Kyusho is not Tuite

  Being aware that “Google” is a flawed search medium, I still get frustrated when I chose to “google” the subject of “Tuite”. If/when I do so, I am inundated with video and articles about “kyusho”(?).  Though I can hardly blame the search engine for being unable to distinguish the difference between the two subjects, that misunderstanding is perpetuated by the very web sites that “claim” to be presenting information in regards to Tuite.

  This misinterpretation has been perpetuated by (mostly) schools/systems/people who are pushing their theories about “kyusho”. They (almost all of them) push the belief that the two are synonymous. I'm not exactly sure how they came to believe this (or if they really do), but my suspicions are that they weren't that good at either of them to begin with.

  (My theory) If you can't do/explain (either) one, then include the other (to “muddy” the water). It's then easier to confuse anyone who questions your theories. It also provides them with a plethora of “excuses” for when it doesn't work.

  The #1 reason that they use (for when something doesn't work, namely “Tuite”) is the “Anomaly” excuse. This excuse is based on the premiss that a certain percentage of the population is immune to the effects of a (their) Tuite applications. They claim that this figure is somewhere between 25-35% of the population. This figure allows them a common “failure” rate of ¼ of their seminar attendees!

  Aside from (actually) being a good reason not to learn (much less teach) their techniques, it's a very good reason not to attend one of their seminars. Would you have any reason to learn something that only worked 25% of the time?

  In the past 20 years of teaching/performing tuite techniques, I have never failed to have a Tuite technique work (as expected). It might be presumed that I have just managed to “never” of encountered one of these “anomalies”. Except, for the fact that I have performed Tuite applications upon persons who have attended those seminars (as well as others) and have been “deemed” (as being) Anomalies. It isn't that “I'm” special, or exceedingly skilled. Only that those individual's aren't doing their techniques correctly.

  Having looked at their “10 rules of application”, it's no wonder (that they regularly fail). I can understand why one would want to have a set of rules to follow (we do as well), but all of theirs are based on vague theories that imply additional knowledge in unrelated subjects (IE. “TCM”).

  By combining the two subjects (kyusho and Tuite) they are allowing themselves to “switch” to the use of striking applications when their version of Tuite fails (several of their videos point out this very “fix”).

  They also require that the techniques be applied quickly (and usually with force). When requested to perform them slowly, they inevitably fail to make their version of the techniques work.

  Both of these subjects (according to them) are tied to the whole TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) theory. Aside from that subject being based on (proven) false concepts, it adds enough vagueness to the subject that one can inject various excuses for technique failure (in regards to either subject). If the instructors of these methods would learn how/why the techniques did/didn't work (to begin with) instead of wasting time with these ridiculous concepts, then maybe they could learn how to eliminate “their” anomalies.

  Though Tuite is an integral part of the Okinawan arts, it is often being taught as a separate (sub) art. Yes, it can be taught as such (as we have done numerous seminars in regards to it's performance), but it is an integral part of the entire defensive system. We teach Oyata's Tuite methodology, that implies that it will function best (most easily) when utilized within that system. When it has been integrated into “other” methods, it can prove to be (somewhat) cumbersome (often due to the premiss utilized in the implementation of those systems defensive methodology).

  Many of the presently instructed systems are focused upon impact (striking) methods (in regard to their defensive methodology). I presume this is why many of these seminar sensei are including Kyusho as being (so) necessary to it's implementation. Of course their interpretation of Kyusho is (somewhat) questionable in our opinion as well.

  Kyusho, means (is translated as) “vital point”. This implies that the use of those locations will often cause/create serious (permanent) physical injury. What's being shown (at these “seminars”) are more accurately only atemi (body blow) strikes. “Pain” is not the indicator of a strike achieving “Kyusho” status. The fact that I stomp on your toe (possibly breaking it), does not equating it to being a Kyusho (type of) strike. If I impact a location and your unable to stand, breathe or retaliate in any way, that is (closer) to being a Kyusho type of strike, than what is presently being taught as such.

  This shouldn't imply that pain is (necessarily) the only validation for a location qualifying for Kyusho status. This is where I believe that many of these people are justifying their definition of/for Kyusho. Kyusho is only the latest “catch phrase” being used in the martial arts community. Because it's a relatively unknown (foreign) word/phrase, it's interpretation is (somewhat) vague to the average student/instructor.

  90% of the strikes that Oyata taught, were of the atemi category. He believed that the use of Kyusho (types of) strikes were rarely required, much less necessary. This also met his personal and system's belief that a defensive method should protect both the defender and the aggressor. Anatomical locations that are (only) leverage points (when utilized during the application of certain techniques) can qualify as being “Kyusho” points (although no “pain” is necessarily experienced at those locations). Those locations are none the less, vital to the techniques ability to function. This is what qualifies their identification as being “Kyusho”. But, because they're not as “dramatic”, they are rarely identified as being such.

  The practice of Tuite requires hours of repeated application, on numerous different body types and sizes. Working with (only) a singular, or (at best) only a few different students is insufficient to gain an accurate understanding of it's utilization. Validation of a techniques use must be verified on each of those varying (aggressor) body types/sizes by a student. This requires numerous training sessions and hours of practice with the instructed techniques. What we've encountered (through visiting students and through our own presence at different schools) is that (only) a limited amount of time is being spent on their practice.

  This has amounted to (attending) students to claim that they “know” a particular (Tuite) technique, and then discover that they are only familiar with it's use. Even with students/schools that have practiced the applications slowly, they often haven't (actually) researched the existing variables that are inherent in the techniques application (in regards to size variance and counter application possibilities). This requires a more intimate understanding of the techniques application than what is commonly being taught/shown.

  Unfortunately, Oyata's methodology (system) of Life-Protection was popularized via his examples of “knock-out” (neck) strikes (presumably because the recipients were often temporarily made unconscious when receiving those strikes). Those “strikes” were only examples of application (of his methodology). They were not the training emphasis of his system (which is why he quit doing those “knock-out” strikes at seminars). Those (types of) strikes, were only intended as potential application methods, not as being the main emphasis of his methodology.

  The majority of defensive situations that people will find themselves in, can often be settled without the use of (trading) strikes between the involved individual's. This requires a higher level of training being practiced by the Life-Protection student. This entails training that avoids the “trading” of (implied) impacting blows between the participants.

