate whether the result that was achieved via the applied/delivered action, was (both) effective, and (anatomically) efficient. Those results are not mutually exclusive (ie. A technique can be effective, yet not efficient, and/or efficient yet have only limited effect). Circumstances can additionally modify those evaluations.
Mass is the least relevant of those factors. Though (possibly) being able to compensate for an inadequacy (in another element), it cannot (completely) replace any of them. The most important is accuracy. The higher the level of accuracy, the less important those additional factors become.
The common (if not standard) belief, is that a Larger, Stronger individual is more likely to defeat a smaller (ie.”weaker”) individual (with other factors being supposedly equal). This is a misleading belief. The assumption is being made that despite an individual's ability (knowledge), they will (for some reason?) be unable to utilize that knowledge/ability (because of the size difference?). The instructed techniques are not based upon those physical factors, so why would they (somehow) become (suddenly) irrelevant?
Despite any presumed equality, a larger (stronger) person learns, practices and understands the instructed material differently. The smaller (weaker) person will of practiced that material with the intent of defeating the larger/stronger opponent (as it would have been considered their greatest threat). The victor in a confrontation is never (solely) based upon size/strength, it is based upon knowledge (of how to utilize the individual's available attributes, and the degree of practice that they have committed to that pursuit).
The master's are (rarely) considered as having been such, because of their physical prowess. It is more commonly (if at all) only mentioned as a side-note. If this were not the case, then they would have been (regularly) defeated by larger/stronger individual's.
Perpetuating this strength fallacy, is detrimental to a student's training. It shouldn't be ignored, but (instead) utilized within one's training. One's training should already be done in this regard. The difficulty in doing so, is if they have a compatible type of student to practice with.
Speed is (often) the most easily modified factor for the newer student to achieve (or at least to make the attempt of modifying). Unfortunately, it should also be the last of those attributes to be addressed during one's practice of the instructed techniques/motions.
It is also momentum, that is the least understood, and is (therefor) regularly the least correctly utilized. The most common misunderstanding if not misapplication of momentum, is in regards to body motion (during the delivery of a limb action). Numerous systems/instructor's believe (and teach their student's) that one should swivel their hips or retract the opposite arm while delivering a strike (whether with the arm's or the legs). While providing a feeling (by the performer) of the motion (if not resistance), it adds little to nothing (beneficial) to the performed action. The fact that the person feels the motion, is evidence that any supposed increase in force is not being transferred (in)to the impacted person/object.
The efficient use of any of these factors requires that one be familiar with the (natural) anatomical motions & limitations of one's own body and (thereby) that of others (in general). The difference in whether “power” (momentum/force) is being transferred, is whether it is felt, or not. When it is (being felt), it isn't being transferred.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Higher Level Yudansha

 Within the martial arts community, it has become common place to refer to and/or example a person's validity (for whatever they are promoting) via their having a Higher (5th-10th) level of Yudansha (black belt) rank. Presumably, those individuals have been involved with study/training for extended periods of time, and therefore (also) have greater knowledge/experience in whatever it is that they are presenting/teaching.

 Particularly within the United States, this is a poor methodology for determining a prospective instructor's knowledge/ability (much less the ability to teach that subject, regardless of the individual's ability).

 Rank (in general) is more often purchased than earned. Though understanding that the majority of martial arts are being taught as being a financial income source, thereby making that endeavor and (only) a profit driven entity. Having a higher rank, provides one with (presumed) validity (for whatever they are teaching). By one having a higher rank (than the other person/instructor) one will attract more students (presumably).

 Oyata always stated that before you open a school/dojo, have a real job (to earn money to provide for your family). And NO, running a Dojo is not a real job. It can be fun, and even very fulfilling, but a real job doesn't depend on teaching a subject that will be unlikely to fulfill someone's life.  Those types of jobs only fulfill a niche/interest of the paying (and teaching) individual.

 In America, profit is the worshiped entity. If you can make a profit at doing anything, it's viewed as being productive (?). Anything that doesn't provide a profit, is considered to be a “hobby”. If you're (actually) providing a need, you should (ethically) be doing so for Free. It can also be argued that if/when someone gets something for Free, they don't/won't fully engage themselves in that pursuit.

 This is the conundrum that instructors commonly find themselves. Beyond (commercially) “running a Dojo”, the need for achieving a higher rank (beyond Yudansha) is only useful in regards to one's social positioning within the martial arts community (and thereby attracting more students). Though I have interacted with numerous higher level Yudansha, I have considered (very) few of them to be any more/less “knowledgeable” than any of the others that I've met.

 Rank, is more commonly being used to compare individual's to one another, rather than being any acknowledgment of knowledge or ability. Higher rank is often associated with longer time having been spent training, learning (and/or doing “something”) that has increased their knowledge level. More often this is not the case.

