Thursday, March 15, 2018
The application of the instructed techniques are commonly utilized upon (various) anatomical locations that will provide the desired responses. Those locations are commonly recognized as being "atemi" (or even kyusho) point's/locations. These locations (commonly) amount to being (vulnerable) physical locations that are readily accessible for being struck and/or manipulated. These locations can be tendons,muscles or (vulnerable) nerves.The use of these locations requires the understanding of "what" qualifies that location as being vulnerable (for use in a defensive situation).
This can (often) only amount to being "available" (for that use). This requires that the student understand where, when, how those locations are (both) located and vunerable to/for (defensive) use.
These locations are identified (to our students) during their general instruction of the shown motions and applications. The student must (obviously) be aware of the presense and location of those nerves and the location of the relevent muscles and tendons. We (initially) address the "major/main" muscles and nerves of the area(s) of technique application/use.
These begin with the student's knowledge of:
Major Arm muscles:
Of the Upper-Arm:
Of the Forearm:
Arm Nerves: Ulnar Nerve
All of the nerves within the arm emanate from the brachial plexus (located in the upper lateral area of the neck/chest area for the relevant arm). Where those nerves enter the arm (within the “arm pit”) they continue down the arm into the Elbow then will separate and continue into the hand. The Radial nerve “circles” the upper-arm and travels down to the Elbow, then follows the "thumb" side of the arm. The Ulnar and Medial nerve remain in the medial side of the upper-arm until they reach the elbow. The Medial and Ulnar nerve inter the Elbow-joint (deep) and exit the elbow (entering the forearm) into the anterior side of the forearm. These nerves (loosely) follow the Ulnar bone to the wrist. These nerves are superficially located at the wrist (prior to entering the hand) along the anterior side.
The Upper Leg Muscles:
Frontal: Quadracept Muscles
Posterior: Hamstring Muscles
The (Upper) Leg Nerves:
Medial: Femoral Triangle (cluster of nerves within the medial thigh region)
Radial: Psciatic nerve: Follows the side of the leg medially (Branches and becomes the common Paroneal, goes above and around the knee,
The Lower Leg Muscles: Mainly consist of the posterior calf muscles
The Lower Leg Nerves:The Tibial nerve continues towards the foot, under the calf muscles.
Strikes to the legs (generally) produce one (or more) “general” responses, the “collaps” of the knee or the rotation of that leg (and therefor the “Hip's/Torso). Either of these actions can be augmented with the “follow-through” of the actions. The lateral rotation of the knee can additionally cause excessive (if not damaging) pressure upon the ankle of the effected leg.
One should note, that the commonly struck areas of the “diametrically” located arm, has similarly located “points/locations”, as are present upon the respective leg (the left leg, in relation to the Right arm etc.).
The greatest misconception of striking a muscle, is that it has be either “flexed” (or "relaxed") when struck. The Tori will only have limited amount of control in that ability (regarding the state of that muscle), so it becomes important to understand how the muscle/tendon should be struck in either of those situations. When it is relaxed (comparitively) it will produce a greater reaction when the strike is made upon the muscle body. When the muscle is flexed, it is easier to achieve a reaction by striking the tendon's (of that muscle). (Most of the misconceptions in this regard, are based on not understanding the actions of the muscles/tendons when the limb's are beihg utilized).
When the muscle is relaxed, it is more productive to strike the muscle body. When the muscle is being utilized, the muscles tendon's are easier to achieve a desirable reaction (and vice-versa).
The area directly surrounding a “joint”, contains mainly tendon's. The muscle “bodies” are mainly located upon the locallized limb (mid-way) between those joints. Whether a muscle is flexed or relaxed is dependent upon the action being performed with the relevant limb.
The leg's muscles, are always being utilized (when the subject is standing), so one's choice of targeting is dependent upon upon the subjects positioning and/or action (at the time of an impact). Direct Strikes made upon a muscle “body”, need to be done with a higher level of (penetration) "power" to achieve an effective result (as the muscle will commonly be flexed). A strike to the tendons (of that same struck muscle) need to be done across/perpenticular to those tendons.
