Words

  The use of terms within the martial arts community is (too) often “vague” (at best). Many will attempt to (only) utilize foreign names for those descriptions, but this is rarely of value if/when the student (or instructor) is not (completely) familiar with the language being utilized. When I initially began training with Oyata, I would inquire about the “names” of the motions he was showing us, he replied by stating that we should use the name that “we” (American's) were comfortable with (and use a description that was represented by words within our own language. He said that we were not “Okinawan/Japanese” so those names that were common (on Okinawa) could (would) lead to our misinterpretation.

  As we learned more of his art, this soon became obvious. Now, When we hear (American) practitioner's describe technique use/motion they will (often) relate that use or motion to a “Japanese/Chinese” name. When we would query Oyata (in regards to this) he would “roll his eye's” and (again) explain the motion, and repeat that we should use a descriptive name that was clearer to ourselves (that is in one's natural language).

  When I began teaching, I (often) used numerous “Japanese” names for motions (when conveying those motions to my students). As I progressed in my own studies, and was exposed to additional systems, I found (many) of those same names (being utilized to describe a motion) that were used in multiple ways (sometimes in completely contradictory manners), to how we would be using/teaching them. Japanese use is often associated with (vague) “concepts”, as opposed to literal (translatable) terms.

  Even students who have a “working knowledge/ability” with the Japanese language would (often) be confused about the techniques names or meanings. When a (common) English description was utilized, there was an immediate understanding by the student. That would have been fine, if motion definitions were “Universal” as well, but they're not.

  The majority of (commonly utilized) Japanese/Chinese names (for motions) are only “General” (if not vague) in nature. Many of the Japanese/Chinese names (popularly) utilized, are far from accurate (in description of their use).

  I have met (and read) numerous people that will make the argument, that because they teach a methodology native to that language, and by using those (foreign) names (regardless of the instructor's native language), that they are being “traditional” and (therefor) those terms should only (if not always) be utilized.

 We disagree with that premise. We feel that it is more important to be “accurate” in our instruction. That requires that a student should (easily) understand the motion, as well as it's “name” (what that motion is being called).

  In that pursuit, we attempt to use the common (scientific/medical?) terms and names for (most) motions when teaching those motions to our students. “Japanese” (in our case) names may well be included, but they are never stressed/emphasized.

  Utilized Name's can/will effect how someone (ie. students) will interpret how/why a motion will be understood and utilized. Most “popularly” within our own instructional experience (and when compared with how others utilize it) this has been demonstrated with (our rarity for) the use of the term “Block”.

  To “Block” something, is to provide an obstacle in (somethings) continued progress. This is also how (most) students will interpret the term (often despite any further provided definition for the term). If/When the term (Block) is utilized accurately (in the case of an “arm/forearm block”), one would place that limb in the path of an aggressive motion (commonly a “punch”). I have never seen it used (with any effectiveness) in that manner. It is most often used as a deflection of the aggressive action.

  My own “pet peeve” is the performance of (what is commonly called) an “Outside Block”. This motion (as it is commonly shown) is completely ineffective beyond the purpose of (being) a deflection. The motion (as commonly taught) is the weakest possible application of a forearm motion (for either deflection or impact), yet is popularly shown for use as being an impactive application (ie. Striking with the lateral {Radial} side of the forearm). Even with the inclusion of “Body-Rotation”, the motion has minimal stability, and is equally unable to utilize any of the included motion/momentum in it's application.

  This is basic “body mechanic's”. The arm's “natural” aggressive motion/direction is forward (and in this instance, it is an extension), and arguably (in some instances), “medial”. As the “outside block” is commonly taught, (at best) it only amounts to being a deflection (to the performed lateral position/side). Within many systems, this is an acceptable expectation. Within Oyata's defensive system, this would be considered a “wasted” opportunity/motion.

  Although it has been “popular” for (many) systems to (now) include the concept of “Blocks being Strikes”, instructors will (still) continue to teach the “outside block” as a sideways (lateral) motion.

  Oyata often commented that “outside/inside block, are (performed) same”. This can be confusing, until one see's how he performs those motions. Those motions require body-rotation (for their inside/outside designation). The arm motion is (actually) performed in a forward direction, this principle can also be applied to the upward/downward counterparts (blocks) as well (for which both should include forward body motion). Being identified as “strikes”, will (or at least should) instill the concept of “body-weight” inclusion. This is most easily done through body-rotation /motion being included with the action. It also demonstrates that any rearward motion diminishes any (applicable) “momentum” being used with those manners of “strikes”(blocks).