  Believing, and training to (only) apply (any “so-called”) Kyusho strikes, is not the method that Oyata taught in his system. His methodology is intended to protect both individual's during a confrontation (at least from the reception of any serious injury). This is what made the training of Tuite applications such an important part of his methodology.

Correct, and Incorrect

 
  I was recently queried as to why I don't “acknowledge” (numerous) proponents for whatever(?) it is that they are teaching, in regards to their own versions of Tuite. Well, first off, what the majority of them are teaching is poorly executed finger/arm manipulations that wouldn't work (as advertised) on the majority of aggressive individuals.  
 Second, they are emphasizing a belief in a methodology that is fraught with inconsistencies (IE. “TCM”) and serves no beneficial aspects to the art (nor the performance of these techniques).
 Third, the “rules/principles”(sic) that they promote only serve to distract their students from any productive practice and (in fact) lead them in a non-productive direction of training (it's blatantly obvious that they haven't researched any of those, meaning “their” instructed “principles”). 
 Fourth, I just don't like the idea of someone misleading students for the purposes of monetary gain, or in an attempt to elevate (only) their own personal/social status.
  All of these people additionally add their own “caveats” as to when their techniques will fail. The most common of which, is the “Anomaly” (excuse). This argument praports that an (unspecific?) number of the population, is unaffected by the application of these techniques (or at the very least, some of them). Those same persons experience 1 or 2 (at least) of these anomaly (individuals) at nearly every one of their seminars (which kind of discredits their concept of “anomaly”, doesn't it?).
  Looking over their proposed “10 Principles”, only a couple of them even resemble an applicable practice. The majority are generalized concepts that are so general, that they have numerous possible definitions. Hardly a way that “principles” should be presented IMO.  
 They've also posted video of their “instructional” seminars regarding these (their) “principles” and their application of/for them. They would have been better served, to have not done so.
  The purpose of an “instructional” seminar, is to instruct. What was presented, was more of a “Look at Me, and what I (supposedly) can do”, recruitment fest. They (meaning I've watched several versions of them, put on by various individuals) perform examples of their techniques, upon their people, and elicit the (kind of) “reactions” that they claim to be “correct”.
  As I stated previously, some of what they promote are valid methods (just not in the manner that they are presenting them). For the majority of what they're selling, if you remove the “TCM” nonsense from their curriculum, they are left with nothing (to validate their applications/principles or the manner which they are presenting them).
  When I was approached about this subject, I was also “informed” that no one is really that familiar with what (and how) Oyata taught Tuite (outside of his students). I would have to agree with that summation (though I would say that only some were familiar, rather than no one). I would be inclined to also include many of the members of Oyata's own organization (in that category) as well. Not because he didn't demonstrate how to do so, only that student's didn't learn (“study”) how his examples actually worked. Though clearly having been shown Oyata's methodology by him (we have the video to demonstrate that fact), and having witnessed him explain the principles of how to apply it (correctly). The average student will still (commonly) muscle their application of a Tuite technique to produce a response.  
 Unfortunately (IMO), Oyata was very “big” on demonstrating a technique, then saying “Now you go work on it” (implying that the students, meaning “us” were to research the correct way to implement them). Strength, was never a prerequisite to proper application of any of his Tuite methodology.
  This is how the myriad of weekend “seminar” attendee's, became “Tuite Experts” (and now offer their own seminars for their versions of Tuite). Some of those “experts” had even studied with Oyata for some period of time, yet still didn't learn how to perform the techniques correctly. The ability to achieve “a” response, is not the same as producing a correct response (Oyata also taught his instructor's what that entailed as well).
  Tuite is not a “sub” art, of his methodology. It is an integral piece of that methodology. It isn't based on any form of “Chinese Medicine” (nonsense), nor is it dependent upon any manner of “Kyusho” (point) manipulation to elicit a correct reaction. It's based on natural body motion/reaction, and how the body does, and doesn't work.
Kyusho is a (completely) separate field of study/application. They can (each) be applied separately, or in conjunction with one another. That should not imply that either, is dependent upon the other. Yet, if one does a “Google” search for “Tuite”, it will produce a (90%) result for their version of “kyusho” applications (which only demonstrates how badly these guys have distorted the field of study for Tuite). What the majority of these people consider to be Kyusho, is (more often) simple “atemi” (distraction) locations.
  If one wishes to “test” someones (anyone's) “Tuite” abilities/knowledge, have them perform their application of tuite technique slowly. If they can't produce an (obviously) equivalent response from the uke, they don't know what the hell they're teaching (much less talking about). If they attempt to include any “TCM” (in their application and/or explanation), again, they don't know what they are talking about.
  Oyata (repeatedly) emphasized that tuite should be practiced slowly. Not because it was so dangerous, but because you couldn't learn anything if/when you did so with speed. Any idiot can make a Fast application produce a result. Doing so slowly, requires that the performer understand how, and why the technique works. With that understanding, a student can elicit the (or any) response that they, or the situation requires. Achieving this level of ability, can provide the student with a far wider range of responses to utilize against an aggressor. One's ability to do so, requires practice (of all of the shown Tuite applications). More often than not, it is the “simple”(if not “simplistic”) applications that are the most commonly utilized in a confrontation. They are also the most often ignored applications (by students).
  I've been informed that some of those instructors/systems (which I am referring to) teach their applications in “stages” (IE. “basic” to “advanced”). #1, I don't believe that "excuse" (having been subjected to students of those methods attempting their applications upon me), and #2, I've seen their “advanced” applications, which are anything but “advanced”.
  Even if it were true (this “staged” learning process), what real (training) purpose would it serve? (other than the continuation of the receipt of the students money). In the case of these types of techniques, “staged” instruction only creates confusion for the student (why should they be required to learn some “basic” version, only to be shown the “actual” technique later?).
  This is different than being shown “additional” tweaks to an application, what I was shown (by these individual's) were (completely) different applications for which (their) students were informed as being (either) “basic” and/or “advanced” forms of the same technique/application. Besides being confusing, this instruction method makes no sense.
  A (legitimate) Tuite application, should be able to be performed successfully on only it's own merit. It should not require the inclusion of any (additional) “atemi” strike(s) to produce the required reaction. What most are “claiming” to be kyusho strikes, are more accurately (only) atemi strikes (these guys should actually learn the difference).
  Oyata only taught “1” manner of performing his Tuite applications. There were often “additions” to an individual application, but the technique (itself) was only taught to be performed in 1 manner. In turn, His students (or at least the “seminar attendees”) have performed them in various ways (not exactly the same thing). And many of those persons are providing their own “seminars” on (their manner) of performing Tuite (which is not the same thing as what Oyata taught).
  The most popular reaction to receiving an example of Oyata's (correct) method of (Tuite) technique application, has been “Oh! That's how it's supposed to be done! Though students will commonly focus on the “pain” aspect of a technique, The more important part, is the reaction. If the uke is (only) bending forward (at the waist) in reaction to the technique application, it's being done WRONG (simply view the internet for NUMEROUS examples of this incorrect technique application).
  This isn't something that's learned in “stages” (IE. “basic” to “advanced”), it's either being done correctly, or incorrectly. 