The majority of the instructed strikes, attempt to take advantage of the “2 car” principle (with an attempted strike). This either includes the opponent's motion, or the addition of the Tori's second hand. This is also refferred to as being the “cutting board” principle (of application).
The degree of response/reaction (by the Uke) is gauged by the degree of movement allowed (or reduced) by the Tori during the techniques application. Strikes are applied with either direct or perpendicular motion upon the struck tendons/muscles (depending on which is being struck).
The correct inclusion of one's body weight, is effected by one's use/motion of their entire body, This is accomplished via the Tori's (body) rotation and raising/lowering of their body (during the performed motion). This rotation is commonly achieved through one's motioning of the knee's, hip's and shoulder's during those actions. Stances are often (mistakenly) considered to be secondary to an attempted action. Stances are another piece of the primary application. The positioning achieved by the lower body determines what can (effectively) be achieved with the upper body/arm's.
Forward and Rearward (body) motion will additionally effect the subject's (probable) limb positioning. Using the "Walking" example/model, limb position/use (as well as vunerabilitys) can be established prior to the subjects use of those limbs (regardless of whether the subject is moving or stationary when the motion is being performed).
Those individual's who (attempt to) use the "TCM" theory's, use that information to convey a similar understanding of these principles (of motion). We feel that study is unneccessarily confusing (if not missleading) and includes unproven (if not incorrect) concepts and ideas that only confuse the student.
Oyata spurned those ideas and would become (very) hostile if they were brought up. He wanted nothing to do with (any) individual's that promoted that study. He believed it to be a distracting waste of time.
When limb motion was described, it was related in an obvious (if not simplistic) and relatable manner. Oyata may have not known the ("name" of the exact) muscle being struck (or utilized), but he could describe all of the possible actions of that muscle (and how it did/didn't work). That knowledge didn't come from a book (nor from "scholarly" study), his knowledge was gained through his (direct) research of technique use and the reactions from that use.
What we've found (through the instruction of our student's) is that the greater the student's understanding of basic "body-motion", the more easily they will be able to apply the instructed applications. The more obvious (if not simplistic) that understanding is, the more applicable it becomes for the student. For those student's that wish to explore that understanding to a higher degree, the material is readily available through the vast amount of medical texts available in any public library (everywhere). Each of the previously described actions can be described (with greater detail) within those texts (often providing the research parameters that established those conclusions).
The most important factor (for the student to understand), is that an individual muscle, tendon or nerve will not (if ever) only cause/create reactions that are located at the affected location (Ka Han Shin-Ja Han Shin).
The Use of these locations (for defensive applications) will be directly proportional to the student's understanding of the location (and general use) of the commonly used muscles in conjunction with the limb's R.O.M. (during that limb's use).
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
The study of a (truly) "defensive" system is comparatively only being practiced by a small number of people. The greater percentage of what is being taught is some manner of "fighting" (the willing participation in a physical altercation between two individual's). Though a large amount of what is being practiced makes the "claim" that it is being taught/learned in a defensive context, when examined it becomes apparent that it is being shown in order to allow the individual to participate in (rather than end) that altercation.
This is often the result of how those methods are being taught. Rather than seeking to learn how to end a confrontation, the more commonly taught (and practiced) applications are shown, taught and practiced in regards to how to (mainly) inflict some manner/level of injury to an opponent (Thus becoming an act of aggression itself).
The practice of "sparring" reinforces this ("fighting") premise. Though commonly presented as a tool for learning how an aggressor will "attack" the student, it does nothing of the sort. NO aggressive confrontation begins with both individual's squaring off and (then) beginning that confrontation. That situation is one of a mutually agreed upon desire to participate in that action.
An actual "defensive" situation, is one where the defender is "attacked" for no (obvious or justifiable) reason. More often than not, there is no interaction between the two individual's. This is commonly recognized as being a Predator situation, where the attacker seeks to inflict injury upon the defender for some (commonly illegal) "purpose". A Predator attacks for a specific purpose. Whether that "purpose" is robbery or even revenge, there is often little to no pre-engagement interaction.