  Though believing this to be  a “basic” concept, we've been involved in numerous lengthy debates over the subject. I recognize that different systems view applications differently, and have/made a “reasoned” excuse for those differences. I (at least) have a complete lecture over the subject, just saying that “you've” never seen something taught a certain way, is not a rational for disagreement.

  I believe many disagreements come about because of distorted views of (often “basic”) application concepts. At least for “our” students, we want them to be able to knowledgeably address what is being attempted. Being too “simplistic” can be as equally misleading, as being “vague”. By using terms that are recognized (in multiple fields of study) we are striving to reduce those occurrences. 

 Being American, the language we use is English. The following are some of the terms that we utilize (for our students) to designate particular locations and directions of motion for the human body. Though not a complete list, it contains the majority of “basic” terminology that we utilize.

General “Side” Designations

This are terms utilized to designate a particular “side”, location or direction of/upon the human body.

Frontal-Anterior-Front-Palm (side)

Rear-Posterior-Dorsal-Back

Side-Lateral (Sideways)

Center-Medial-Middle

Right-Left (usually including a “source” for the reference, ie. The  

                   “Uke''s” or the “Tori's”)

Vertical-Up/Down-(Also utilized when describing the Orientation 

                                of “erect” and/or “standing”)

Horizonal-Side to Side

Prone-being “face/chest” Down

Supine-being “On one's Back”or“face/chest” Up

R.O.M.- “Range of Motion”-This is the directions/positions that a particular limb/body part is (naturally) capable of moving. Though further motion is “possible”, doing so will commonly cause discomfort and/or “pain”.

General Anatomical Terms of Location

  Though having had (actual) “Doctor's” as student's/instructors, the majority of our students (nor ourselves) have had (extensive) “medical” training (beyond CPR, First-Aid, AED training, etc.). We don't expect or mandate our students to acquire any themselves (we suggest that they should, for numerous reasons beyond “training”, but it is not a student requirement). None the less, we feel that a student's familiarity with (more correct/precise) terminology is important to their study of Oyata's methodology. We use the following terminology for the majority of the instructed information. Though many are “generalized” terms, we feel that a (working) familiarity with them will aid a student with any continued study (beyond that provided by us, or through conversation/debate with others).

  Many of the terms we utilize can be used (and defined) by/in different or multiple formats (though all should be obvious from contextual use).

Head -the entire appendage attached to the neck, includes  

           face/ear's/temples/jaw

Face -front of the head, includes Cheeks/Jaw/eyes/mouth/nose/ 

          forehead

Neck -the entire “joint” which attaches the head to the torso 

          (front/sides/back)

Throat -Front of the Neck

Shoulder -the entire (front/back/side) area that includes the (upper)

                  Joint of the arm

Arm -area between the elbow and the shoulder

Forearm -area between the elbow and the hand

Wrist -the “joint” between the hand and the forearm

Hand -the appendage attached to the forearm, that includes all of 

            the fingers (phalanges)

Chest -the front side of the torso, above the abdominal region

Back -the entire rear side of the torso

Waist -the area slightly higher than (but including) the abdominal 

            region

Abdomen -the front of the body below the chest (sometimes 

                   including the groin area)

Hips -the area lower than the waist, where the legs are attached to

           the body

Leg -the entire lower appendage attached to the torso via the Hips

Thigh -the upper portion of the leg that is attached to the lower 

            torso (via the waist area/hips) and to the knee (on it's lower 

            end)

Shin -the lower portion of the leg, attached to the bottom of the 

          knee and to the ankle

Ankle -the “joint” that attaches the foot to the leg

Foot -the lowest extremity that is connected to the ankle/shin

Anatomical “Joints” of the Human Body

  Though the human body contains numerous locations of motion, those that can be (easily) manipulated externally, are commonly limited to the following “14” General locations.

