Friday, December 7, 2018
Oyata's methodology (regardless of the time-period for that instruction) has always emphasized (entire) "body" motion/use during the application of the instructed motions. That instruction varied/changed over the course of his (years of) instruction. This came about because Oyata was constantly striving to improve the instruction that he provided to us (his students). Many of the concepts that he taught, were provided with no definitive "labels" that distinguished those principles. Many of them encompassed several (sub) subjects. One of the major ones, we have "labeled" as Force Efficiency.
Force Efficiency is the term that we use in our instruction of the (physical) application of the instructed motions utilized within the Oyata Te system. Oyata did not use this term, it is the phrase that we coined to define the manner that he (Oyata) taught and utilized to convey that concept. The term is used to define the efficient use of the physical actions that are taught to our students (via the instruction that was received from Oyata). Our use of the word “Force” should not be confused with Forceful or to imply “strength” (within the use of those applications).
The average student is initially inclined to believe that having a greater amount of (physical) “strength” will assure that students use of the instructed motions will (always) prove to be the most effective (if not efficient). Of the (multiple) factors that determine the “effectiveness” of an application's use, the amount of applied “power/force” is considered to be the least important (the correct “placement” of that application being significantly more important).
When one is determining what factors are the most universally available, physical strength is only one of, if not the lowest/least important on that list. If/when a technique isdependent upon that “one” factor (I.E. “power”), it is (then) only applicable by a limited number of individual's (male or female). That use is additionally dependent upon it being greater than the opponent's ability to resist/absorb that application.
The student's knowledge of an opponent's natural "weak spots" (not necessarily "Pressure Points") is necessary for the use of those applications. That awareness/knowledge is taught through the instruction of the student's use >of their own body (within the instructed motions).
Force Efficiency is the initially instructed "awareness" of those strengths (and vulnerability's). Though (initially) taught as an efficient means of technique delivery/use (by the student), it additionally exemplify's an opponent's vulnerabilities. If/when involved in a physical conflict with an opponent who is larger/stronger, the student must have the ability/knowledge that allows them to circumvent those advantages. This awareness is exampled in every aspect of the instructed positions/motions.
When people (generally) speak of Oyata's technique application, they (commonly) will refer (if not “obsess”) to his use of a “neck-strike/knockout”. This technique (though being very impressive) was often difficult (if not "impractical") to utilize in a (more "common") altercation. If that technique were as "effective/practical" (as people generally imply) why didn't Oyata spend more (if not the majority) of his classes being devoted to his student's perfecting it? (obviously) Because it wasn't(either “easy” nor practical ). Depending on the circumstances, it more often resulted in a “stun” (or temporary imbalance of an opponent (thus becoming a glorified “atemi” strike, which was what Oyata considered it to be. Our use of the term "Force Efficiency" is used to exemplify the student's most efficient use of their body and appendage motion in the application/use of the instructed positions, motions and techniques (whether defensively or offensively). That instruction begins with the student learning/understanding what motions are natural and what motions are not. That includes the subliminal motions that occur in response to expected and/or unexpected actions (performed by the student or Uke during an altercation). The student's awareness of those responses allows them (those responses) to be utilized within the student's application of (the instructed) technique. <
When one examines what constitutes “natural” motion, it commonly consists of forward motion (by the bodies limbs. Those motions that are “circular” (or rearward) are not considered to be as “practical/effective” for use (as those that are delivereddirectly forward). (in general) Circular motions require “room” to develop momentum. It is also difficult to (efficiently) include the user's body-weight with those types of strikes.
Oyata Te demonstrates the positioning of the student's hip's and shoulders during those application movements. In general, the hip's and the shoulder's remain (consistently) "square" (to one another) during any motion/movement. When that alignment is altered, the student will be (and "feel") off-balance. I have recently seen (several) “examples” of individual's performing (their own) versions of Oyata's method for performing the Kata (the versions that he taught). What's commonly exampled, is a quickly performed example, that includes (numerous) incorrectly “added” motions (as well as motions that were removed by him as well). Oyata did include additional motions, but they were intended to be (very) subtle (and barely recognized/noticed).
One of the most obvious (of Oyata's changes), was the elimination of (any) "shoulder-wag" (during the performance of the kata). The reasons for doing so are multiple, but its inclusion is an obvious indication of not having been part of his later (I.E. the last 10-15 years of his life's) instruction. The examples I've seen may have been (at one time) "valid", but they should be (more accurately) considered as being "basic" (and certainly not "advanced", as those posters have claimed). Oyata's later years of instruction focused on the student's use/positioning of their body (whether during technique or kata) motion. He felt that this was of higher/greater importance than (individual) “technique” use or variance. Those motions held greater importance than the learning of different or additional technique motions. Once those motions were understood by the student, techniques would become more obvious (via the kata motion) to the student.
I've received numerous inquiries as to why I don't post "video's" of new/different technique applications. If my readers refer to our Oyata Te page, my associate has included (numerous) videos that example (much) of what I have addressed here (technique motion/application, etc.). Frankly, "feeding" the Internet's "need " video examples is not my goal (here).
Those that (actually) are interested in what/how we teach Oyata's methodology should visit/attend our classes to get a more descriptive (and physical) “exampling” for what/how we teach his methodology. Our Classes are (very) relaxed and we are very open to explaining the “how” and “why” of Taika's teachings (as well as those teachings that he didn't agree with).
A recent comment/question (by a reader) on a previous blog, raised the question of “research”, and the methods we utilize to perform our own. Oyata had provided us with several methods (that he utilized himself) to do so. The “examples” commonly seen being done (on the Internet) usually consist of people attempting to use the motions in the same (if not exact) manner as those motions are performed within the kata. Oyata had been shown that those motions are (generally) individual motions (even if not representing "individual" techniques), and they were intended to be combined with "other" motions (demonstrated within the same and other kata). Oyata's explanation was that the (individual) motions, were more like "letters" that needed to be combined with other/additional letters, in order to form words (more complete techniques/applications). Although certain kata may be assembled to emphasize a particular theme, the individual motions could serve multiple uses, depending on what and how they were combined with other kata motions (whether from the same or different kata).
One of those methods utilized “pictures” for each of the motions contained within the instructed kata. This amounts to having a “deck” of picture/cards that includes the motions from each of the kata. The deck is shuffled, then a number of (random) individual cards (motions) are drawn from the deck (1, 2, 3, 5?). Those cards represent individual techniques/applications and defensive motions, so those motions are (at least attempted to be) combined in some way to illustrate a defensive response to the predetermined manner of assault. It doesn't always “work” (in a practical manner), but it does force the student to formulate how the motions “could” be utilized. It can also illustrate additional uses/interpretations for those motions that had not been previously considered.