 Rank is far more often purchased. Once a testing fee has been paid, the individual is most likely going to receive that rank. I've seen it so many times, in so many systems/styles and martial art's organizations that I (and most people I've spoken to) have been affiliated with that it has become the accepted standard/norm.

 Though awarding higher rank “may” acknowledge some difference in one's knowledge/ability (often only within that specific group of individual's), that rank should not imply any presumed general superiority (of either knowledge or ability).

 I've encountered numerous individual's who had impressive levels of knowledge. Rank rarely had any bearing on the validity of that knowledge, or in regards to their ability to apply (or teach) that information. Many of those individual's had only minimal (if any) recognized “ranking” in any system.

 My personal interest has always been in the transference (teaching) of knowledge. Not every “skilled” individual is a good/competent instructor. One's personal ability is a separate skill-set (from being able to convey that knowledge/ability to a student). That ability most often comes (only) after having years of (teaching) experience. It's for that reason that I encourage interested parties (student's) to observe and to question an instructor's student's (as to an instructor's competency). That includes my own.

 Depending on what it is that you're wanting to learn, the Rank (of the instructor) should be one of the last considerations. The majority of systems require paying (the requisite amount) for whatever rank one deems it necessary to teach (whatever it is that is being shown). Keep in mind that there are NO “industry” standards in this regard (or any other regard for that matter). Personal experience has shown myself, that there are (approximately) 8 low to medium quality instructor's, for every 2 of decent ability to teach (not necessarily perform) some manner of “martial art” (regardless of the “system”). Even in those systems that require some level of performance (of/for the required motions/techniques) for the awarded ranking. Their abilities (or lack thereof) in regards to instruction (teaching) are rarely if ever addressed (much less taught).

 Any rank, is only recognized within the individual organization that it was issued in. Every system/methodology/school has different standards, and few (if any) systems are in place to confirm/validate the testing of Yudansha (Black Belt) applicants.

 The majority of systems promote the idea that those ranks awarded above (approx.) “5th” degree/level, are “honorary”, and are only representing the amount of time that the individual has devoted to the system. This might be easier to accept (believe?) if those same individual's didn't have multiple (Yudansha) rankings, in multiple systems(?).

 IMO, Part of that problem could be rectified by requiring that every person entering a “New/Different” system (from the one they originally received their Yudansha ranking), be required to study that (new) system for 1 (?) year minimum, prior to receiving any ranking (in the new system). Personally, I feel it should only be done for the reception of a Shodan (1st Degree) ranking, regardless of any prior experience. Shodan represents having learned all the basic motions for the system, the assuming of the individual's knowledge (beyond that level), only belittles whatever system/methodology it is that being taught. Despite that (obvious) fact, numerous “instructor's” have (equally) numerous, and often higher rankings, in multiple systems of martial arts(?).

  This situation exists in every system that I have ever encountered (either through study within that system, or through speaking/working with individual's within those other systems). Personally, I had 6 years of study within a different system prior to what I now teach, Beyond having learned some basic motions and positions (all of which had to be later changed/modified), I consider that time as having been wasted time (for my study and interests). I don't normally acknowledge it as having “added” to my knowledge level.

 When I see the lists of different martial art styles/system's (and “ranks”) that an individual claims to possess, I have to conclude that none of those “systems” were adequate in their instruction (at least for that individual). That being the case, then why include a listing of them? The only logical answer (IMO) is for personal Ego.

  The only common “fact” that can be determined by someone having/claiming/promoting the fact that they have a Higher (or any) Yudansha Ranking, is that they have spent money (in regards to now having that rank). The amount of (any) actual “knowledge” (or ability) they may have is more often than not, questionable.

  That shouldn't imply that I haven't met some very knowledgeable people. Their ranking meant little to nothing to myself. It was only when they emphasized that ranking, that my (personal) opinion of them evaporated. Though the few that I did feel were (exceptionally) knowledgeable, were (very) few and far between.

  Oyata (often) referred to “Higher Rank”(and titles), as well as the various “colored” belts and patches, as lipstick (on a Pig). He didn't concern himself with a student's “rank/title”. All student's were shown (and practiced) the same techniques. Those that were concerned with them, he often (only) made note of. A number of them quit (or managed to get themselves expelled) prior to his death.

  Higher Ranking only became vogue after the Japanese began teaching the Okinawan systems (and adopted the dressings of the Japanese systems). Being a member of a (whatever) system shouldn't be the only justification for the awarding of (any) “Higher” ranking. It can (should?) be recognized, but it doesn't (or shouldn't) imply that the person has been (actively) improving/increasing what they know (or how they do it). The only thing being displayed (via a higher rank/title), is the individual's ego.

  When asked, I tell people interested in attending a (or any) “self-defense” class, to question (and observe) the instructor's student's (the instructor's personal abilities/knowledge mean little if that knowledge isn't being conveyed). An instructor's Job, is to convey knowledge/ability, not to (only) example their own Rank, which should (only) be noted as a display of the instructor's ego