Neck       (1) - Limited Range Rotational “Ball & Socket”

Shoulder (2) - Limited Range “Ball & Socket”

Elbow     (2) - Flat Hinge / Limited Range (Rotational) Flat Hinge                           in relation to upper arm (side)

Wrist       (2) - Flat Hinge

Waist       (1) -Limited Range “Ball & Socket” (Mainly Forward )

Hip          (2) -Limited Range “Ball & Socket” (Mainly Forward &  

                       Limited Back/Side)

Knee       (2) - Flat Hinge

Ankle      (2) -Limited Range Flat Hinge/ “Ball & Socket”

                14

  Numerous Joints cannot (easily) be “directly” manipulated, and doing so must be achieved through the motion of those (directly) attached body/limb appendages.

Joint         Directly Manipulated Via*  (* i.e “Unnatural” Motion) commonly through 

                                                                                                                            Hyper-Extension/Flexion)

Neck       - Motion of Head

Shoulder - Motion of Arm

Elbow     - Motion of Forearm commonly in conjunction with  

                  immobilization of the Arm

Wrist      - Motion of Hand or in conjunction with the Elbow

Waist      - Motion of Upper/Lower Torso

Hip         - Motion of Thigh

Knee      - Motion of Leg or Thigh

Ankle     - Motion of Shin or Foot

  The body will “naturally” perform (particular) defensive motions/reactions to protect the body (in general). This includes motions to protect “joints/limbs” that are perceived to be in peril of injury. This includes the defensive retraction/retreat (ie.“Reactionary Retreat”) of a threatened limb, and/or the inclination to (reactively) motion the entire body (in various degrees) into a “fetal” position.

  Numerous instructed techniques and applications will take advantage of the bodies natural reactions. One's level of recognition for those motions can/will aid in the students defensive abilities.

Arm-Bar Fail

  A recent “private” conversation with my instruction associate (in regards to a recent “post” on a popular blog) reprized one of our pet peeve's (in regard to “Technique Application”). This one was in regards to “Arm-Bar” application (methods).

  The post was defining and illustrating how the author taught this technique to be applied. My associate (as well as myself) were in (almost) total disagreement with the author's interpretations and/or (his) application of the stated technique. Much of the author's arguments "for" this manner of application consist of various popular opinions on the subject. (which we disagree with...completely).

  The Author's descriptions and provided video(s) exampled the application as it is commonly being taught (by the vast majority of systems, including some present instructor's of Oyata's system).  Those systems tend to focus upon “muscling” the arm/body to the desired positioning. Though I'd be willing to bet that they would argue that point, it's fairly easy to prove (by simply watching any of the available video's, that they provide). Almost all of those examples, are of “2-point” Arm-Bars (that would be “2 points of contact”). This is the most common manner being taught for the execution of an Arm-Bar application (by the majority of systems).

  Though Oyata (also) taught the 2-point Arm-Bar, he (regularly) stressed that the 3-point Arm-Bar was superior as a (Far more effective) application. (Almost) All of the provided examples (in the article) were Frontal/Side applications, they also were (all) “muscled” (to achieve a response). This was mainly due to poor positioning (In our opinion) prior to their application. Almost all of the demonstrated applications were (again, in our opinion) Frontal Arm-bar applications (and misapplied at that).

  Considering the manner that the application was (attempted) being applied, the uke's escape method was not surprising (we've seen similar attempts made when applying Oyata's 3-point application as well, though not successfully).

  The most obvious mistake made (in our opinion) is in their “misapplication” of the Arm-Bar itself. In every provided example (whether in this article, or anywhere else the technique has been demonstrated), the persons (appear to?) don't seem to understand how a (basic) “lever” works (nor how being aware of that fact would change the manner they are attempting to achieve this technique). In each of the provided examples, they are attempting to apply a “3^rd order” category of lever. This is the least efficient manor of lever (1^st being “best/most efficient”, 3^rd being “worst/least efficient”).

  In regards to Oyata's methodology, it (directly) defies (several of) his principles for technique application.

  The “first” problem observed, is that of the tori's positioning. In none of the provided examples is the tori (in our opinion) correctly positioned before beginning the technique's application. We attribute this to (their) insistence of utilizing a 2-point Arm-Bar.  Though (obviously) possible, it is a horrendously inefficient application (and was deeply frowned upon by Oyata). The 3-point Arm-Bar (obviously) requires the correct positioning as well, but no attempt (at correcting this) was made in any of the provided examples (though it was clearly possible to accomplish that correction).

  We found it interesting that the initial “flaw” (with the application) was readily identified (the uke bending forward at the waist only), yet no attempt was made to correct that action from occurring(?). Nor was any attempt made at correcting the tori's positioning (before) applying the application. Doing so would have made it much simpler prevent the shown “counter” as well as achieve a more effective application.