The use of the cards additionally gets the student “away” from the (common) belief that the motions are (always, if not only) used in the manner depicted within the particular kata.
Taika used this method (using Kodak "pictures"), we now have the convenience of the internet, and can order a "deck of cards" with the pictures (that are provided) in as many "decks" as necessary. A large number of the "basic" motions are repeated within the various kata, so it isn't (really) necessary to print an entire deck for each individual kata. I believe that our own “main” deck of “kata motion” cards, has 197 cards. That “deck” represents the motions contained within the 12 foundational kata (taught to our students) within the Oyata Te system.
The most common use is done by randomly drawing a set number of cards and the student attempts to develop a defensive action/response using those cards. The cards can also be specified (to 1 or 2 particular cards). The student could also include randomly selected additional cards as well (the possibilities are seemingly endless).
The “goal” is to get the student to begin thinking of the motions as all (individually) being important. Student's (often) get “pigeon-holed” into believing that a single (or group) of kata motions (only) has a “specific” (if not individual) purpose.
If one were to “imagine” being the original creator of a “kata”, Why? Would you create that “kata” to defend against (only) a particular set of “aggression” methods? It makes more sense, to provide motions that would have multiple uses/applications (for a variety of aggressive acts). It's been noted (by multiple sources) that many of the early instructors, only taught a single or only a few kata to their students. When those students would study with another (different) instructor, they would often learn the kata that those instructor's taught to their students (often to learn similar if not the same defensive actions). Oyata felt that learning the (relatively small number of) kata that he included within his system was more than sufficient for a (diligent) student to learn/understand the demonstrated motions (which is the purpose of the kata). Understanding “how” to utilize those motions is achieved through the student's continued practice/research of those motions.
Once a student has learned a "set" of kata (regardless of the number of kata learned), they should have the ability (through the demonstrated actions contained within those kata) to develop/practice the instructed techniques (as well as adapt those motions) to a variety of aggressive actions.
It should be noted, that numerous individual's (and/or “newly” developed “systems”) have created their own set of “kata”. Every example of these (types of) “kata”, that I have observed, have been lame attempts (at replicating existing kata and/or motion combinations). I could understand (maybe) developing an “exercise” (to learn/practice a particular motion), but none (that I have seen) provide the varying application of instructed motion that the “traditional” kata provide. Kata, do not provide the (actual) responsive “technique” instruction/application. They provide examples of defensive technique motion. An instructor is (at least initially) required to provide examples for the use of those motions. Student's should avoid fostering the “belief” that a (any) particular kata motion can/will only represent an individual technique/response (to a particular aggressive action). That motion will often be used in additional defensive actions, but its use may vary slightly (within those defensive actions). What is demonstrated within the kata, is (often) a "basic" example for that motion. The kata provides the principles of/for that motion (not necessarily the exact application of/for that motion). Individual circumstances will dictate the (actual) use (for that motion), but the kata provides the physical execution/use of that motion.
I've seen numerous people (attempt to) demonstrate that the kata includes the (initial) actions of the aggressor, this makes no sense (to myself). There would be no purpose to have included the motions of an aggressor (within a “training” routine, like a “kata”). Those motions would already be known/recognized by the student (and often are what the student-initiated their attendance of the class to learn a "defense" in regards to).
The “traditional” kata were (originally) taught in “secret” to a select few students. Their purpose was to convey principles of/for particular technique application, not (necessarily) specific techniques. If that were the case, it would be much simpler to (simply) have a "list" of techniques/motions (that the student would be required to learn). When the student gets away from the concept that the motions are (individual) techniques (and in fact represent “concepts/principles”), the ability to recognize techniques (that utilize those motions) becomes more readily apparent.
The concept of there being (only) “hard” and/or “soft” styles is (to myself) limiting. In general, these "types" are distinguished by the system's inclusion of strikes (or not) and the inclusion of some
degree of "mental" reflection and/or practice (commonly seen in the form of "meditation"). Learning
the delivery of "strikes" is the more simplistic of the two. It Is the easier of the two for student's to
understand, so it is what is initially learned and practiced by the average (beginning) student. Grab's
and parrying (or deflection) motion defenses, are often reserved to the more experienced student.
Any, if not all styles of defense utilize both of these concepts, they only vary in the degree of their
use of either (between the different “systems”).
The ability to effectively utilize "strikes" is commonly dependent upon the (physical) size/strength of the student. The application of manipulation (types of) techniques (should) have no such limitations imposed upon their use. Oyata's methodology for the use of either of these applications, was dependent upon the student using their entire body (within that use). The use of the “fist” was more often limited to the use of the first two knuckles (of the utilized hand). Emphasis was made upon the wrist (of the striking hand). It was only necessary that the wrist remains straight (to prevent “buckling”) on impact with that forward strike. The “fingers” remained loose/relaxed. As long as the wrist maintains a straight alignment (with the forearm), the wrist would be unlikely to “buckle”.
Being that the intent/use of the fist was rarely intended to be (mainly) dependent upon the amount of delivered force/momentum, it was the placement of that strike that was of greater concern. The amount of force delivered, only added to that strikes use/effect.
The “punch” that Oyata used, was shown/demonstrated to include a lateral “milking” action (of the striking wrist) upon impact. This was shown to create additional reactions (by the Uke) with its inclusion. Those reactions are demonstrated whether the strike is delivered with force, or not.
The use/availability of greater amounts of force are obviously beneficial, but should not be considered to be mandatory (for the effectiveness of an application/technique). The idea is to create a specific reaction, that can be (further) utilized with additional motions to create the desired response.
Efficient application of technique is achieved by entire body application of the movement being utilized. This is done by using the concept of force efficiency. When combined with correct technique application (regardless of the amount of physical strength utilized), The technique will be applied in the most efficient manner.
Force Efficiency equates to correct (body/frame) alignment being applied with the attempted application. That alignment includes specific directions (of motion and alignment) to be used within the delivery of the attempted application. Any additional motion (being included by the student), is commonly unneeded and/or equates to being wasted motion.