The more commonly encountered confrontation is described as being an Alpha confrontation (whether the aggressive person is male or female). When there is any level of (verbal) interaction, there exists the possibility to end or at least prevent a potential (physical) confrontation. The fact that the verbal portion of that confrontation can become heated and/or derogatory (in content) should not imply that it has to become physical. Lot's of people do it every day (and they often possess no combative physical ability's at all). These situations are the more prevalent occurrence. The majority of individual's who are not skilled in a (hostile) verbal interaction, are inclined to resort to becoming physical (in their response). The greater reason for this (by males) is often the result of social conditioning. Physical "strength" is recognized to be a socially superior positioning. It has no validity in a civilized society (or reality) but it exists none the less. It only bears relevance in a physically confrontational situation. If it is the only "argument" for the justification of a viewpoint, that argument is usually invalid.
Although an individual may be skilled in providing a verbal exchange (which should not be limited to the ability to present their own insults), that ability should be used to nullify any escalation of the situation,. It should additionally be noted that the most opportune time to launch an "attack", is while the individual is talking. This fact is readily recognized by experienced aggressor's (I.E. while your presenting your witty come-back, the aggressor is launching their opening strike).
One's Defensive practice should account for this likelihood. The ability to perform a (any) physical action is more difficult when one is engaged with performing a verbal statement (talking). When one is engaged in performing any physical motion, that individual is less likely to (both) breathe, and/or speak. Try reciting some (any) well known paragraph while performing a (well practiced) technique/application in addition to performing a defensive motion, while your Uke performs a head-strike. It is awkward and difficult to perform it (correctly). If/when your argument for "practice" is to make those motions instinctual, this should validate (or invalidate) your argument for doing so.
An "instinctual" motion will occur regardless of the mental level of your engagement. The training that Oyata presented to us (and had us engage in) was intended to expand our awareness of these situations. He didn't have us practice the (numerous) different ways of performing kata just to mess with our heads (though it would have been funny if he had). The idea was to get us to perform those motions regardless of the circumstances (as well as make us realize that the Kata motions are only to remind us of the individual applications of the movements). The same is true/applicable when performing the instructed defensive actions. The purpose of defensive training should reflect actual situations (not contrived and controlled one's).
Numerous instructors/schools make an attempt at having student's do "live" training. This is an attempt to raise the students adrenaline levels and perform the practiced motions. Unfortunately these usually devolve into contests of "strength/power" (with little if any, instructed technique being actually utilized). Depending on what is actually being taught, the practicality of these exercises often only amounts to a more "physical" (if not brutal) form of "sparring" (having all the same limitations of practicality).
Any (if not all) practice entails speed and accuracy. "Strength" is only a variable if one is focused on overcoming that opponent's strength. The techniques shown by Oyata were (never) based upon "Strength". He would regularly demonstrate the fallacy's of that premise. Student's can often confuse the concepts of (physical)"strength" and "power" (effect from technique application). They are 2 concepts that can be similar, but (still) have distinct differences between them. Practice is intended to allow the student to train for the possible variables, and understand how to adapt their instruction to accommodate for them.
Monday, March 12, 2018
The training manner most commonly utilized (by the majority of training methods) is done in a "fixed" pattern of levels. This is commonly defined as "Basic, Intermediate and Advanced". Although this may be more easily accepted by the beginning student, these terms may (actually) hinder the student's progress. By attaching these labels, this manner of instruction is limiting the student's understanding of what is being shown to them.
If/When a motion is shown in one manner, and is then changed (to something more practical) it beg's the question "why was I shown this less practical manner, when the other is so much better?". The most common response is that it provides short-term goals (for the student) while that student improves their ability with that motion.
In our instruction (of the Oyata Te system), we only use these terms in a very general aspect. We don't have (specific) "Basic, Intermediate and Advanced" anything. When we use any of those terms, it commonly means that what's being shown or demonstrated has varying methods of it's performance. It has nothing to do with the student's ability, or the motions use. These terms are (more commonly) used in reference to how many additional motions are being used with it (to perform the desired action/effect). Oyata didn't perform (and we do not teach) "single" action applications. Those motions always include additional motions with the performed action.