 

The Influence of Physical Contact (During a Confrontation)

 I'm certain that (many) individual's read the supplied "title" (to this blog) and thought that I had somehow changed my feelings about "sparring". Well no, I haven't (this is a different aspect of "physical contact", LOL). 

  Students will often negate the importance that physical contact has, in relation to the reactions that it can/will create. Too often their emphasis is only in regards to the results attained from “strikes” that are being attempted (and whether those strikes are successful or not).

  Much “to-do” is made of late, regarding “kakae” strikes. Oyata (eventually) had us incorporating them into nearly every kata motion. They were often described as being “extra” strikes, but they more often only made arm motion that wasn't being (defensively) productive, to now serve a purpose in one's defensive tactics.

  Much of this is a result of students having the “Left (then) Right” mentality while applying their defensive motions. Oyata emphasized the use of both arms for defensive applications (simultaneously).

  The new student will commonly believe that an impact (punch/kick etc.) will cause injury (pain, or possibly even damage) to the location of that impact, and “that” will be the summation of the “results” for implementing an (any) impact/strike. The Problem with this belief, is that it is an extremely limited perspective. To expand that perspective, we have students perform the “Finger Pressure” exercise. This exercise is only used to demonstrate the relationships between different area's of the body, whether those areas are being directly (IE.”physically”) effected or not.

  The Tori should assume a “fighting” stance, with one leg forward and will then extend one arm forward (commonly the opposite arm from the forward leg, IE. A “reverse” punch). Holding their “punching” hand stationary (and extended), the Uke will then gently press against one side of the Tori's (extended) “fist”. The Tori should attempt to maintain the location of their extended fist (while the Uke is applying this pressure).

 As the Uke is applying this pressure, the Tori should note the locations over the entire body, that respond to that pressure (in order to resist it).  

 These locations will change, as the (Uke's) applied pressure changes (in regards to the direction “top/bottom and either side”of the Tori's extended fist). There will also be variations in those responses, depending on where the (Uke's) pressure is being applied upon the Tori's entire arm (inside/outside, upper/lower, above/below the elbow, ETC.).

  This exercise is intended to raise the student's awareness of the physical relationships that exist throughout the entire body (although we may not be aware of them at any particular time). Through that awareness, the student will become more attentive for which locations would provide greater results through their utilization. Many of these could (mistakenly) be considered to be “kyusho” locations, but more accurately they should be considered “Atemi” points.

  One of the more common arguments presented (in regards to the utilization of these locations/points) is the ability for them to be struck during a confrontation. Obviously this is a legitimate concern, and requires practice for their utilization during a confrontation.

  One of the things that Oyata showed (to aid in this), was the practice of multiple contact. When one hand is in contact with an aggressor (anywhere upon their body), the second hand will be more accurate in it's attempt at achieving it's intended contact location.

  This can be demonstrated by having the tori place one hand (anywhere) upon the uke (their body, arm, anywhere). Then have the tori (quickly) “place” (not “hit”) their knuckles (of their striking hand) upon the uke in the desired location. This subliminal “reference” will make the tori's attempts successful (more often) and with far greater accuracy (than when no additional contact exists). This is commonly taught in regards to Oyata's tenet of “2 hand” technique application.

  Being that what is commonly being practiced is a (very) “physical” skill-set, it is easy for a student to fall into the belief that “strength” is the dominant factor in deciding the success or failure for an application.  

 Whether one (actually) has a strength advantage (during a confrontation) becomes less relevant when the natural strengths and weaknesses of the body are understood (and it is understood how to exploit them to one's advantage).

  The more relevant factor for these locations, is in regards to the direction of the strikes implementation (upon those locations). That (of course) is yet another “branch” of Oyata's methodology and a student's study/research. 

 