Though being (at least to ourselves) a simple (if not obvious) use of (body) motion, we have had student's who have argued otherwise (commonly by presenting arguments that they “feel” more powerful when including those actions). The fact that they “feel” those motions, should example the uselessness of those motions. When a motion achieves the (ideal) transfer of the generated energy/momentum, the person should not “feel” anything. This is commonly exampled when a student states that they “felt” nothing during the performance of an action (although the results of that action, resulted in an obvious transfer of mass and momentum). If/when the motion is felt (by the user), it is not being transferred (into the target/subject). The most common example of this is when students include a "hip" shimmy. The motion achieves nothing, but the student "feels" it (and therefore "thinks" that it has made the motion more powerful).
There are motions that can increase the amount of delivered mass/energy. Those motions are performed in (often subtle) ways that can be achieved without the inclusion of forced "additional" motion. One of the simplest is the continued (relaxed) inclusion of a limb joint's extension. This is most easily exampled with the use of a forearm strike. As the forearm makes contact (with the intended/target location), the (striking) student's wrist is relaxed. This allows the (striking) wrist to then wrap around the targeted (Uke's) arm. Doing so will increase the amount of delivered momentum/energy into the impacted object (I.E. the Uke's arm). By the Tori maintaining a “straight” wrist (during this action), they are countering, if not decreasing the amount of delivered momentum. It was the inclusion of these types of simple changes/actions, that make Oyata's methodology more productive (if not “effective”).
Friday, November 30, 2018
When the new student begins their study of a defensive art, they are shown the rudimentary movements for the application of techniques. Those motions can be strikes, grabs or motions that place an aggressor at a physical disadvantage. An important aspect of achieving that advantage is the student's understanding of the natural weaknesses that exist within the human anatomy. Attempting to understand the entire body's weaknesses can be an ominous (and unnecessary) task. We begin that instruction with the student understanding the movements, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities of the arm. We start with the arm because an aggressor's arm will be the more easily accessed and vulnerable to the student's defensive applications during a confrontation.
Once those vulnerabilities are understood by the student, that knowledge can be applied to the remainder of an aggressor's limbs (during the student's application of defensive actions).
Various instructors attempt to have their student's learn those locations throughout an aggressor's body. We've found that understanding those locations within the arm, will act as a "reference" for the remainder of the limbs. Those Strikes delivered upon an aggressor's torso will have greater variance than those locations that are on the limbs (arm's and Leg's). The variance that exists between the different body (torso)-types (and weight) are more diverse than what will be present between (different) individual's arms.
Our students begin with learning how to perform strikes that are made on the aggressor's arms. Strikes made upon the Torso, are addressed differently as they commonly will only be accessible once the arms have been neutralized. When the student gains an understanding of those arm strikes, that same knowledge can be "transferred" to be used when striking the leg's (as the locations that are learned to be utilized on the arm's, can be directly applied for use when striking the leg's). Every location that is shown on an aggressor's arm, can be directly correlated to use on the (opposite) Leg of the aggressor. Fortunately (for the student), they have their own body for referencing those locations. Though most of those locations are known/recognized (by the student), they need only understand the correct angle that they need to be struck at (to elicit the desired result). The majority of those locations can be struck at various angles to elicit different results/reactions. Those variances are dictated by how the limb is being utilized (by the aggressor) at the time of the defender's impact (upon the aggressor's limb). The correct (or more effective) manner to utilize a particular location is always dependent upon how the aggressor is using that limb at the time. The utilized locations are places where the nerves and tendons are readily vulnerable to external impacts and manipulations being applied upon them.
The term "Kyusho" is commonly used to describe these locations, though "Atemi" would (IMO) be more accurate. "Kyusho" implies a devastating result from its use when more often the locations only exemplify a particular vulnerability (more akin to the meaning of "Atemi", or "distraction"). The whole "labeling" thing, becomes a contest of semantic's. Just as with the whole "TCM" fallacy, these are simply locations, that may or may not have any actual relation to one another. We have chosen to utilize Oyata's perspective on any relationship that those locations may have with one another (which has shown to share a greater relationship to Western medicine than to any "TCM" theories). Those relationships are directly related to commonly recognized principles that are used (and readily available) within Western medical texts. The theories and concepts of TCM are based on random idea's and vary depending upon the presenter's perspective. By using Western theories, they're subject to (multiple) reviews that can either validate or invalidate those ideas. Though variances will exist, those differences can be logically explained/identified and will be demonstrated through recognized models of/for behavior and reaction (rather than through some "obscure" example, I.E. "the position of the tongue" during the application of a technique). For myself, I can now recognize why Oyata dismissed (all of) the TCM Theories. Yes, some of it can demonstrate certain actions and reactions, but it cannot be confirmed, justified or even replicated through demonstrated examples upon varied/multiple individuals. Additionally, one need not learn (much less understand) the often confusing idea's that are contained and taught within that Theory. Oyata's methodology is based upon how motions should be performed the most naturally, and effectively. To the casual observer, those differences often appear to be very subtle, but they change the manner for how those motions have been commonly taught and used. By using Oyata's "Force Efficiency" application manner, those locations are more practically (and easily) utilized. This training begins with how the student is shown to perform the initially introduced body positions and limb motions (Stances and Defensive Strikes). Those variances (from how they are typically seen being done) are dependent upon the student's use of Force Efficiency. Every motion taught, must be performed with that principle being utilized. Student's are inclined to "separate" the instructed principles (from the various motions beings shown to them). To become effective, those principles and various motions must be integrated in order to produce the desired results. This was the concept (ka han shin, ja han shin) that Oyata continuously stressed. Until that concept is an integral part of the student's motion/technique application, any concern for "Atemi/Kyusho" is a futile effort.
It bears mentioning, that there exists an overbearing concern by student's, in regards to the use of "knock-out" (Neck) strikes. The majority of that concern falls into two camps, the first is in regards to safety (and any lasting effects), the second is in regards to the subjects "recovery" following the strike. The safety concern is one that is justified, but for "healthy" students and the use/application of lightly applied strikes, that concern can be minimized. Over-enthusiastic student/instructor application of those (neck) strikes should not be tolerated (nor even allowed). The lighter application of those motions will convey the desired understanding/result without causing unnecessary risk to the recipient. For healthy student's/subjects, the use of lightly applied neck strikes should not be a concern. The more "troubling" concern (IMO), is in regards to what is being "taught" as being "recovery" technique's/actions (being performed upon recipients of those often "excessively" applied strikes). For the average (and "healthy") recipient, the effects caused by those strikes are more related to "fainting" than to anything else. The commonly taught "Recovery" classes taught by many of those individuals who use (IMO) excessive force with their instruction methods are (medically) total Bullshit.
