Thursday, May 10, 2018

response





The following post is in response to a question/statement made in a prior post. I felt it was a valid statement (and questions), and my response was too lengthy to provide it in (only) the “questions to the author” section (the reader's comment and questions can be found in the original post. ("Atemi""). 
Reader's of this post should reference that post, and read the comment posted there.

In regards to the medical text reference, I don't propose that someone will figure out much (of anything) in regards to technique application from that knowledge. But it is a good starting point for one's study. That knowledge allows one to eliminate a number of the (often ridiculous) assumptions that are being asserted in regards to (various) technique applications.
Oyata provided (provided) none of that information to us. He suggested it, but provided (very) little to no “medical” references. People commonly assume that “Just” because we had been direct student's of Taika, That he imparted some level of “secret” instruction upon us, ..he didn't. He provided that instruction to all of the attending student's, whether they paid attention (when he did) or not, was “On them”.
Most everything that Oyata taught, was done via “example/demonstration”. He rarely provided very many details to technique application. What he did provide, was done via (repeated) “demonstration”.
Arguments can be made as to the effectiveness of this method, but that was how “he” was taught (and so assumed it to be the best method).
The majority of Oyata's instruction was exampled through (performed) physical examples (of the applications), and observation of the results from those attempts. Anatomical knowledge allows the student to understand what those applications are accomplishing (physically). No, these techniques could not have been developed “in isolation”, we had Taika to provide examples of their application (as did numerous others). When one starts to compare the differences between those students (each of whom had varying degrees of experience with Oyata as well) and seeing how those individual's perform those techniques, it becomes obvious who paid attention (and conducted their own research), and who didn't.
Oyata taught using a (very) “old school” methodology (“I show, you practice/do”). Unlike numerous other's (who teach likewise), he would further correct/guide you (if/when you would provide examples of what you had developed). If/when you were “happy” with whatever you had come up with, he would “move on” to another subject. The majority of student's would then cease (any) further research with that application (often without fully understanding the nuances of that technique/application).
One could (easily) conclude that Oyata was a “poor” instructor. He could (obviously) perform the motions/applications with a level of skill beyond that of any of his “peer's”, but very few (if any) of his student's came close to exampling his methodology. He provided very little “detail” (in that regard). He expected the (dedicated) student to study those motions and determine the correct application of those motions, and do so on their own.
For those that wish to (accurately) emmulate his manner of application (if not his methodology), and you don't naturally possess his “perspective” (or ability), the only choice is study and practice. We approach our instruction with the idea that the student knows nothing (about the human body) and therefor include (very) basic information in regards to that subject. Oyata had (his own) insite into the application of techniques. He would often state “I don't know why (this happens), and I don't care. I only know that it happens, and I take advantage of it”. We attempt to explain (a little of) the why.
Your correct in stating that it (can) require a “life-time” of study/practice. We only feel that it shouldn't have to. We (attempt to) include relavent information (for the student) in that regard. The information that we provide, doesn't make the student “able” to perform the application/technique, it provides them with the knowledge to (possibly) expand (or extrapolate) that knowledge (more easily) for use within further applications and techniques.
I would contest your view that “it's not for a lack of desire or effort”, I believe that it is in regards to a lack of those attributes. If what one is being shown doesn't address the desired knowledge, it's time to “move on” (and find that information, whether through another system/instructor, or through one's own study/practice).
Oyata practiced (and taught) technique “bunkai”, he disected every technique into it's individual motions and identified those individual components that made the application effective (and/or “ineffective”). Knowing what (generally) “will” work, is insufficient. Understanding what doesn't work (and why), is equally as important.



4 comments:

Anonymous said...

You wrote:
"I would contest your view that “it's not for a lack of desire or effort”, I believe that it is in regards to a lack of those attributes. If what one is being shown doesn't address the desired knowledge, it's time to “move on” (and find that information, whether through another system/instructor, or through one's own study/practice)."

I have to contest your contesting of my view :) I believe I read somewhere in one of your posts that you or Lee, I believe it was you, had previously trained in another system to at least a Shodan level. You were fortunate enough to find, stumble on, or get shown a more effective methodology. Remove that event from your life and you'd likely be a very accomplished Shito Ryu practitioner. I never got the impression you had identified that your prior system didn't address your desired knowledge. If I've read your prior posts, bio, etc correctly you didn't recognize a deficiency UNTIL you had a basis for comparison. If you'd never had exposure to Oyata I wouldn't think you lacked desire or effort to improve, only the recognition of the need and the vehicle to make it happen.

YOU WROTE:
"Oyata practiced (and taught) technique “bunkai”, he disected every technique into it's individual motions and identified those individual components that made the application effective (and/or “ineffective”). Knowing what (generally) “will” work, is insufficient. Understanding what doesn't work (and why), is equally as important."

I would like to hear more about this process/practice. How he "read kata" what he was looking for, and by what rubric he measured the results to validate or invalidate them. Your jointly authored book is the PRINCIPLES of Tuite. Not the motions of Tuite or the techniques of Tuite. Principles. What principles did Taika pull from his kata, or did he learn Principles from his two instructors that opened the kata to him after the fact? Could these same principles be applied by other karateka in other systems to advance the art as a whole. I'm really interested in the spark, the ability to create and improvise and extrapolate that Oyata had. I hope that makes some sense and warrants a response.

Thank you,

Openhand said...

To some degree, I would agree. The system/instructor I previously studied with was unable to fulfill (much less inspire) a greater knowledge base for my own (or any) expansion of that knowledge. My introduction to Taika expanded my own "awareness" of what could be learned. I experimented with numerous systems/instructors, none of which offered anything of "real/different" value (in regards to expanding my level of knowledge, much less inspiring me to seek anything "specific"). Oyata didn't "tell" me what was wrong with what I was doing, he, "asked" me if what I was doing made sense (compared to what he was teaching). Once I was (made) aware of those differences, it caused me to revisit everything that ( I believed that) I already understood. He became the catalyst for my continued study.

In regards to “Bunkai”,Oyata utilized numerous methods for his research (of Kata). We incorporate several of those methods within our own classes. The majority of what I currently see in regards to examples of Bunkai, are more often attempts to "reverse engineer" the motions of the kata, to represent (already) "known" applications. From what Taika showed to us, this is a "pointless" exercise (the applications are already known). Prior to concerning one's self with “interpreting” kata, the student should understand how/why the body motions. Taika's instructors provided him with numerous lectures in regards to body motions, actions, and responses. Understanding how (and why) the body moves (in regards to certain stimuli) and the understanding of the purpose(s) for particular actions.
We were additionally provided with the scrolls that were given to him by his instructors. Although he passed prior to his explaining "all" of the information provided within them (which he admitted that he didn't know "all" of), the majority of those concepts were explained (and provide another "source" for our ongoing research). Taika always emphasized that we should continue our "own" research (so as to expand our own level of understanding) beyond that which he had imparted to us. What he "desired"(?), was for us to expand that knowledge beyond the simplistic collection of "techniques" and organize a (his) methodology (so it could be conveyed to, and carried on by our own students). Once the "principles" have been understood, the formation of "techniques" becomes an (almost) simplistic exercise. It is the organization of those principles that we are currently engaged in.

Anonymous said...

When you say, "It is the organization of those principles that we are currently engaged in." Are you indicating that there are further publications forthcoming in the vein of 'The Six Principles of Tuite'? The Principles of Kyusho perhaps?

Openhand said...

That would be a "yes" (to both of those subjects)