Distorted Tuite

  I was recently queried as to why I don't “acknowledge” (numerous) proponents for whatever(?) it is that they are teaching for their own versions of Tuite. Well, first off, what the majority of them are teaching is poorly executed finger/arm manipulations that wouldn't work (as advertised) on the majority of aggressive individuals.  
 Second, they are emphasizing a belief in a methodology that is fraught with inconsistencies (IE. “TCM”) and serves no beneficial aspects to the art (nor the performance of these techniques). Third, the “rules/principles”(sic) that they promote only serve to distract their students from any productive practice and (in fact) lead them in a non-productive direction of training (it's blatantly obvious that they haven't researched any of those, meaning “their” instructed “principles”).
  All of these people add their own “caveats” as to when/why their techniques fail. The most common of which, is the “Anomaly” (excuse). This argument purports that an (unspecific?) number of the population, is unaffected by the application of these techniques (or at the very least, some of them). Those same persons experience 1 or 2 (at least) of these anomaly (individuals) at nearly every one of their seminars (which kind of discredits their concept of “anomaly”, doesn't it?).
  Looking over their “10 Principles”, only a couple of them even resemble an applicable practice. The majority are generalized concepts that are so general, that they have numerous possible definitions. Hardly a way that “principles” should be presented. They've also posted (several) videos of their “instructional” seminars regarding these (their) “principles” and their application of/for them. They would have been better served, to have not done so.
  The purpose of an “instructional” seminar, is to instruct. What was presented, was more of a “Look at Me, and what I (supposedly) can do”, recruitment fest. They (meaning I've watched several versions of them, put on by various individuals) perform examples of their techniques, upon their own people, and elicit the (kind of) “reactions” that they claim to be “correct”.
  As I stated previously, some of what they promote are valid methods (just not in the manner that they are presenting them). For the majority of what they're selling, if you remove the “TCM” nonsense from their curriculum, they are left with nothing (to validate their applications/principles or the manner which they are presenting them).
  When I was approached about this subject, I was also “informed” that no one is really that familiar with what (and how) Oyata taught tuite. I would have to agree with that summation (though I would say that only some were familiar, rather than no one). I would be inclined to also include many of the members of Oyata's own organization (in that category) as well (over the years). Not because he didn't demonstrate how to do so, only that student's didn't learn (“study”) how his examples actually worked. Though clearly having been shown Oyata's methodology by him (we have the video to demonstrate that fact), and having witnessed him explain the principles of how to apply it (correctly). The average student (none the less) commonly muscles their application of tuite to produce a response. Unfortunately (IMO), Oyata was very “big” on demonstrating a technique, and then saying “Now you go work on it” (implying that the student, meaning “us” were to research the correct way to implement them). Strength, was never a prerequisite to the proper application of any of his tuite methodology.
  This is how the myriad of weekend “seminar” attendee's, became “Tuite Experts” (and now offer their own seminars for their versions of tuite). Some of those “experts” had even studied with Oyata for some period of time, yet still didn't learn how to perform the techniques correctly. The ability to achieve “a” response, is not the same as producing a correct response (Oyata also taught his instructor's what that entailed as well).
  Tuite is not a “sub” art, of his methodology. It is an integral piece of that methodology. It isn't based on any form of “Chinese Medicine” (nonsense), nor is it dependent upon any manner of “Kyusho” (point) manipulation to elicit a correct reaction. It's based on natural body motion/reaction, and how the body does, and doesn't work.
  Kyusho is a (completely) separate field of study/application. They can (each) be applied separately, or in conjunction with one another.  That should not imply that either, is dependent upon the other. Yet, if one does a “Google” search for “Tuite”, it will produce a (90%) result for their version of “kyusho” applications (which only demonstrates how badly these guys have distorted the field of study for Tuite). The majority of what these people consider to be Kyusho, is (more often) simple “atemi” (distraction) locations.
  If one wishes to “test” someones (anyone's) “Tuite” abilities/knowledge, have them perform their application of tuite technique slowly. If they can't produce an (obviously) equal response from the uke, they don't know what the hell they're teaching (much less talking about). If they attempt to include any “TCM” (in their application and/or explanation), again, they don't know what they are talking about.
  Oyata (repeatedly) emphasized that tuite should be practiced slowly. Not because it was so dangerous, but because you couldn't learn anything if/when you did so with speed. Any idiot can make a Fast application produce a result. Doing so slowly, requires that the performer understand how, and why the technique works. With that understanding, a student can elicit the (or any) response that they, or the situation requires. Achieving this level of ability, can provide the student with a far wider range of responses to utilize against an aggressor.
  One's ability to do so, requires practice (of all of the shown Tuite applications). More often than not, it is the “simple”(if not “simplistic”) applications that are the most commonly utilized in a confrontation. They are also the most often ignored (by students). 







 

The Re-Examination of "kata"

  Oyata used to speak about how he felt that the majority of the practitioner's of “te” (both in the West, and the East) misunderstood how the purpose and practice of kata should be done.

  Kata should be treated as a learning/study “tool” for the practitioner of Life Protection. Every motion in the kata, should be examined thoroughly to determine it's purpose/reason for inclusion (in the performance of that kata).

  On numerous occasion, he made it clear that there were no “extraneous” or irrelevant motions in the kata. The claim of a motion being a “formality” or of no value as a defensive motion/application, suggests an irrelevancy (of motion/application) that would hardly be worth passing on to one's students.

  Not having the original (inventor's?) persons who developed the kata available for questions about those motions, mandates that the practitioner's have to study those kata motions (in order to determine the meaning of the included motions).

  Essentially, this amounts to “reverse engineering” the kata (in many if not most cases). We do know numerous defensive motions (that were handed-down from those masters), if we can recognize those (few) motions within the kata, then we have something to start our own research with.

  Oyata was shown numerous “hints” and clues about those motions from his instructors (Uhugushugu and Wakinaguri). He has (in turn) shared them with us (to continue that research). Oyata never claimed to know All of the (possible) Bunkai from the kata, but he did understand how to distinguish “technique” from nonsense. He felt “that” knowledge was more important than learning a few specific techniques that could be associated to them (and thereby only be applicable to a few students).

  When Oyata talked about “bunkai”, he explained that it could (often) vary between individual students. The individual application (interpretation) was irrelevant. It was more important that the interpretation be applicable (and follow the “rules” that he taught for technique validity) by anyone. This didn't imply that the motion/technique would work for every situation, only that it meet the standards for the application being presented (that one determined the motion represented).

  When he first proposed this method (of “bunkai” interpretation), numerous people were “upset”. There was a (prominent) belief that each motion had a singular application that it represented. Of course this view was being based on speculation (since the creators of those kata were long since dead, and no written explanations had survived them).

  Whether true or not, it was a vastly superior method of practicing/researching the kata (and resulted in far superior applications as a result of using his methodology).

  Taika taught that numerous applications were illustrated in each of the taught kata motions. These were often depended upon which other (kata) motions were included/used in conjunction with them. If you were to assign a number to each different motion, and attempted to pair them (differently) with each of the other motions (in the various kata), it becomes quickly apparent that there are an infinite number of (possible) applications potentially available.

  For this reason, when I am asked a “bunkai” question (for a specific motion), I will commonly provide a very “basic” interpretation. It is always dependent upon which other motion(s) that it is paired with (if at all) to determine what it represents.

  Believing that any singular motion, is the (only) bunkai for any kata motion is far too simplistic of an interpretation. The guidelines that Oyata provided for us have (often) been repeated by numerous individual's (who had attended his seminars over the years). Many have attempted to make them “specific” (rules) for the purposes of “bunkai interpretation).

  Oyata recognized (through the instructions provided by his own instructors) that those rules are generalizations. He taught that each motion would have numerous interpretations, and that each student would have to determine what “they” felt the movement represented (and be able to validate that claim).

  Numerous students (over the years) would approach him with their own interpretations, which he would (either) acknowledge their version, or demonstrate what was wrong with what they were proposing (which was more often the case). This was what made Oyata the obvious “master” (though he hated that term, and is also why we only called him “Taika”).