If you choose to use the TCM theory (for whatever you are doing), when applying "first-aid" (to those victims/recipients), you should utilize "actual" First-Aid methods and techniques. Being on the receiving end of a "neck strike", is most akin to the effects from fainting (a sudden fluctuation in the blood flow of the brain). Strikes applied to the neck, only cause a fluctuation in that blood flow (and they certainly don't cause a "restriction" of blood flow to the brain). Those strikes only affect the blood flow from the brain (similar result, just a technicality that's regularly misunderstood). What should be recognized, is that the subject is experiencing what is more closely related to a "fainting spell". With that being understood, the "medical" response SHOULD be to lay the subject down (if not additionally raise the legs). This allows the blood flow (and pressure) to more easily/readily return to normal. What is commonly seen (within the TCM instruction) is the exact opposite. Additionally, they are commonly seen "slapping" the subject's on (either) the same or opposite sides of their neck (to "stimulate" blood flow?), which as any “first aid” course will inform you, does nothing (productive). Worse yet, they sit the victim up (which limits blood flow to the brain (but provides a longer recovery time, and makes the strike appear to have been more effective). When people try to promote the whole “Chinese Medicine” tripe, this is one practice that goes against any logical treatment method.
What I find sad (if not disturbing), is that these groups often require their people to have been through this (their) “training” classes to learn this nonsense. I'm regularly confronted/questioned why I have such disdain for these types of “training” practices, It is mostly in regards to the regularly promoted stupidity that is associated with it.
Monday, October 15, 2018
During the past 20 years, there would appear to be a greater acceptance for the study of kata within the M.A. Community, The majority of that “study” (IMO) has been limited to interpreting those motions to (only) revolve around the most obvious (if not simplistic) interpretations of/for those motions. The objective of those interpretations is evidently to justify the interpretations that already exist (rather than being an attempt to expand that understanding).
I am inclined to view kata as providing examples of/for application principles (rather than being only examples of technique applications). I can understand why some instructor's would “Poo-Poo” the practice of kata (if the only purpose of the kata, would be for the exampling of “techniques”). That belief makes no sense. Without the understanding of the principles for how and why a technique can/will work, those motions are limited to singular applications.
When Oyata lectured at seminars, or during his classes, those lectures were provided in regards to various application principles. The (individual) “techniques” that he utilized (to illustrate those principles) were not the intent of those lectures. Oyata wasn't concerned if the attendees learned those applications, the goal was to demonstrate a “principle” (that could be utilized in/for multiple applications).
There are a vast number of Kata that are commonly taught within the martial art's community. Many of those kata repeat various motions (between them). If those motions were intended to represent specific techniques, what would be the purpose for their being repeated? (amongst those different kata). It makes greater sense (IMO), that they would represent the application of principles in varying circumstances.
If you take any specific motion, you can (on average) only come up with a limited number of ways that the motion can be utilized (whether alone, or in combination with additional actions). The kata that Oyata included in his system of instruction included those (popular) kata that he believed provided the most common of those uses. Once the principle of that use was understood, he saw no reason that it be (further) repeated. Oyata did develop separate exercises (that could easily be considered to be “kata” in their own right), but those were developed for his student's (further) understanding for the expanded use/application of those motions.
Having “knowledge of/for” a large number of techniques (for responding to a number of specific situations) is all well and fine, but it will not make you a “well-rounded” practitioner. The well-rounded practitioner can/will be able to respond to any aggressive action attempted against them. That ability is achieved by the student understanding the application of the defensive principles that are utilized in their practiced actions.(regardless of the “system” that they are practicing). By understanding those principles, one is able to make any motion/action be/become used as a defensive action or application.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
The Oyata Te Defensive system, is intended to train students in effective manners of defending themselves when they become involved in an (unarmed) confrontation. It is taught with a "defensive" aspect ("non-aggressive"). Various applications are instructed to be utilized in/for authoritative situations as well (I.E. Law Enforcement/Security applications).
There exists a fairly common belief, that the practice of a "defensive" art does not include (or even instruct student's in) applications that are intended to cause/create injury. There is no implication being made that a "defensive" art is not capable of causing/creating injury upon an aggressor, only that it is not the intended goal with its use. The priority of a defensive methodology is to protect the user ("first, and foremost"). There are situations where that objective can only be achieved by inflicting sufficient damage/injury (upon an aggressor) that the aggressor is unable to continue their assault. The argument that a defender should (always) be able to "immobilize" (or even restrain) an aggressor (rather than cause/create injury upon them), is an unrealistic expectation. Even when an aggressor can (successfully) be restrained, the situational circumstances may not allow for that to be a valid expectation to utilize in every situation).
The purpose of a defensive methodology is to is to instruct the students of that methodology to protect the student from receiving physical injury if/when they find themselves attacked and/or physically threatened. Although that may require the student to inflict physical (limb) impacts upon that aggressor, the training focus is mainly upon learning to apply manipulations upon an aggressor.
The student of Oyata Te is initially shown to be observant of their surroundings. “Avoidance” is the most practical method of “Self-Defense” and requires the least amount of training or skill to accomplish. The most commonly encountered “aggressor”, is someone who is known to the victim. The majority of physical altercations begin with some level/degree of verbal interaction (whether "hostile" or not), and has escalated into a physical exchange. These can (often) be avoided by not using any "challenging" or "derogatory" language or phrasing during that (verbal) exchange. If the exchange should become physical, the student's first priority, is to avoid becoming injured. Next, they need to neutralize the aggressor's ability to continue their assault. New students are inclined to focus on the second of these defensive aspects. If the first is not achieved, the second is moot.
Providing an effective method of defense should be done by combining one's initial (defensive) actions with those that achieve the second (simultaneously).
The student begins their study by learning the “Natural” movements (ability's and inability's) of their own body. The student's knowledge/awareness of those abilities and limitations allow them to more effectively utilize those motions when applying various instructed applications.
The initially shown motions are (obviously) defensive. Those motions (when they are correctly utilized) are used as transitions to the application of technique responses intended to end a confrontation. The situation will commonly dictate what that will consist of. Because any application has the potential of being miss-applied, and/or being ineffective, the student should be familiar with (multiple) variations of/for those applications. There is no "one-technique" that will work (effectively) in every situation.
