Symmetry

 I recently read an article that attempted to address the human bodies inclination to not function symmetrically. The argument being made was that being non-symmetrical was an advantage. Although the article only (briefly) addressed the numerous non-symmetrical facets of the human body, the emphasis was (mainly) made in regards to the use of the arms (and presumably the leg's as well) and how being asymmetrical was (in fact) an advantage (?). After reading the article, I failed to understand the writer's reasoning (for this supposed "advantage"), the only thing I concluded from the article, was an affirmation of the existence of this asymmetry.

An individual being fully ambidextrous is an (extreme) rarity. More commonly, an individual will have a (single) dominant side (that they will be inclined to use for their “natural” actions and responses). This is usually addressed as being the individual's “dominant” side (I.E. Right/Left-Handed).

Oyata addressed this distinction by designating those sides (of the Tori/Uke) as being a “strong” side, and a “weak” side. Most systems only address the Tori's use of those distinctions. It should additionally become a “piece” of the student's defensive actions and responses. What is commonly seen, is that a system will have student's use both of their arm's/leg's (equally) while practicing the instructed motions. Although this can (slightly) assist in increasing the student's use of their non-dominant side, it does almost nothing to increase that (non-dominant) arm's abilities.

In regards to the student's use of either side, Oyata stated that the student should use their “weak” (non-dominant) side 3 to 4 times more than their dominant side (in the attempt to increase the weaker sides abilities).

Oyata's technique instruction (and use) in regards to defensive tactics, included “minor” facets that provided (collectively) numerous defensive advantages. These included a number of things that are commonly used as critiques (by other systems of instruction).

Knowing that the most common confrontation begins with the two individual's engaging in a verbal exchange, Oyata stated that (regardless of what is being said) this, and the time leading up to the exchange, should be used to evaluate as much information (about the aggressor) as possible. This includes determining a Right or Left dominance (of the aggressor), any (apparent) injuries or weaknesses, and (of course) any compatriots of the aggressor (who may become involved in the confrontation).

Oyata demonstrated that the student had a greater number of options when they stood “square” (initially) to the aggressor. They should (when space allowed) have their arms “down” (to their sides when practical). Though "scoffed at" (by the majority of defensive systems/instruction) Oyata felt that it was more important to avoid the confrontation whenever possible. The Tori having their hands (down) at their side, does not (necessarily) make them slower (in their responsive action). This has been demonstrated, via easily available technology. If/when the aggressor (initially) positioned themselves within “arm's reach” their use of their legs (to initially attempt a strike) is dramatically reduced (hence, it was more likely that they would attempt a strike/grab with their arms). If the aggressor has "not decided" (yet) whether to (physically) engage with the student, by standing "square" (non-threatening) the student has not (albeit, subconsciously) escalated the situation. The aggressor who has intentions (for continued escalation) will position themselves (commonly) with their “strong” side to their rear side (presumably to provide the greatest amount of distance for their arm to achieve the desired amount of momentum for a “strike”). Aside from allowing the Tori (student) to “know” which arm the Uke (aggressor) is likely to strike with, it also informs the Tori as to which arm should be the focus for (their own) infliction of injury.

The most commonly attempted “first strike” (that begins a physical confrontation), is an attempted strike to the head/face. It can be argued as to “why” this is, but the most probable reason is to attempt a “knock-out” (strike), which (BTW) for that to actually occur is a rarity.

The Tori standing “square” (to the aggressor) allows either arm to be utilized (equally), although students commonly will motion to a "favored" side (regardless of which arm is used by the aggressor).

This is accounted for by the student's practice of the performed defensive actions. The instructed defensive actions are not side-dependent. Regardless of which arm the aggressor utilizes, the instructed defensive actions (with only minor modification) should provide an acceptable response. Once the initial response is implemented, the situation will dictate the appropriate continued response.

Oyata emphasized the "lead-time" (prior to the physical confrontation), as being when the student should be formulating their defensive strategy. There will exist a “go-to” response (if/when one is

"surprised"), but the majority of confrontations include factors that lead up to the “physical” confrontation itself. This time period is commonly ignored by the majority of the instructed defensive methods. Those systems/instructors are inclined to only deal with the student's defensive actions once the aggressor begins their assault. Oyata would state that doing so, would put the student (at least) 1 (if not more) step behind the aggressor. This is (obviously) not acceptable for a defensive tactic.

Oyata stressed that each motion (performed by the student) should produce multiple functions.

Oyata didn't teach “blocks” (a non-productive term to begin with), he taught defensive strikes. Those strikes should achieve more than (simply) “deflecting” an aggressor's strike, those motions should inflict injury (if not damage) with their use.

An aggressor's “face” (and/or “groin”) are not what will cause injury to the student (despite any claims made). Yet, these are what is commonly focused upon by students. Both of which, are readily (and most often effectively) protected by an aggressor.

The “arm's” (that they are attempting to “strike” or “grab” you with)...not so much. People are inclined to believe (and I've been engaged in numerous “conversations” about this), that they can sustain “any” amount of “pummeling” (upon their arms), and still be able to inflict injury and/or retain their use of them. Each and every (effectively delivered) strike/manipulation made upon an individual limb, limits the aggressor's ability (or inclination) to use that limb. If/when both arms are injured, the level of (actual) “threat” by that individual is greatly reduced (if not eliminated).

For that reason, many (if not most) of Oyata's instructed techniques were focused upon injuring an aggressor's arms. Although injuring an aggressor's leg's could be (argued as being) a more effective tactic, doing so is (often) more difficult to effectively achieve. The logic of this tactic is obvious, an aggressor with little to no use of their arm's becomes a "questionable" Threat (thus “de-escalating” the situation).

To effectively deliver a “strike”, there must exist at least some amount of distance. Without that “distance”, one cannot develop momentum. Without momentum, the effectiveness of a “pummeling” (type of) strike is difficult, if not impossible to effectively achieve. By maintaining a "close" proximity to an aggressor (during a confrontation), the defender (Tori) can dictate the manner and/or ability of the aggressor to continue their assault. This (situation) can often result in a "grappling" situation. One's awareness of the use/application of the instructed "Tuite" applications (then) becomes more relevant (if not important/applicable).

I've encountered (numerous) individual's who believe that “Tuite” (either) won't work (on them), or can easily be rendered ineffective. If/when performed incorrectly, it's unlikely to work on anyone. It can easily be demonstrated, that (even) when done sloppily (IMO), it will achieve the desired reaction (on the majority of people). When performed correctly, I have yet (in 30+ years) to find someone that it doesn't work on. Have I ever “failed” (at the application of a Tuite technique)? of course, I have. I've also (immediately) recognized what "I" did wrong when it did fail. A techniques failure can always be traced to (some) incorrect application of that technique (whether being “Tuite”, “Atemi” or a simple “punch”). People are imperfect. The second one believes otherwise, is when you will “Fuck-Up”.