 Kata research (frankly) is not intended for the beginning student (and shouldn't be a concern for them either). Their only need is to learn the (beginning) manner of performing the kata that are provided to them. Their priorities should be focused upon learning the execution of the motions shown to them (by their instructor/s). Kata research is (more so) for the instructor, or for the practitioner who is familiar with all of the beginning motions (it would be difficult to do so, without that essential knowledge anyhow).

 

Impaired Bunkai

  There appears to be an obsession with the concept of bunkai (kata movement application examples). This is often translated into a desire to learn more (and more) kata. Kata were designed to learn (through repetition) the various motions and to make them more natural for the practitioner to perform.

  Very often, the repeated practice of these motions is limited to one or two interpretations (of applicable techniques) per motion. This is usually in regards to a “striking” action (made by an aggressor). Kata motion teaches the practitioner numerous movement principles (beyond the individual techniques that are often emphasized).

  There are many kata motions that can be directly translated to applications (via the motions provided in the kata), but (I feel, and teach) that many of those kata motions are general in nature (and that all have multiple application potential).

  When one examines the multitude of kata available, it becomes readily apparent that numerous motions are repeated within those kata. It's been proposed that this (repetition) represents the importance of those motions. Oyata was familiar with many of those (additional) kata, yet chose not to include them in his curriculum.

  In the early years of the instruction of Te, many instructors only utilized a few of the available kata. They believed (and said as much) that those variations were exampled in what they taught as well and saw no reason to include additional examples that were already being shown.

  It's been stated (by those same old masters) that it takes 10 years of study to understand the motions that are included in a (1) kata. Understanding, includes more than just knowing that the motion exists (or what applications it represents). If the motion was included in the kata, “logic” would dictate that the motion had multiple applications (beyond an individual technique).

  Using the “10 years” of study (per kata) premiss, Oyata's system would require (over) 120 years of study (for one to understand all of the kata motions taught). Realizing this, Oyata taught that a student would find 1 or 2 kata that they (individually) felt most comfortable with. It was those kata that the student would derive the majority of their own (personally utilized) defensive motions from.

  There are presently multitudes of individual's who are performing seminars demonstrating (not really teaching) their interpretations of various kata motion. They are commonly operating under various titles including “master” or “expert” or some other word that implies their expertise.

  When I observe their interpretations (on “U-Tube” and such), more  often than not, I'm struck by how limited those interpretations are (if not being completely impractical for the common practitioner to utilize). Any simple interpretation seems to be inadequate (for them) to teach. The implication being that any simple (or general motion) is either impractical, or ineffective.

  Rather than demonstrating a simply performed motion (that will respond to multiple aggressive actions), more and more complex responses are being demonstrated (for defensive responses to individual aggressive actions). To myself, this is contradictory to the implied concept of defensive training. Believing in this (implied) “complexity” of technique instruction, is  contradictory to effective defensive training (and instruction).

  When I have students demonstrate some application that they've seen (from someone else, or displayed on "U-Tube") I can inevitably show them something that is (much) simpler, and equally effective for response to the presented situation. It will also require less skill to apply. The argument (inevitably) is one of “what if the aggressor is familiar with that defense”? So what? The increased complexity of a technique does not assure it's ability to be applied (or it's success). It also increases it's vulnerability to failure (via being countered). The fact that someone is "familiar/knowledgeable" with a defensive motion, does not mean they have the ability to circumvent it's effectiveness.

  Many of these “new”(?) defensive motions have been created to fill someone's limited defensive curriculum. They will usually "justify" their motion from their own interpretation of a kata motion. I don't dispute the viability of those motions, only the practicality of them.

My own experience has shown that rarely do the more complex applications have any practical (common?) applicability. Only in situations where my own skill level (greatly) exceeded that of my opponent, have any of those complicated applications proven to be usable (or even practical), much less necessary.

  The most commonly used applications (in any situation that I've experienced or observed) are what has been the simplest, and it is those that have proven to be the most effective. This goes against what is believed by the majority of students (and some instructors). Many students believe that the “simple” defensive motions (that they are often familiar with) won't work. If that were true, then why would they have been taught them?

  The average “assault” is began using (very) common motions. Most often this is a punch delivered to the head of the subject. There are only 4 ways that a punch can be delivered. One's “basic” response, should be an effective response that can work for any of them (if/when it isn't, one needs to work on their own "basic response"). The majority of students are subjected to training that is only applicable after the fight has been in progress (Then becoming a “duel”, IE.“sparring”). Oyata's instruction was focused on ending the confrontation before allowing that (type of) situation to occur.

  When I first began training with Oyata, my training was in Shito-ryu. What was taught (in that system) fell into that (responsive) category. The training was (all) focused upon after the initial punch had been delivered. Oyata taught that this (type of training) was “too late” (for an effective defense), and made the situation far more difficult to achieve a (defensively) successful outcome.

  My initial impressions of Oyata's methodology was that of brutality. There was no “fairness” to it. The opponent (aggressor) was neutralized in seconds. In time, I came to understand that this was (actually) less brutal than the extended “slug fest” that was the commonly accepted format for a physical confrontation. It also produced fewer (serious) injuries while doing so.

  What was taught (by Oyata) was his interpretation of the kata motions. These were rarely of the brute force (strength based) category. What I've encountered (through my own students) is often disbelief (by those students) that neutralizing an aggressor’s actions can prove to be that simple. This is rarely done through any complexity of the motion utilized (or through a physical superiority of the defender). Oyata's manor of defense isn't achieved quickly, it requires practice. In this “fast-food” society, this is often an unacceptable trait.

  I emphasize the use/application of Tuite in (both) our classes, and on this blog. I've encountered numerous challenges to that premiss, but it should be noted that I don't believe it to always be an individually applicable response for every defensive situation (though it may prove to be in the proper circumstances, as well as relevant to the level of training that one has yet achieved). More often than not, it is utilized as a “follow-up/ending” application.

  Oyata taught that many (if not the majority) of kata motion could (also?) be interpreted as “tuite” applications (not only as representing controlling actions after responding to an aggressor's striking applications). Beginner's are commonly concerned with defending against those striking attempts, hence their concern is for learning those manor of applications initially. In time it will become obvious that learning simple and effective responses to those aggressive actions is not that difficult. The application of tuite is the (personally) preferred means to neutralize any further aggressive attempts (regardless of the physical size of the aggressor).