The (latest) "popular" trend (in the martial arts community), is the "single-motion" defense. These are commonly "attached" to some alphabetical acronym that makes them easier to remember. I can agree with the concept, but not with what is being shown for the application of those methodologies. These motions are taught as being a "basic" response for any/every type or manner of (attempted) assault. Every one of them (that I've observed), lead into a "grappling" situation. As long as the student is physically strong (enough), the student will (commonly) be able to maintain a superior advantage. If the student is smaller (than the aggressor), they are automatically at a disadvantage. Oyata's methodology avoids the (creation of a) situation that would allow these factors be (or become) a determining factor to the instructed applications.
Once the natural ability's (and inability's, if not limitations) are understood (by the student), they can begin to implement the necessary adjustments to the instructed motions (to maintain their effectiveness in use). A student's initial training is (often) in regards to dispelling (numerous) false/inaccurate assumptions about “natural” and/or commonly used (if not taught) motions. The easiest way (IMO) to discern whether a motion has been taught inaccurately, is if/when that motion has been (purely) instructed in regards to the individual limb's potential. The inclusion of the (remainder of) user's body is treated as being supplemental to the applied motion/action. This is regularly displayed when students perform "regimented" practice (with student's lined-up in formation) to review the instructed motions. This is commonly being done with the students arranged in “Horse” stances (for their arm motion review), and “Back” or “Forward” stances for the leg techniques. This will (subliminally) train the student to assume those positions prior to the techniques use (in a defensive use/situation).
This type/manner of practice is done (primarily) for the instructor's benefit. It achieves little to nothing for the student's abilities (in regards to the individual motion). It is mainly done, because that's how the instructor (originally) learned it (and they haven't considered the probable consequences that result from practice done in that manner). Justification is attempted through "commonality" of use (with no concern in regards to the detrimental results from having done so). Within the practice of Oyata Te, we have attempted to avoid these detrimental training practices. We are continually modifying our own training methods to reflect that objective.
The (next) most “popular” type of practice that we don't include, is that of "sparring" (as it is popularly practiced). Our (equivalent) is closer to that of "3-4 step" (defensive) practice (though could easily be considered "freestyle"). This is done with both student's beginning in "natural" stances, and following the "begin" command, the (pre-designated) aggressor, begins their assault. This practice can include the use of protective gear (or not). The match is commonly ended when one participant is immobilized and/or submits. There are no "points" in these matches, they are intended to be for the student's experience with the use of the instructed motions and applications.
This manner of practice is considered (in general) to represent when the student has failed to perform the instructed applications correctly. If/when those applications were done correctly, the (“fight”) situation would not be as likely to occur.
Student's are shown the (basic) use of the “Tuite” applications early on in their training (often from their first class). As the student's abilities with those motions progress, the situations that they will become applicable within are increased as well (during the student's training) including when those motions can be initiated by the student. Many of the basic techniques are commonly bring dismissed as impractical or too rare (in their occurrence) for the student to concern themselves with their (varied) use. The use of "slow speed" practice (to represent a confrontation) can demonstrate the value/applicability of those techniques when being properly applied.
Tuite is an integral piece of the Oyata Te system (having an equal importance as the instructed stances, strikes and application's provide). Those systems that provide (their own) versions of it, (often) treat it as a separate study. Within the Oyata Te system, It is trained for and is utilized in conjunction with the use/application of the more commonly recognized defensive motions (used during a defensive confrontation).
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
This system of instruction in Oyata's defensive methods and methodology evolved from 30+ years of the founder's experience from Oyata's (direct) instruction. The Oyata Te system employs the (direct) instructions and guidance that was received from Taika Seiyu Oyata during his final years of instruction. Many of the founding members trained (directly) with Oyata himself (on a weekly basis) during those years, and were completely familiar with Oyata's desires for his methodology's advancement. Although his (public) organization "survived" his passing, that organization has chosen to pursue a different direction for that membership's instruction. Although we recognized their reasons for doing so, we did not agree with those choices and have chosen to pursue the instruction of our students to be done in the manner that we received it (from Oyata himself). For that reason, the founding member's organized the Oyata Te system.
We pursue the "ideal" of sharing Oyata's methodology with interested systems/instructors, and attend numerous gatherings/seminars that allow us to do so. We have no (or at least limited) desire to increase our system's membership level. The majority of the instruction that we provide is (often) for the improvement of "any" system/methodology's technique application (as it was provided to us by Oyata).
Oyata provided varying levels of instruction (in his methodology) over the years that he lived within the United States. What was taught prior to his immigration (here) was different than what was taught after that arrival. That instruction continued to be improved (by him) until his passing in 2012. His final years of instruction focused upon principles and details of/for instructing his methodology. That instruction included (numerous) changes/additions (if not corrections) to kata and weapon's use/application.
Oyata was never a “fan” of the “belt-ranking” system (commonly employed by the various martial art systems). He would often express regret for his employment of it, and felt that it (too often) inflated the egos of some individual's who had been promoted (with it). Within “our” school/system “Oyata Te”, and within our system of instruction, we have restricted (if not eliminated) the "Dan" ranking system. Once our students achieve a Yudansha (Black Belt) ranking, there is no further/higher “ranking” available. All Yudansha are treated as equals. Those who have/provide particular (if not specific) instruction (in various subjects) are recognized, and are (individually) approached for instruction in those subjects.
Our student's main focus is upon “open-hand” (defensive) training. That instruction commonly entails a longer training period that is more commonly recognized/experienced (within this "industry"). The average amount of a student's training (within our school), prior to testing for Yudansha is 4-6 years. We additionally don't “charge” for mudansha (“kyu” rank) gradings. This should be understood to be the result of the fact that we are not attempting to “make a living”(nor are we obligated to “pay bill's”) from the instruction of our classes. That “obligation” (obviously) will vary between instructors of this system. Unlike many of those instructor's, we reserve the right to dismiss a student/attendee for any (justified) reason, and/or reject a student's application to study with us (These would be rare occurrences but it should be understood regardless). We have limitations on how many student's that we will accept (within our weekly classes) but with the varied "work" schedules of our present students, overcrowding is rarely a problem.
The seminars that we attend/instruct at, are (most commonly) used to illustrate individual aspects of Oyata's methodology (whether those are shown in regards to "Tuite", "weapon's" or defensive applications). Attendees should never assume that they are (then) “training” in the Oyata Te system. They are only receiving exposure to that system.