The simplist example of this would be in (the instruction and practice of) a "Punch". We have student's participate in "Formation" practice (with everyone in lines, everybody working on the same or similar motions). When we do this, students will begin in a "natural stance". As the motion is called out, the student's rotate their body accordingly (left/right) and will perform the action(s). Each motion will include the use of both hands, and the neccessary footwork motions, and will be done in the manner it is likely to be used (in an actual application of the performed motion). This includes a body shift (movement) and can include any follow-up motion/action.
Singular technique/arm motion (only), can/will create the "habit" of attempting that (singular) manner of application. The excuses used for having students practice these motions from a "horse stance" are both simplistic and detrimental to the student's over all training. More often they only serve the needs of the instructor (providing the ability to individually observe the student's performance of the motion). The motion will not (or shouldn't) be done individually, so how is watching it's individual performance beneficial? (to the student).We're inclined to give our student's greater credit (in regards to their commitment) and we feel that we are providing a more beneficial level of study/practice accordingly.
What is commonly seen (among numerous instructed methods) is what was shown to school children when the art was initially demonstrated and introduced to the Japanese school system. We (at our school) do not teach anyone under 16 years of age, so (for our classes), we require a higher level of study/learning (commitment) from our students. That methodology is not practical for many schools. Our instruction method is designed and intended for students that are willing to commit to that study. In many ways, this can be argued to be slower (for the student to replicate), but by eliminating those "stages" (of performing the actions) the student actually has fewer "steps" (of instruction) to go through (making the instruction faster, if not arguably easier to learn).
We are (constantly) evaluating our instruction (of both what, and how we are providing that material). Because of that, we will (often) update what and how we provide that instruction. This is (almost) "taboo" for many systems. Oyata's manner of instruction was very "drawn out", often taking years to (completely) convey a concept and/or motion. This was done for (numerous) reasons (and could easily be argued as being justified), but we have chosen to (instead) raise the (required) level of a student's performance of the instructed motions as being their objective (for their learning), rather than requiring an abstract "commitment" which often failed for Oyata (and numerous other instructors), as was evidenced by how many people were "kicked-out" of his organization prior to his death.
Oyata did not (directly) "teach" mudansha (kyu-rank) students. He only taught (his own) Yudansha (Black Belt) students. He expected those Yudansha to teach that material (what was being shown to them) to their students. A large number of those instructors only taught limited amounts of that information (until their students gained higher ranking (under those instructors). What was shown to the mudansha was (in our opinion) unnecessarily restricted (until those students achieved a Yudansha grading). Much of that information should have been being refined prior to their reaching a Yudansha grading. That included Kata, technique and application principles.
A number of individual's 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 that 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, experience 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 student's. Oyata additionally included several “exercises” to his curriculum (“Turtle”, “Spiderweb”, etc.). These were (essentially) Lead-in's to Shi Ho Happo (Our 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 prove to be 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 irrelevent to a technique's effectiveness. He regularly demonstrated that a student's physical size/strength were irrelevent 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 (nor provide) “calisthenics's” 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. Every student is (physically) different, and therefor 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 it's occurrence.
There is no “group” testing of our student's (in regards to 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 (as yet) been shown to them.
Instructors and Student's are provided with a “basic” requirement list. We only mandate a limited number of subjects for the student's initial instruction and order. Individual instructors and schools are allowed to include instruction in additional subjects and “styles”. Only the content and order for the instruction of Oyata Te is structured.
The most striking difference with our system is that our Yudansha students are all of equal ranking (I.E. “Yudansha”, or “Black Belt”). We feel that the use of “titles” and higher ranking serves little to no purpose, so we have eliminated that aspect of grading. Our group is kept to a relatively small student/teacher ratio, so we feel no need for further “rank-levels” as they serve no purpose (beyond feeding “ego's”). Our Yudansha are treated as study/research equal's. Members are aware of (and can easily inquire of) who knows what, and whom to approach if/when they wish to learn a particular subject.