  The utilization of the less efficient 3^rd class application, also (forced?) the need to “muscle” the technique (during it's application). If the uke were stronger (than the tori) in the application of this technique, it would amount to (another) probable “failure” of the technique's application. The use of a 3^rd class lever requires that the user(tori) be stronger than the recipient(uke).

  The “argument” for this manner of technique application, is that the tori will utilize nerve points (upon the levered arm) to maintain an advantage over the uke. This also mandates that the tori have a secure (and exact) hand/arm placement in addition to control of the uke's arm. If any of these are flawed, the technique (then) requires “muscular” dominance over the subject. This is (in our opinion) an obvious “flaw” in the demonstrated technique.

  The performed manor, as well as the provided explanations (for that manor) are to “us” examples as to why/how people consistently experience “problems” when attempting to perform an “Arm-Bar”. In almost every instance, the tori (in those examples) attempts the most difficult manor of technique application. It could be argued that the practitioners made the application more difficult (as well as less efficient), though I believe that it was unintentional.

  From my own perspective, I view it as “experienced” martial artists, attempting to (unnecessarily) include known information, and (force?) make it applicable to an technique. The “simpler” (easier?) and more obvious (at least to our perspective) manor of/for application is thereby ignored (or is simply dismissed due it's simplicity).

  It was Oyata's opinion (and was regularly included within his teachings) that the obvious and (very often) simplistic perspective, could just as often, be the most efficient method. The articles provided examples illustrate how that concept was surpassed in favor of an obviously “forced” manor of technique application.

Each of the provided examples attempted at least “2” (as well as more) manors of diminished effectiveness to achieve the completion of their technique applications. Each of those misapplications caused the technique to be more difficult (to accomplish) and provided more opportunity for counter-applications and/or the technique's failure.

  Does this imply that I believe the application (shown) to be without (any) value?, no. Would I teach (any) of these to my own students? And again, no (at least as a technique that one would/should/could “depend upon”). The application illustrated in the article lacked many valid uses IMO. The continued expansion (on the website) provided no further information (to correct any of the “flaws, and honestly they didn't seem to be aware of most of them either).

  From what we observed, none of the “weaknesses” that were displayed in the videos were addressed (sufficiently) to make the described application efficient or effective. 

Perception

 I am regularly tasked with explaining that Oyata's system has changed (over the past 20yrs) from what was taught during the 80's/early 90's. The Eastern manner of instruction, is one that presumes that the student will continue their training throughout their lifetime. The Western “model” is one of (only) a few years of study/practice to complete one's training in a methodology. Therefor students of/from other methodology's regularly assume that what is taught in that method, is the same as what was presented in the later years of Oyata's life (within "his" methodology).

  Patience, is a concept that Western students don't seem to subscribe to. They are easily distracted by those systems that provide supposedly “quick results” (often to unrealistic threats). Though numerous popular defenses can be easily and quickly learned, they are rarely pertinent to the situations that actually will occur. Likewise, the manner that those situations are resolved need to be both practical and Legal to utilize as well.

  Learning defenses against numerous manners of assault is a topic that needs to be included, but the average student should be focusing upon the most common of those assaults, not the extravagant (ie.”Flashy”) manners of assault that are often presented on “U-Tube” and the internet (in general).

  I regularly browse the Internet, and I see a plethora of these videos. My personal preference is to view the most “basic” of those offerings. One can tell a lot about the system being presented through those examples. “How” an instructor is having their (beginning) students perform the initial motions of the system can display a great deal about how that system is being taught, and where it is (eventually) going to evolve to.

  The information “I” provide on this blog, is (very) “basic” (in regards to our instructed material). The majority of it is material that is mentioned during “classes” (and often promptly forgotten/ignored). From the mail I receive, I know that many would like me to elaborate on (“details”) the differences in how we utilize those motions. The “problem” that I have with doing so, is that the probability of miss understanding is too great (to make it worth my time in doing so). We are more than happy to do so “in person” (and have done so numerous times), as much of that information is intermingled with additionally taught concepts and motions.

  Person's seeking the “Quick-Fix” answers (commonly to their present systems problems) are often disappointed. Those “fixes” are usually linked to additionally existing problems (that defy their systems tenet's in application).