Only those person's who train in and/or have received a Yudansha ranking (within the “Oyata Te” system) are authorized to award or present ranking within that system (and is done so within the parameters of our system's mandates).
For those that (continually) have asked, neither Oyata nor ourselves have ever Endorsed or accepted/condoned any amount of "TCM" instruction/practices to be a part of the instruction that we provide. We are fully aware that numerous persons that attend our seminars participate in "that" practice but has no relevance to what (or how) our instruction of Oyata's methodology is provided.
We consider the pursuit of that subject to be “on par” with Flat-Earther beliefs. Student's are free to believe/study anything that their interests leads them to, but those beliefs are not recognized by the Oyata Te System/ instructors.
That being stated, we regularly explore (recognized) medical research that aids in our instruction of the Oyata Te methodology. Our students are exposed to the study of (general) Anatomy and body/limb motion (Kinesiology). This was the only "extra" (type of) study that Oyata endorsed. It could be (easily) argued that Oyata included (a limited amount of) behavioral tendency's, and to an equally limited extent it is (being limited to a person's naturally performed actions and reactions).
Oyata's methodology focused on the efficient performance of the instructed actions. Those actions are intended to provide specific reactions (by the aggressor) with their implementation. Though not (individually) being complicated, they required a greater amount of practice to perform them (effectively). Each of our students receives individual instruction (as each student will have particular differences/limitations and/or abilities). This accounts for the "limitations" that we impose on our (own) class sizes. This commonly results in (that student's training) requiring a larger (I.E. longer) than is commonly recognized amount of time spent with their training.
The video examples that we have provided (elsewhere) in regards to the Oyata Te methodology have been provided for those practitioner's who possess some level of experience (in the illustrated subject). Those examples only illustrate limited examples of those subjects (being addressed within those videos).
Becoming an instructor/member of the Oyata Te system requires an instructor to (personally) participate in those classes that provide that ability. Though being a "common" practice, the Oyata Te system does not automatically bestow (any) “rank” upon a new member/practitioners (regardless of any previously earned ranking). We consider the provided instruction to be individual (if not specific) from other commonly taught defensive systems. Although (possibly) appearing to be “elitist”, we are only choosing to endorse a specific method of defensive instruction/practice to/for our own students (within our instruction of this methodology). Our acceptance of (member) instructor's to endorse any "additional" instruction/practices (within their own classes) can or may be accepted, but are not (necessarily) recognized (by any other members within our organization).
Friday, June 29, 2018
Of the numerous "saying's" that we utilize in our instruction of Oyata Te, one of the more commonly heard ones, is Face Your Threat. Though being a seemingly obvious statement, it is also a commonly misapplied strategy.
As with the majority of the instructed motions, whether a “strike”, a “Parry” or the application of a Tuite technique, the student should align their (entire) body to be utilized with the technique being attempted (that of their own body, not with the opponent's). What is more commonly seen, is that the student will (often) choose to align their body with the opponent's “center-line” (meaning their chest, or face), and not upon the (actual) threat being applied by the opponent (commonly their striking limb).
If/When making this attempt, one will observe the student's arm's motioning outside of their effective range for technique use/application. Will (can?) that motion still achieve an effective defensive action? Yes, but it will require a greater commitment and greater physical effort on the part of the student (in addition to requiring higher levels of arm motion/speed and strength to achieve their intended purpose). Doing so will also create a greater “recovery” time (for the striking arm's use in any required additional applications).
By (simply) rotating their body to “face” the actual “threat” (the opponent's striking limb), the student is more (easily, and effectively) able to utilize their arm's in achieving the purpose of the defensive motions being utilized. Though being a (seemingly) slight variance, this minor rotation (of the student's body) changes the range (and the effectiveness) of the student's limb motion (being used in their defensive application).
In addition to this use in responsive (defensive) actions, the same principle is used with the application of those techniques being utilized by the student (upon the opponent/Uke). When applying a manipulation technique upon the arm/wrist (of an opponent), the student will (or should) “face” the opponent's opposite arm/side (I.E. when applying a technique upon the subject's “right-arm”, the Tori should “face” (their body) towards the Uke's “left-side”, which is the actual “threat” at that time, during the technique's application). Student's will (often) attempt to align (their entire body) towards the “center-line” of the Uke. Doing so will require that the student expend greater/higher levels of force (muscle) to achieve the desired reaction (by the Uke). If/when dealing with a larger/stronger opponent, this makes the application of the technique more difficult to achieve the desired results (if any).
The use of this meme, is (often) the student's introduction to an example for, Force Efficiency. This principle is present in every (physical) motion taught and utilized in the Oyata Te system. It is present in every stance, every strike and every application taught. When a student is having difficulty with a technique, their “first” concern should be with their use/application of Force Efficiency.
When shown a defensive action, the student initially faces the impending threat, having responded to it, their attention is diverted to the next (imminent) "threat" (commonly from the Uke's opposite side). To accomplish this may require the student to realign (and/or "Rotate") their body in order to effectively do so. If/when the student attempts to (only) "twist" (their upper-body) to respond to the next/additional "threat", they will be slower and demonstrably "weaker" (with that attempt).
This can be (obviously) demonstrated by having student's attempt to “punch” (a bag or hand target) on one side of their body, with the opposite side's arm (without rotating their hip's/body or shoulder's). Even when allowed to rotate their shoulders (alone), there will only be a (minorly) appreciable increase of (delivered) “Power/Momentum” if/when the hips are included with that rotation. That level of (delivered) momentum, can be further increased, with the inclusion of the knee's/feet being rotated towards the location of the desired impact. This demonstrates another example for the principle of Ka han shin, Ja han shin (“Upper controls Lower, Lower controls Upper”).
Oyata showed/taught us that one's (arm) “techniques” should be applied (upon an opponent) within (what we refer to as being) the “zone/area of application”. This is (roughly) the area within the user's (own) shoulder width (horizontally), and between the (user's) “cheek” level and the “hip's” (vertically). Any (arm) application that is attempted “outside” of this area, requires the student to realign their body (to make the desired motion/application occur within that area).
Force Efficiency encompasses numerous factors, but the main concern/relevancy is in regards to the application of the user's (Tori's) motion (of their limb's and torso during the application of a technique).
The Awareness (and use) of this understanding can be used to recognize the strengths/weaknesses of an opponent/aggressor as well.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
I have engaged in numerous discussions (more accurately "debates") concerning the use of strikes, delivered upon the arms of an aggressor. The “argument”(?) against their use, is commonly accompanied by the person's claim that they have received (numerous) strikes (being made upon their arm's), and have suffered no “ill effects” (that would prevent their continued use of them during a confrontation).