 Many (if not all) of the kata motions can be (additionally?) interpreted in this regard. It is through (actual) study of the kata motion (with the alternate emphasis of Tuite being utilized) that those manor of applications can be realized. A student should accept that multiple interpretations exist for every (and all) kata motion. Don't become impaired through the belief of a “singular” interpretation for any kata motion. 


 

Invalid Knowledge ?

  The main focus of this page, is the discussion of “Tuite” and the Life Protection art that was taught by Taika Seiyu Oyata during the final years of his life. That art had gone through numerous transitions throughout his teaching tenure. Aside from the name, Oyata also modified what was being taught, and how those techniques should be applied.

  When his method of applying tuite was first shown to students here (in the U.S.) it was demonstrated by him (Oyata) being “Quickly” applied, with little detail being explained. What was “perceived”, was that it was necessary (even if not being mandated) to apply it with speed, and power. These were both incorrect perceptions.

  Once it's popularity began to spread, numerous “copycats” began to surface. Many of these individuals had even attended some of Oyata's “seminars” believing that they were receiving the exact same training that his regular students were. The instruction that those individuals received was far from what was being studied by his steady (regular) students.

  I can only presume that these individuals (that attended those seminars) felt that they had learned all that there was to know about “tuite” (through their limited 3-4 hour exposure) as they began teaching their “own” seminars in regards to it.

  What I've seen (and been personally exposed to) have been techniques that are dependent upon power, size and speed. What's often being commonly taught by those individuals can only be performed by larger students (or at least upon persons smaller/weaker than those applying the techniques). This was not what Oyata taught, nor how it should be applied. although appearing to be productive study, I can only view the majority of these seminars as having no value for training purposes. They emphasize the wrong ideas to applying the techniques, and include numerous worthless idea's as well (and yet claim to have "at one time"??, studied with Oyata, ... usually meaning that they "attended" a couple of seminars).

  Many students, both from their “seminar” experience(s) and even those who did attend his regular classes failed to research the application of the Tuite techniques that were shown to them. This allowed those students to make (numerous) incorrect assumptions regarding the application of those techniques.

  One of those “seminar” attendee's came up with his own version of those techniques, and even (somewhat) created a list of “10” (principles?) rules for applying those applications. Some have attempted to apply that list to/for students practicing Oyata's tuite. There is NO correlation.

  That list of 10 (rules?) “principles” is a vague list of general ideas that are based in concepts that were created by that individual and have no bearing on Oyata's techniques (nor in “reality”, IMO). Those who have chosen to (attempt to) adhere to that “list” are wasting their training time with them.

  The problems with that list are numerous. Most of it is based upon arbitrary ideas and afford the student no applicable traits to utilize. The few that might carry some validity, have been polluted with their addition of “TCM” nonsense that only makes learning the techniques more difficult (if not impossible).

  It is my own opinion that the difficulty “curve” in learning these techniques has been increased, based upon the belief that these techniques "must" be applied quickly, and with power (to even work). Though in (actual) use this would carry some limited validity, during student "practice", it is a totally inaccurate assumption.

  Practice, is for the learning and study of understanding the instructed techniques. Students can (easily) get the impression that it is to “prove” that they can make the technique “work”. It's already been established that the techniques will work, practice is for the student to understand the requirements to apply those techniques in varying circumstances and to understand how to deal with any mistakes that they may (will) make while attempting to apply them.

  When that study is polluted with unnecessary ideas and theory's, it only makes any practice of the techniques more difficult and (much) slower. This is reinforced with the inaccurate belief that “TCM” is a “real” thing,..it isn't. What TCM was “created” for, was for healing (ideas). It isn't based upon anything that can be verified or confirmed (only promoting assumption and conjecture).

  The implication that it is a “requirement” to applying tuite techniques (or even kyusho) is only done for the purposes of keeping a student coming to a class (to “learn” those fantasy concepts). TCM was (originally) developed for the purposes of “healing”. The idea that “reversing” (?) those concepts would imply the ability to cause/create injury is ridiculous. “That” whole idea (sic) only became popular in the mid “80's” (during the “kyusho” revolution/revival). Before that time there was no “circle of anything” being applied to technique applications. During my entire 30+ years of study with Oyata he never made any manor of connection between what he taught and TCM (in fact, quite the opposite).

  In our classes, we teach techniques to be applied slowly. This allows the student (tori) to recognize and study the possible variables to an application, while allowing the aggressor (uke) to identify what isn't causing the desired results. Practice is (or should be) a mutual learning experience.

  The application of a technique should not be based upon the size or strength of either the tori or the uke. Speeding up the application of the technique does make it easier to achieve a “result” (though just not always the desired one). It should be a students objective to strive for applying the technique with as little effort (ie. Muscle-strength) as possible, and with as little speed as they can. Oyata's methodology is one rife with minute requirements to make it function as desired. For many, this is too great of a burden, they have to have the “quick” method for learning “self-defense”.

  There's nothing wrong with having that “quick” method, it just isn't as reliable or complete as when one has committed the time to (actually) Study that defensive methodology. Oyata's method of Tuite, is one that requires that commitment.

Instruction

 My associate and I were recently discussing how to best describe (and teach) the various instructed motions that we show to our students. Our “problem” was with how the student should be shown those motions. Many of the motions are initially taught to students in a manor that emphasize a particular aspect of the motion (as opposed to the manor which it is utilized in a defensive application). Though it's possible to teach the motions in their (final) utilized form, there are often certain aspects of the motion that a student can/will disregard if those aspects are not emphasized to them individually (or sufficiently).

  Part of our “problem”, has been with how those motions are initially (imagined?) presumed to be performed (via casual observation by the student). When a motion is viewed independently (out of context with an application), numerous misinterpretations can be made.

For example, the Forearm strike (or “block” if you prefer). Our instruction (as with all beginning motions) is started with the tori's arm's being at their sides. This motion is commonly taught with the utilized arm sweeping across the tori's body (at groin level, close to the user's body) and traveling upward to a position that places the tori's hand (with the elbow bent) at shoulder level. It then travels forward, to a position that extends the utilized arm's hand/elbow forward.