  Many only seek to utilize “pieces” of what we teach into those systems (ie. “Tuite”, “Kyusho”, etc.). I liken it to taking parts from a “Ford” truck, and trying to make it work on a “Toyota” coupe. The parts look similar, but they just don't fit!. It would require an extensive modification of the existing vehicle (system) for those parts to function. It might be able to be done, but (why?) it's doubtful that it will function as intended. If that “part” is really desired, why not change vehicles? If your wanting that part to function (as designed), change vehicles (systems).

  The majority of people realize this, and when many of those (minor) “details” are shown, they immediately write them off as “not important”,or trivial and/or not relevant to what “they” do.  We've encountered very few individual's who (actually) research their presently practiced/instructed applications. It is far more common, that individual's will teach those methods/techniques exactly as (they were) taught. Very few (and that's being kind), are able to define/explain “all” of the pertinent motions involved with those instructed motions. We tend to blame this on the (popular) “2-3 year Black Belt” manor of instruction. It has (in our opinion) greatly lowered the (general) level of knowledge available in present Yudansha.

  We understand that the vast majority of students, attend a “for profit” school. There's nothing wrong in doing so, but (the majority of) those establishments are in “business” to make a profit (whether to “pay-bill's”, or make a living through). The average “time of study/class attendance” is between 6 months and 3 years (despite what many claim). If/when a student can't achieve their “goal” (ie. A “Black-Belt”) during that time, they “quit” and (commonly) move on (whether to cease their study completely, or to begin with another system). Those are the same people that (obsess?) are so concerned with getting a “Black Belt” (and after having done so, will then quit).

  When person has come to us to “compare” their applications (to what we teach), it amounts to them demonstrating a motion, and wanting to see how “we” teach it to be done (or what we utilize in comparison to that motion). This isn't (really) an accurate comparison. There are numerous factors that determine whether an (even a “simple”) application is utilized. We can compare “details” of that application, but the differences are usually (more) in regards to the entire defensive action (as opposed to the individual “piece” of the action).

  Those pieces should also include Stances and Body Motion (without even getting into the responses of the Uke). Undue focus is commonly placed upon the motion(s) of the Tori “hand's” (only). Though those motions are important, they are not the only necessary motions (to make the application function correctly).

  During the latter years of his instruction, Oyata spent a great deal of time upon those “details” (of motion) during the application of the instructed technique's. Many were in regard to what we now refer to as “Force Efficiency”. A large number were (simply?) methods of achieving motion deception. These were designed to mask the tori's intended motion. They also dealt with hiding one's ability to even perform those actions .

  When one studies these methods, it examples those displayed traits/motions if/when performed by an opponent. They become instilled defensive actions (to be observed in an opponents actions). This is what I see when watching the various “live” examples presented “on-line”. I see opportunities that are commonly ignored/dismissed (within those “example” videos).

  For those that follow the “sport sparring” ideal (of confrontation practice), those methods that I am referring to, are (easily?) commonly dismissed as “unimportant”. If/when one has allowed a confrontation to dissolve into that manor of conflict (ie."sparring"), they have (already) missed/ignored bringing the conflict to a quick resolve.

  Though sounding counter-productive, body/stance “change”, is (often) taught/learned prior to hand motion. Though commonly taught as being done in conjunction (with one another), there is a “lag” between the two. Oyata usually taught “Hands before Feet” (in application/use). Though commonly the situation, these could be “swapped” (depending upon the pending circumstance). It was with the premise that the range of practice should (initially) be done at “arm's length” (between the tori and uke) during practice of the instructed technique's. It quickly becomes obvious, that there is rarely a “simultaneous” use of both. The (additional) use of “hip-rotation” (what we refer to as “hip-shimmy”) was discouraged as well. It is considered (and shown) to be counter-productive to technique efficiency. The majority of these items are rarely taught (or even covered) in many systems, often as a result of the practice of applications being done under (what we would consider to be) “unrealistic” conditions, and with equally “unrealistic” expectations. 