To myself, this claim is equivalent to those who state that they have never been “taken to the ground” (during a confrontation), so working on “ground tactics” is a waste of time. I could (easily) make the argument that those individuals have never had "effective" arm strikes utilized upon them, but it is more productive to define the expectation's for those types of strikes (than to argue one's presumed vulnerability to them).
The majority of utilized strikes (intentionally delivered to/upon the arm's of an opponent) are a rare occurrence. This is (commonly) seen regardless of the "style" being taught. Student's are often more concerned with striking the "face/body" of their opponent. This is seen whether the strike is delivered by an aggressor, or by the defender (during a confrontation). Achieving an effective delivery of these types of strikes requires a greater degree of accuracy with their delivery and the student's understanding of how those strikes should be implemented.
If/when a “defender” chooses to not “close” with their aggressor (for whatever reason), that aggressor will (commonly) attempt to strike the defender by using their arm's. Those person's with “longer” arm's will often focus upon the use of their own arm's as well (to implement their attempted strikes).
If one's arms are shorter (than their opponent's), the “best/easiest” remaining option, is to focus their own strikes being made upon the arms of that opponent. “Random” placement of those strikes will rarely achieve any productive results. When those strikes are (accurately) placed upon those locations that are vulnerable (to being struck), the opponent's use of that arm will diminish (if not cease). Although an immediate cessation of (that arm's) use is not always achieved, the delivery of a single (if not continuous) accurate placement of those strikes will diminish the aggressor's continued use of (or effectiveness with) that arm. It will (often) cause that aggressor to (either) change tactics (ceasing to “strike”), or modify their method of attack. This will (often) equate to then “grabbing” the Tori/student. This can often negate the aggressor's (presumed) superiority (if not their greatest threat) in the confrontation. With the application of the defender's strikes (having been made upon the aggressor's arm's), despite the aggressor's belief's, those “arm-strikes” have diminished the aggressor's use of them (their arm's), and have reduced their abilities with any continued use of them.
For myself, I utilize few (if any) strikes that are placed upon the “body” (of an aggressor). The majority of the strikes that “I” utilize, are made upon the arm's, legs and (occasionally) the neck. I have (almost) never been involved in an altercation with someone who was smaller than myself. Though being (comparatively) "tall", I am not (physically) large, (nor “strong”). This has equated to my confrontations being with individual's who were (both) larger and stronger than myself. The ability to use superior size and strength has not been an option. As a result, I have focused on the use of the applications (taught to me by Oyata) being made upon the weaknesses (or vulnerable locations) of my opponent's. When I state that strikes delivered upon the “arm's” (of an aggressor), will affect their use of/for them, I can do so with the experience that I have had with my own use of them.
When people have asked (within our classes, whether by regular student's or by attending guests) the (often easily accomplished) use of these types of (arm) strikes can be easily demonstrated. No, they are not (or at least are rarely) "fight ending" applications. But they can definitely create significant (detrimental) effects upon an aggressor's abilities.
Monday, June 18, 2018
Oyata's methodology (regardless of the time-period for that instruction) has always emphasized (entire) "body" motion/use during the application of the instructed motions. That instruction varied/changed over the course of his (years of) instruction.
Force Efficiency is the term that we use in our instruction of the (physical) application of the instructed motions utilized within the Oyata Te system. Oyata did not utilize this term, it is the phrase that we coined to define the manner that he (Oyata) utilized those motions. The term is used to define the efficient use of the physical actions that are taught to our students. Our use of the word “Force” should not be confused with Forceful or to imply “strength” (within the use of those applications).
The average student is initially inclined to believe that having a greater amount of (physical) “strength” will assure that students use of the instructed motions. Of the (multiple) factors that determine the effectiveness of an application's use, the amount of applied “power/force” is considered to be the least important (the correct “placement” of that application being significantly more important).
When one is determining what factors are the most readily (if not universally) available, physical strength is one of, if not the lowest/least important on that list. If/when a technique is dependent upon that “one” factor (I.E. “power”), it is (then) only applicable by a limited number of individual's (male or female). That use is additionally dependent upon it being greater than the opponent's ability to resist/absorb that application.
The student's knowledge of an opponent's natural "weak spots" (not necessarily "Pressure Points") is necessary for the use of those applications. That awareness/knowledge is taught through the instruction of the student's use of their own body (within the instructed motions).
Force Efficiency is the initially instructed "awareness" of those strengths (and vulnerability's). Though (initially) taught as an efficient means of technique delivery/use (by the student), it additionally exemplify's an opponent's vulnerabilities. If/when involved in a physical conflict with an opponent who is larger/stronger, the student must have the ability/knowledge that allows them to circumvent those advantages. This awareness is exemplified in every aspect of the instructed positions/motions.
When people (generally) speak of Oyata's technique application, they (commonly) will refer (if not “obsess”) to his use of a “neck-strike/knockout”. This technique (though being very impressive) was often difficult (if not impractical) to utilize in a (more "common") altercation. If that technique were as "effective/practical" (as people generally imply) why didn't Oyata spend more (if not the majority) of his classes devoted to his student's perfecting it? (obviously) Because it wasn't (either “easy” nor practical). Depending on the circumstances, it more often resulted in a “stun” (or temporary imbalance) of an opponent (thus becoming a glorified “atemi” strike, which was what Oyata considered it to be).
Our use of the term "Force Efficiency" is used to exemplify the student's most efficient use of their body and appendage motion in the application/use of the instructed positions, motions and techniques (whether defensively or offensively). That instruction begins with the student learning/understanding what motions are natural and what motions are not. That includes the subliminal motions that occur in response to expected and/or unexpected actions (performed by the student or Uke during an altercation). The student's awareness of those responses allows them (those responses) to be utilized within the student's application of (the instructed) technique.
When one examines what constitutes “natural” motion, it commonly consists of forward motion (by the bodies limbs). Those motions that are “circular” (or rearward) are not considered to be as “threatening” (as those that are delivered directly forward). (in general) circular motions require “room” to develop momentum. It is also difficult to (efficiently) include the user's body-weight with those types of strikes.