The available Yudansha are able to provide instruction in any of the weapon's kata that Oyata provided to us, and the study/practice of additional subjects (beyond that of Life Protection) are also available. The practice of Shodo is encouraged as it incorporates numerous similar aspects to it's practice that are shared with the practice of Oyata Te.
Friday, March 9, 2018
When discussing Techniques, there is a general misunderstanding of what constitutes something as being "Advanced". For most students, this generally is in reference to something that the individual has not learned or mastered (yet). Techniques are often similarly misnamed (in our opinion). Claiming that a "technique" is advanced, is just weird (IMO). I might understand how a particular application of a technique may be considered to require a greater amount of practice (to accomplish), but I don't see how a (or any) technique (itself) could be considered to be "advanced". If the (supposed) "advanced" version is so superior (to the "basic"), then why does the basic continue to be practiced? The only logical reason would be that "basic" would be better defined as being the introductory or instructional version (of whatever is being shown/taught).
Within the instruction of Oyata Te, we attempt to avoid the term "advanced" as much as possible. We began this when referencing the instruction of "Kata". We do not teach a "basic", "intermediate" or "advanced" version of any of the kata that are taught within that system. We only recognize one version of each kata that is included in the curriculum. As our students are learning the various rank requirements, their kata are being continually refined (until they are performing the kata in its final form). Although the individual kata are introduced at varying ranks, a student will begin the practice of additional kata with each kyu rank advancement. Satisfactory performance of an individual kata commonly occurs after several advancements in ranking (prior to the performance of the kata becoming satisfactory). The awarding of a Yudansha ranking, should (in our opinion) represent that you know the kata.
We have done similarly with the practice of individual techniques. We no longer have student's perform (any) "hand/arm" techniques from a "Horse stance" (as is commonly practiced in most systems). Those motions are always performed in conjunction with a "stance" change or motion. This is but one of the ways that we begin having students perform multiple actions simultaneously.
Many of these changes have been made for reasons of practicality for instruction, and to avoid student frustration. It arose from our own (as well as that of students) asking why (?) they have to learn the manner of doing something (kata, tech. stance, etc.) "one-way", only to have to later change it (to be something that is actually used/applicable). If/when we would ask Taika (Oyata) about this, he would say that "he" didn't say it was basic, we did, he was only referencing the motion (and what was being done with it at that time)."Basic" was Western (American) terminology (that we seemed to understand). "Kihon" translates as "Basis" (not "basic"). There is a slight but distinct difference. Taika taught motions and principles, how we choose to practice/perfect them was (individually) up to us. His concern was that we could correctly perform the final version (of the demonstrated motions).
Being that we are not a "store-front" Dojo, we are not obligated to maintain a (or any) level of "income" (beyond a students monthly tuition/dues). We don't charge for individual kyu-rank examinations or have mandated time requirements for a student's study. Many of our students have prior study/experience (in some level of "martial arts" study) and those students are required to learn the manner that we instruct and perform those motions. "New" (inexperienced) students are (actually) easier to teach this system to (as they don't have to re-learn the way that we perform certain actions). This can be an (obviously) difficult thing to do (for many of those "experienced" students). Although many of the motions/principles that are taught in Oyata Te are similar to those taught within other methodology's, there are differences.
The majority of our (new) students will often express frustration at the amount of (menial) things that we emphasize during their instruction. We have speculated that this may be the reason that many instructors teach their syllabus incrementally (I.E. "Basic, Intermediate, Advanced"). Seeing that we (only) train "adults", we feel that they can handle it. If an individual needs a consistent level of external reinforcement (certificates, awards, belt's etc.) they will likely not be content to study within Taika's system.
We've had numerous students (or at least "attendees" of class) who only desired to learn our manner of Tuite application. Those students (obviously) only wished to learn the manner that we utilize "Tuite". The vast majority of those individual's quit after a comparatively short time. Most found the techniques to be very difficult to utilize. This was usually because they were trying to integrate it into what they already did. Tuite was intended (if not designed) to be utilized in conjunction with the motions utilized within Oyata's methodology.