Including “Force Efficiency” with Applications

  To further expand on the concept of Force Efficiency, one must begin at How this concept is best achieved. Beginning with efficient motion, one must understand how each limb is able to motion. Limbs are combinations of different “Joints” (where the bones of the limb's are attached to one another). Both the Hips, and the shoulders are limited range “ball & socket” joints. This allows for rotation in multiple directions, but forward/rearward motion are the main (intended) directions of motion. The Elbow and the knee's allow for full contraction, and restricted extension (allowing those limbs to “straighten” only). The wrist and ankles only allow a limited amount of forward/rearward flexion and extension with little (if any) rotation. The elbow's and the knee's are where the feet and the hands are allowed their respective rotational abilities through the arm and leg's dual bones attachment at the elbow and knee respectively (the wrist and ankle are limited in their individual rotational ability).

  Though the degree of those ranges may vary between individual's, they are (regardless) all similar between individual's. The greatest amount of variance between people will be their individual muscular capabilities (i.e. “strength”). In order to develop (or confirm) the validity of a technique/application, muscular “strength” should not be a mandate for a technique's effectiveness (nor the ability to perform it). This is the most common mistake made with many exampled “Tuite” applications.

  Understanding the limb's motion ranges will define how that limb can be used in an offensive motion. That motion is most commonly an extension (of the limb) to deliver the desired momentum/force. Being that the elbow and the knee are (essentially) flat hinges (they only open/close in their respective “2” directions), the shoulder and the hip are the determining “joints” for directional delivery of that extension. Impactive range, is determined through the rotation of the arm bone at the shoulder joint or the thigh bone (at the hip) for the (respective) hand/foot.

  Once this is understood (recognized), the use of these limb's (to deliver/resist strikes) is determined by the fact that those motions are most effectively accomplished in (either) a forward (extension) and to a very limited degree, a rearward (extended) direction. If/when that direction is varied beyond being done in a (directly) forward direction (for the arms), the amount of energy is increasingly diminished (dependent upon the degree of that variance from being done directly forward).

  “Understanding” that the body is most efficient when correctly aligned, it is imperative to understand the optimal way(s) to correct/compensate the entire body's positioning to deliver a strike/motion (when the direction of delivery varies from the optimal direction of doing so, i.e. directly forward).

  Optimal alignment can not always be achieved (during an altercation). For that reason numerous manners of correcting one's “alignment” are taught to students. The instructed kata illustrate many of those positions and are often questioned by practitioner's (during their instruction). It should be realized (remembered?) that the kata contain numerous “tidbits” of instruction. This is why I view many of the “direct application” (following exact motion) interpretations (i.e. “bunkai”) with doubt (if not disfavor).

  Oyata taught that kata motion was (more often than not) only “bits and pieces” of technique's and application. This is why research was required to understand what was being exampled in the Kata's motion.

  Having a basic understanding of Force Efficiency (which entails numerous subjects and details itself) is imperative to one's ability to perform effective techniques (and interpret effective “bunkai”).

 Though we only briefly touched on this subject in our first book ("The Six Basic Principles of Tuite"), our continuing series of "Technique and Application" books are going to address Oyata's defensive body motions and principles/applications more deeply (in various related topics/subjects).

Defining “Force Efficiency”

  Having received (numerous) questions in regards to what I'm referencing to (when stating “Force Efficiency”), I will attempt to explain the concept, as we interpret it.

  The human body is designed to move in particular directions efficiently (with force and ease). Though fully able to (physically) motion in additional directions, those directions are awkward if not (obviously) weak and uncomfortable. Despite this recognized fact, particular motions (technique's?) are shown to be performed in manners that (attempt to) defy their natural manner of motion. This results in “techniques” that are inefficient and weak. Though the body and it's limbs are capable of motioning in numerous directions, that fact should not imply that each of those (possible) motions are efficiently accomplished (nor even desirable).

  This was one of the most emphasized points of Oyata's instruction. It is related to everything that Oyata taught (stances, motion, technique, kata etc.). It was this understanding that defined “Force Efficiency”. We began using the term to define Oyata's descriptions of how/why he instructed particular motions to be performed. The concept is essentially the recognition of how the body naturally performs an action or attains a position (whether the entire body, or a particular limb or appendage). It additionally defines/examples the bodies weaknesses.

  To begin to understand this concept, one need only observe their own body and limbs. Through simple observation, one can establish what positions/motions are natural and which are awkward/weak. This is also evident in what positions are uncomfortable (if not painful) when achieved. Each (individual) limb has (different) Ranges of Motion (R.O.M.). Those ranges dictate how (if not why) a motion should be performed to achieve the most from the action.