Oyata Te demonstrated the positioning of the student's hip's and shoulders during those application movements. In general, the hip's and the shoulder's remain (consistently) "square" (to one another) during any motion/movement. When that alignment is altered, the student will be (and "feel") off-balance. I have recently seen (several) “examples” of individual's performing (their own) versions of Oyata's method for performing the Kata (the versions that he taught). What's commonly exampled, is a quickly performed example, that includes (numerous) incorrectly “added” motions (as well as motions that were removed by him, I.E. Oyata, as well). Oyata did include additional motions, but they were intended to be (very) subtle (and barely recognized/noticed).
One of the most obvious (of Oyata's changes), was the elimination of (any) "shoulder-wag" (during the performance of the kata). The reasons for doing so are multiple, but its inclusion is an obvious indication of not having been part of his later (I.E. the last 10-15 years of his life's) instruction. The examples I've seen may have been (at one time) "valid", but they should be (more accurately) considered as being "basic" (and certainly not "advanced", as those posters have claimed).
Oyata's later years of instruction focused on the student's use/positioning of their body (whether during technique or kata) motion. He felt that this was of higher/greater importance than (individual) “technique” use or variance. Those motions held greater importance than the learning of different or additional technique motions. Once those motions were understood by the student, techniques would become more obvious (via the kata motion) to the student.
I've received numerous inquiries as to why I don't post "video's" of new/different technique applications. If my readers refer to our Oyata Te (member's) page, my associate has included (numerous) videos that example (much) of what I have addressed here (technique motion/application, etc.). Frankly, "feeding" the internet's need for video examples is not my goal (here).
Those that (actually) are interested in what/how we teach Oyata's methodology should attend our classes to get a more descriptive (and physical) “exampling” for what/how we teach his methodology. Our Classes are (very) relaxed and we are very open to explaining the “how” and “why” of Taika's teachings (as well as those teachings that he didn't agree with).
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Numerous individuals inflate their association with recognized experts, regardless of the field being addressed. This happens with diplomats/world leaders, musicians, political figures and other popular individuals. It's done as a way to legitimize whatever the individual is promoting. Whether this equates to promoting a business, a product or just as an attempt at legitimizing whatever the individual is attempting to sell/promote. The falsehood of that promotion is (generally) known to those individual's who actually have experience and associations with the stated individual's and/or material.
Although this “problem” occurs in numerous fields of study, it is particularly problematic within the various martial arts. Throughout the years, it has been accepted (whether rightly or not) that particular aspects of a defensive methodology should be kept “secret” (from the general public). There is a general belief that just having “knowledge of” (something, I.E. that “secret” knowledge/ability), equates to having the ability to utilize that knowledge. This is commonly recognized as riding the coat tails of the acknowledged expert (who has proven themselves to possess that knowledge).
Whether done for monetary gain or only to inflate the ego of the perpetrator, it is (at best) an exaggeration of those abilities and/or knowledge, or it is an outright lie. More often (than not), the claimed/stated knowledge and/or abilities are more limited than the individual would care to admit to (or even realizes). There are individual's who (actually) believe that they do possess the claimed knowledge. If/when they “go public” with what they know (or think they do), They are commonly proven to be incorrect.
For the most part, persons of this ilk are ignored by the individual's who do have knowledge of the stated/claimed knowledge. Those individual's making the (commonly incorrect) claim, will rarely present themselves (or whatever they're promoting) for public review/critique (if not simple “questions”) in regards to the stated claim(s).
Individual's of this type (who make numerous claims) rarely (if ever) will meet with individual's who are (publicly) recognized as having experience/knowledge with the claimed knowledge/persons who the individual is claiming their (own) association. If that association is confirmed, what difference would it make? It would only increase that individual's legitimacy. If that association was more limited (than claimed), it would (obviously) cast doubt upon the subject's claims.
There have been numerous individual's who previously studied Oyata's methodology (at varying times over the past 40 years) that have attended our classes. Those individuals possessed varying degrees of knowledge (in regards to what was instructed during the period of their claimed attendance). The knowledge that they had was (generally) "correct", for the time period that they studied with him. The amount of that knowledge was commonly limited to the amount of time that they (actually) studied with him (the attendance of a “seminar” was not considered actual “study/instruction”). Many had knowledge in regards to individual aspects (such as what was commonly shown/demonstrated at a seminar), but few had (any) amount of comprehensive (much less complete) knowledge in regards to his later/final teachings.
“Open” Seminars were not considered “training” (by Oyata). Their purpose was to recruit student's (and demonstrate/expose attendee's to his methodology). Many of those attendee's only sought to learn motions/techniques to add/include with their (already) studied/taught curriculum's. To a limited extent, this could be achieved, but the system that Oyata taught was intended to include (all of) the numerous additional aspects of his teachings (which were never completely included within the provided seminars).
Many of Oyata's teachings were in direct contradiction to commonly adhered to practices. The use of the makiwara, sparring, stances, weapons, the list of those differences is extensive, yet individual's claim to have (full) “knowledge” of/in regards to his system (after having only attended a few of his early seminars?). During the final 10 +/- years (of his life) Oyata only provided (training) seminars to his association's membership. Though being restricted to the present (at the time) "membership", those seminars were intended to emphasize individual aspects of his teachings. What was shown was intended to be incorporated into (the attending student's) general instruction. Oyata had ceased any increase of his personal students. What was shown in those (his own) classes was (intended) to be passed on (by those Yudansha) to the general student membership. A number of those Yudansha choose not to (readily) share that instruction (one can formulate their own reasons why that was the case, IDK).
If/when someone (actually) studied with Oyata (personally) for 5 (or more) years, then they acquired a decent/respectable amount of instruction. Depending on the time/period of that study, dictated what was shown/learned.
As stated within his own writings (and repeated within the writings of others, including myself), Oyata was modifying/improving his defensive system continually throughout his life. He believed (as do/did many of the prior “masters”) that “Te” was a continually evolving and improving art. If/when it became "stagnant", it would be surpassed by those systems that continued in that improvement. This was why Oyata never ceased to improve his methodology, Oyata would (readily) admit that "he" didn't have all of the answers/knowledge (for any/every question regarding the practice of this art form). He expected his students to continue with the advancement of that instruction. Oyata was not afraid to "cease" those practices that were not (or proved to be less than) "productive", as well as those that were "counter-productive". If/when he discovered/developed what he believed to be an improved method, and following extensive experimentation/research (often using his Yudansha students as “Guinea Pig's”), he incorporated it into his instructional methodology.
Oyata stated that there was only “1” Te, it was only being taught in varying ways.