Oyata taught "Life-Protection", not methods for combative exchanges. Though being a "cool" (sounding) name (for what's being taught) that phrasing is counter-productive to/for (practical) defensive training.
The ability to utilize this art is dictated by the actions made by an aggressor. Every (physical) action perpetrated by the aggressor (whether "pre-conflict" or during the altercation) will dictate how the student will respond to those actions. Every (physical) conflict will involve (if not mandate) a specific response to counter (and end) that assault. Though we have students practice (numerous) foundational responses, those responses must have the ability to adapt (in order to adequately respond to the individual aggressive action). There are no defensive responses (taught) that are intended to only deal with a specific aggression. Every defensive action should have the ability to (adequately) respond to whatever action is attempted by an aggressor. Being that several (of those methods) are learned by each student, it becomes their choice as to which is the most practical for themselves to utilize.
When a student is initially shown a defensive response, they will practice that motion in response to multiple types/manners of aggressive strikes/actions (using the same motion). That motion should be able to adequately protect the user from receiving any serious injury/damage (when performed correctly). The only differences (in the motions use) will commonly be in the "timing" (of that use). To be considered as a "practical" application, it should not matter whether the aggressor attempts a Right or Left side-hand strike or grab (or even kick) to remain applicable. This was often where students (with prior experience) would falter (or at least experience their greatest frustration).
Those students will commonly attempt to change the (over-all) defensive action to respond to the differences in the (individual) method utilized for the attacking motion. When the defensive action is correctly performed (with the correct timing) it should continue to be a viable defensive motion (regardless of the manner of the attempted assault).
One's ability to (correctly) perform those actions entails the student's use of their entire body. It matters not that the motion is a strike, a kick or a grab. That defensive action should be able to effectively respond to an aggressor's attack (regardless of what or how that attack is attempted).
Well, my associate has returned from his attendance of a seminar that he was invited to teach at recently. The seminar was hosted by the Ryukenkan Dojo in New Zealand. From the postings I've seen on Facebook (and the comments included with them) it appears that they were pleased with what was shown. The intent of the seminar was to (personally) introduce and demonstrate the numerous aspects of Oyata Te's methodology to this school, and to provide answers to the (numerous) questions that they had in regards to it's study and practice.
Although this school had prior experience with (several) systems that taught similar methodologies, they apparently were interested in comparing what they had previously learned with the instruction that we are able to provide. I've (at yet) recieved no correspondance (myself) from them (to directly know their opinion on what was shown to them) but I did see a notation by one of the attendee's (in regards to the seminar) and my associate tells me that he recieved very favorable feedback while he was there.
Fortunately (for myself), my associate video recorded various pieces of the seminar, mainly for our own reference in regards to any future presentations (whether with them or with others) so I have a feel for how they are inclined to perform certain motions (and how that material had been shown to them).
I believe the original format (of the seminar) was intended to be in regards to weapon's training (?), but my associate stated that he gravitated towards Tuite practice (from the feedback that he was receiving from various student attendee's). I was told that there was some discussion (with the instructors) in regards to differences in how Kata was to be practiced, but I'm (at this time) unclear as to the extend of those conversations.
From an "instruction" perspective, I'm curious to review the video that Lee recorded (to observe the general reactions by the attendee's) to what was shown, and how well they comprehended the shown material. He was informed that some (1 or 2) of them may "drop by" this summer to attend our class (to see what "our" classes are like) which should be enjoyable. Our classes are (definitely) conducted differently (from the average "karate" class).
Though having practiced similar methodology's, I found it interesting to hear of the (numerous) differences that existed between those systems (and our own). Although those (other) systems presumably came from a similar (if not the same) source (I.E. Oyata), the presenters of that information (from those other systems) seem to have often came to different conclusions (as to what was being provided by my associate).
I feel obliged to note that I have not communicated (directly) with any of those attendee's (of this seminar), so I can only relay what was told to me by an (obviously) "Biased" source (my associate). Dispite that bias, I have full faith in that source, so I expect that what he says is completely accurate.
We'll have to see if (any) of those individual's "drop by" (this summer), and/or I can receive some direct feedback on their opinion of the provided seminar.