  When understood, this concept will illustrate how/why Oyata taught stances and technique's to be performed. This included how one should motion (footwork) when moving in kata (which further illustrated Oyata's defensive principles) and the relationship to the instructed defensive motions.

  As an example, if one stands in a “natural stance”, and rotates their shoulders (to face more to their side), the body is “out of alignment”. The hips and the shoulders are “out of alignment”. This makes any action performed (with either the arm's or the leg's) weaker. This situation is regularly exampled by individual's when performing an action incorrectly. When this situation occurs (and it is commonly done), it is often not even noticed by the individual doing so.

  When told to “correct” the situation, the individual will commonly move the shoulders to achieve the desired alignment. This is “one” way to achieve alignment, but what if the shoulders are (already) in correct alignment? (for the performed “hand” technique/application). That situation requires that the “hips” be realigned. Rotation of the hips is not (necessarily) achieved (nor even able to be done) by moving the hips (alone). To rotate the hips, one need only rotate the appropriate heel (of one of the feet) to attain the desired “hip” positioning.

  This is illustrated by how Oyata would have us “modify” a back-stance. When one assumes the (commonly instructed) “Back-stance”, the forward foot is positioned to point forward, and the rear foot is positioned at a 45º. When this position is taken, the hip's are aligned at a 45º as well. Students will commonly have their shoulders “squared” with the opponent (directly in front of them), ie. Their “hip's” are out-of-alignment with their shoulders (or with the opponent), and (presumably) with the direction that a technique will be directed.  

 To “correct” this misalignment, the forward foot is rotated (“heel-in”, towards the opposite side). Doing so realigns the hips, to become “square” with the shoulders. The torso is now in alignment and able to more effectively deliver an (hand/arm) application. With many of the instructed technique's (and kata), similar minor corrections are required to achieve this “body alignment” (ie. “Force Efficiency”).

  The “mistake” that is commonly made, is that person's will argue that they don't feel that they can deliver as “powerful” of a strike (as that is what the majority of practitioner's gauge “effectiveness” upon). They base this “belief” on how (much) they feel the technique (that they are performing). This is a mistaken perception. The fact that you are “feeling” the technique, demonstrates that not all of the generated energy/momentum is being transferred to the targeted subject/object. This explains that when a technique is delivered correctly, the user perceives little (if any) effort (on their part). This also demonstrates why the “hip shimmy” (when delivering a strike) is an ineffective (and wasted) motion.

  The term “Force Efficiency” encompasses numerous individual factors, but they all are related to one's ability to most effectively apply an instructed application or perform a motion. 

 

Variables

  Oyata's methodology was comprised of numerous (seemingly) “minor” variables that effected the over-all application of the instructed motions. Those additions effected the level of force efficiency available to the student, and the effectiveness of the instructed motions/techniques.

 The manner that defensive techniques are commonly taught, begins with the first “strike” being thrown. A confrontation rarely “begins” with (only) the performance of a “strike”. It is (much) more common for a confrontation to begin with a verbal exchange (between the aggressor and the student). It is during that exchange that numerous factors and opportunities are presented.

 Students are commonly taught (by “many” systems) that they should raise their hands (defensively?) to protect themselves. Though seeming to be a wise choice, it is (additionally) raising the belief (by the aggressor) that one is ready for any impending physical confrontation (essentially conveying a “let's fight” attitude).

 This also relates to our instruction (to students) to practice at a distance of “arm's length” (from an opponent). This is commonly an uncomfortable distance for most people. It is a passive/aggressive positioning. It (for many persons) will cause the aggressor to step/motion their striking shoulder back when initiating a strike (in order to create greater distance to launch a head strike).

 Oyata taught that one should initially leave their hands (down) at their sides. If an aggressor should raise their hands (first), that would modify that positioning choice. But until that occurs, a defender's hands should remain down. For “most” person's, this seems a stupid choice/decision. (Via Oyata,) that is because people ignore many of the telegraphed “signs” of an aggressor actually beginning their assault.

 During an actual confrontation, “body motion” is often exaggerated. The initially made motions (prior to the delivery of a strike) are studied, and the observance of their occurrence are practiced during class (which is another purpose of “class time technique practice”). As with many subjects (being taught), students tend to focus upon the “ending” portion of an action/technique (whether these are done by themselves, or by the uke).