  This motion is initially taught as being a forward arm motion (though, it is often misinterpreted as being a sideways arm motion). That presumption is often made because the student hasn't been shown (as yet), that they will also be rotating their body accordingly (either to their left, or right side), thereby determining that the motion utilizes the inner, or the outer side of the arm. Regardless of which direction the tori is rotating, the arm's motion is performed in the same manner (it is the rotation that determines that it be considered either an inside or outside motion).

  As the student gains experience with utilizing the motion (in application), they will often short-cut the motion (beginning to motion forward when the hand reaches the opposite side's waist level). This causes the motion to move forward during the process of raising to shoulder height. “Visually”, this can appear to be a sideways motion, but it is still (mainly) forward. When the student is rotating their body with the motion, the appearance of sideways motion is created (and thus, the confusion).

  The problem, is that beginning students haven't (as yet) began to rotate (their body) with their arm motions, and therefor will motion their arm sideways (instead of forward) to perform the parry/block/strike. Though (somewhat) accomplishing the motions intended purpose, it is an extremely weak motion (when compared to the forward motion, that it is intended to be).

  In an effort to ease the learning curve associated with performing these (and other) basic motions, our students are (often) allowed to perform these arm motions in a sideways manner (initially). This means that the student will then have to modify their arm's motion as they progress in their learning.

  My initial feelings about this, are that I disagree with allowing them to perform the motion in an incorrect manner (at all). (IMO) the student should be shown the correct (final) manner of performing the motion, and they will have to contend with the higher degree of difficulty (in learning the motions performance). Though (possibly) more difficult for the student to learn initially, I feel it better to learn it in the correct manner that it (should) will be utilized, rather than have to learn to modify it later (because of poor initial practice).

  I consider this to be akin to our instruction of kata. When we first demonstrate a kata to one of our students, they are shown the “skeleton” manner of performance (without the inclusion of various nuances and motion detail). As they become more familiar with the basic structure of the kata, those details are included. When the student is shown their next kata, those nuances and motion detail are included (because they have already learned them while practicing the previous kata). There is no (instructional) reason for them to not be included (from the beginning) once they have been learned. Various kata will have distinct/different motions (that haven't been shown to the student in a previous kata), and those motions will be included as the student progresses in their performance of that kata's skeleton form.

  We've already been doing this (manner of teaching) with our instruction of tuite. Beginning arm motions should be taught in the same manner. The fact that something that is taught to a student can't be immediately utilized, does not invalidate the motions validity. What we teach takes time, and practice to learn. Additionally, we do not instruct children (under the age of 16) at our school, so comprehension should not be as great a problem for our students (as could be the case for some schools).

  Prospective students are often under the impression that we are there to provide what they want, how they want it. That's only accurate to a certain degree. We provide instruction in a particular methodology, we do not teach what is commonly being taught at (many) store-front dojo. What we do teach, is what has been shown to us by Taika Seiyu Oyata. That instruction has been modified and improved over the past 35 years (by him), and we intend to adhere to that method of instruction to the best of our knowledge and ability.

  Many of the prior methods/techniques and training methods that he (Taika) employed in the early years after his arrival in the U.S., he abandoned later as not being relevant, or of value to/for training (ie. “Bogu-sparring”, over-use/emphisis of the makiwara, tamashiwara etc.). A lot of his attention was focused on efficiency of motion (be it leg, arm or hand motion). With that as our premiss, we are continually attempting to improve our own instructional methods.

Part of that attempt, is in eliminating any unnecessary “steps” to a technique's instruction. Oyata had the luxury of only teaching Yudansha level students (and no, “seminars” don't count as instruction, they were only for “introduction to”, and/or “examples of” purposes). Oyata left the instruction of the “foundational motions” to his (Yudansha) students (to teach to their own Mudansha/kyu-rank level students). By the time that those students were of sufficient level to study (directly) with Oyata, they had already (theoretically) been shown all of the “basic” motions. His only goal was to teach those Yudansha how to effectively apply what they had been shown.

Now that Taika is gone, we (his Yudansha students) have to determine how to teach those lessons he provided to us, effectively, and efficiently to our students.

 

The "Principle" (of the thing)

  Our Student 6 Principles Tuite book has been completed for a while now, and was published (last fall) and is (presently) only available to any of our recent students . Though not being the “End-All” of everything “Tuite”, we feel that it presents the application methodology that we at our school/dojo utilize clearly, and effectively (and as was developed through our instruction from Seiyu Oyata). We've already began several additional student releases as well.  
 These will cover varied subjects including "Law Enforcement Applications", "Female Self-Defense" and several others that will address equally specific subjects. Considering how much material we abridged from this book, we have yet enough for another book, over just Tuite techniques (containing a wider variance of applications) and another covering “Defensive Striking Applications” as well.

  What's covered in this book (I will provide a "link" if/when available to the general public, LOL) is what was shown to us by Oyata over a 30+ year span in regards to the application of tuite (much of it in the last 15 years). These principles were not shown “together”, but were presented (each) individually at various times. They were often (individually) repeated by Oyata during numerous training sessions, and were then expected to be remembered (by us, his students).
  The only thing that we have done, is to compound them into the 6 most relevant principles for our students to utilize during their  study/research. Our book provides examples for each of the 6 Tuite Principles, as well as examples for some of the (introductory) Tuite techniques that are presently taught at our school. 

 Being that it was "self" published (through the book dealer we utilized), we didn't have to pre-purchase a large number of copies. When we release it to the public they will be available "on-demand" (thru the publishing company). It is 202 full color pages (LOT'S of photos), with limited "white space" (empty page space). It is available hard or soft cover. It fully describes our teaching/application method for Oyata's Tuite and provides pictures/examples for all of  the described applications. Being that it is full-color, this makes it slightly more expensive (but in our opinion, easier to view/read).
 Publishing in this manor is slightly more expensive (for individual purchase), but it doesn't require that "we" spend vast amounts of money meeting any "minimum" purchase/production mandates.  

  Though numerous systems (or at least “individual's) emphasize a “need” for kyusho knowledge (to utilize their tuite techniques), that belief is false (at least with how Oyata taught, LOL). A correctly performed technique has no “prerequisite” for (any) knowledge of “kyusho” (or “TCM” either). All that is required, is the correct performance of the technique.

  The most commonly utilized “principles” being used today (by numerous individual's) are what is being called, the “9 Principles”. These are being pushed by several organizations that teach their own manner of tuite (mainly those of the "d" following). Having “had” that manner of grappling applied (upon myself), IMO, it fails many of “our” set of standards. The majority of those 9 principles, are being based on arbitrary circumstances that are “vague” (at best) if not misleading (or wrong, if you prefer).

  I've written before of the anomaly excuse that is currently being perpetuated as being responsible for a technique's failure (and actually amounts to a performer's failure). In the 30+ years that I've been teaching, we've only encountered that situation twice. And in both instances, it was only an application failure on “our” part. Oyata experienced no problem with the techniques when he performed them on those same individual's.     

 Those occurrences were over 15 years ago, and we have not experienced any others since that time (which was part of what motivated us to compile our 6 principles book). Yet, I hear these individual's “claim” that there is (commonly) at least “1 or 2” of these "anomalies" at every one of their seminars (hmmmm..) ?

  When I observe what is regularly being promoted as being “Tuite” (on the Internet), those techniques are more often various forms of “Jiu-Jutsu/Aikido” (types of) wrist/arm manipulations. That's not to say those techniques don't work, or are invalid, only that they are different (than what Oyata taught to us). To make the claim that they are “the same”, is disingenuous at best (I leave any worse evaluations to the reader).

  The study of Tuite can become a (very) involved process (depending on how proficient one wishes to become with it). I've attended classes (within other systems) that spent a total of 15 minutes on the subject (including the student's practice time with them), and in that time period demonstrated 4 techniques. What the instructor's goal was, I have no idea, but it wasn't to teach those students (any) "Tuite".

  When we have student's work on Tuite, the common minimum, is an hour (and depending on how well they're doing with them, we may show several variations from that technique).

  Once the student has become proficient at recognizing the 6 tuite principles, “our” job (as technique “corrections directors”, LOL), is much simpler.

  The “top 3” most common problems encountered, are the (lack of) recognition for the principle that they are not performing correctly. Next, is the “positional paradox” (something I see done incorrectly by nearly every example of tuite on the internet). And incorrect footwork.

  There are other (obvious) examples of incorrectly applied techniques (demonstrated by their “uke's” reactions), but those reactions are considered to be “correct” (by those who know no better).

  For (your own) reference, “if”, the person performing the technique “requires” that the technique be done (only) quickly, they (probably) don't really understand how the technique should be applied.

  If the technique can't be applied upon a person stronger than yourself, the technique isn't being applied correctly.

  Size/strength/speed should have no relevance to a techniques ability to work.

  If the uke, is able to make (physical) contact with the tori (using their “free” hand) during the performance of the technique, the technique isn't being applied correctly.

  The “excuses” of flexibility, strength or any amount of (prior) experience (with having Tuite types of techniques performed on them) will make NO difference on the ability of the technique to work. These are excuses used by individual's who don't know how (or why) the techniques are supposed to work (to begin with).

  Most individual's are familiar with (maybe) one or two of the principles that "we" use, but even then, are often performing them incorrectly. It is our hope that the 6 Principles that we've assembled can be used to further our student's own research on new/different techniques (as well as confirm their performance of presently practiced techniques).

  Whether one practices Oyata's methodology or not, these principles can be applied to any practiced limb manipulation techniques. In our opinion, this makes these principles a practical “teaching” and “research” tool. Regardless of the techniques origin.

I have to go “Ki”...

  The concept of “Ki/Chi” is (greatly) misunderstood and miss-utilized in the West. As a teaching/concept principle, it is an easily understood analogy. What it isn't, is an actual skill/ability.  The idea of being able to “channel” the flow of energy is only a concept. Though completely possible to (first learn) relate all of the medical/anatomical components necessary to perform a physical motion, it is easier (for the average untrained student and instructor) to conceptualize the notion of water flowing, through an analogy being made to that energy (momentum) being made to a liquid.

  This simplistic analogy has been corrupted to include (if not become) a “mystical” quality/ability that can be developed through various questionable studies (that commonly have NO relation to the practice of a defensive art).

  Obviously I am adamant in my (disgust?) disapproval for this manor of instruction (when these “mystical” abilities are being endorsed as being a real, much less a valid training method). Oyata was very clear about his feelings on this subject, he believed it to be total nonsense and useless for learning the protective arts. He disapproved of any of “his” systems instructor's teaching this belief to their students (in regard to his system).

  As an analogy, the idea of momentum being a liquid is a more easily understood concept for the new student to understand. The correct positioning of the feet, in conjunction with how the user's arms are being motioned “could” be broken down into their various components, but that information can be conveyed after the student has physically been shown the differences in how those motions may be applied. Everyone is familiar with how water flows (most easily/quickly), when momentum is related to water flowing, the student more quickly understands the concept (and overall training doesn't need to be interrupted).

  Though I disagree with how this mnemonic is being used (in relation to life-protection instruction via the “TCM” nonsense), I too have used the (water) analogy when teaching various concepts. Granted, this is most often in relation to performing brushed calligraphy (Shuji/Shodo), but in the process of relating various concepts to students, “water” is an easily understood medium (for the student to relate to what is being done physically). In fact, I've come to use the words “like water” if/when making these analogy's (in order to avoid any misconceptions of “ki” being made).

  Ki/Chi is a commonly used term in the Orient, that doesn't (or shouldn't) imply that it is accepted in the same manner that is being promoted here (in the U.S./West). Any living thing has “life” or energy (plants, animals, people). The fact that this “energy” can be utilized and/or developed (by an individual), is nothing mystical (as is often promoted). What can make it confusing (to Westerner's), is that Ki/Chi can be developed (though not in the manner that's being sold to Western student's).

  Muscular strength is considered to be a form of Ki/Chi, mental attitude is considered to be a form of Ki/Chi. There are numerous examples that are commonly used in the East, that have nothing to do with any manner of a mystical energy.

  Using the term “Ki/Chi” (of course) makes the concept sound more Oriental (if not “mystical”), which is (very) often the intention of the instructor. Students often come to learn a defensive “art” that is Oriental. When comparing the numerous defensive methodologies, it is the Oriental one's that have the greatest popularity. Apparently, in order to be accepted as being an “authentic” Oriental art, students have come to expect some manner/level of mysticism to be included in that study. Whether this is used to explain why “they” can't (instantly) perform the instructed motions, or as an excuse (as to why they can't) is open to debate. But what can't be logically argued, is why it is an expected part of that instruction.