 A great portion of Oyata's instruction was in masking (hiding?) any telegraphed signs of body/technique movement. This was done in conjunction with maintaining the highest level available of/for “force efficiency”. It was this instruction that led Oyata to modify the manner that Kata were taught to be performed. Some have stated that this was reserved to/for “higher” level students, this is inaccurate. He stated (to numerous people/instructors) that these were to be taught to all students (Oyata did not “restrict” any teachings to higher level students or instructor's).

 The concept of “force efficiency” was to be integrated into all instruction. It is initially demonstrated to students during the instruction of Tuite techniques. If/when this concept is ignored or taught incorrectly, the efficiency of a technique is restricted (if not prevented) from being applicable. This is one of numerous factors that are (often) being taught incorrectly.

 The most easily seen indication of an impending strike, is the motion of an aggressor's shoulders. Though the hand/forearm can motion with (some) rapidity, the shoulder will telegraph this action (prior to it's occurrence). Numerous system's teach a “hip” shimmy/rotation when delivering a strike. This was something that Oyata railed on (in regards to it being pointless, if not detrimental).

 There was a recent article I saw in relation to “hip positioning” presented in a group that I belong to. It focused upon the “forward” stance (zenkutsu dachi). It attempted to explain the positioning of the hips, in relation to the spine. The article ignored the (major) detrimental effects of the described positioning, and the flaws that were evident, even in their “correction” (and were clearly evident in the provide photos). The article (IMO) only demonstrated the flaws that were present in how the stance was being taught to be performed, and that the writer didn't really understand the (important) point that wasn't even addressed (in the article). Though easily corrected, they never mentioned how that could/should be done. It was (again, IMO) an example of “limited interest/understanding” (much like the student who only looks at the hands during the performance of a Tuite technique).

 Oyata (as within “most” systems) taught that every technique is an entire body motion. The individual subjects taught within a martial art (regardless of the “system”), are not “independent” and should not be taught as being such. All subjects are to be utilized in conjunction with one another. The “feet” are not the only part of the body used in the delivery of a kick. Nor are the “hands” the only body part used in delivering a “strike or grab”. Every aspect of the body's positioning and motion must be included in every utilized action. It was this subject that Oyata emphasized the most in his instructed method.

 This was the (main) emphasis of “Force Efficiency”. It consists of numerous factors that every student should understand. If/when they are not incorporated within each of one's defensive motions, the technique's effectiveness (or even applicability) becomes questionable. When I observe techniques presented by others, the first thing I observe is the practitioner's available “Force Efficiency”. It includes numerous factors, including body/limb positioning and use, as well as how or if, muscular “strength” plays a part in the motions success (or failure).

 The vast majority of other "popular" systems rely on muscular strength for their techniques success. For our instructive purposes, that factor alone would negate a technique's practicality (much less the instruction of it). To best understand how Force Efficiency is ataintained, the student must be familiar with each of their limb's R.O.M., and the related muscles utilized in their usage. Every limb has (both) effective directions of use, and less than effective directions. Many practitioner's conflate the two, and perform numerous ineffective actions, and/or don't realize how inefficient those actions (actually) are.

 When one examines the limbs individually, their respective limitations should become readily apparent. The fact that a limb can achieve a particular position, does not equate to it generating any “force” (momentum) while doing so. The most prominent example of this is what we refer to, as being a forearm strike (to the outside). This motion is more commonly referred to as being an outside “block” by most systems. As it is commonly taught (as a same-side forearm strike to the outer side/direction) this motion is an incredibly ineffective motion (for much of any purpose, including deflections/parries).

 When one understands how the Bone's, muscles and joints of the arm (physically) function, it becomes readily apparent that the arm is designed and intended to extend and/or contract. That ability is primarily intended to either be done in a “forward” (or away from the body) extension, or in a “pulling” contraction (towards the body). For purposes of “Striking” (an aggressor), the extension of the limb provides the easiest ability to do, unfortunately it is also  not how most instructor's teach this motion to be achieved. Much of this mistake is made because of person's using “pictures” for reference on how to perform this action.
 Book references, commonly illustrate “start” positions, and “ending” positions (for arm motions). The required “travel arc” is dismissed, and an assumption is made that the arm achieves that position in any manner that the individual chooses. This is commonly done the easiest way (duh), and it becomes a sideways motion (in order to attain the shown position). The manner that many are doing so, is both weak, and pointless (accomplishing neither the intent of the action, nor anything of value).

 The motion should be performed in a forward direction. To achieve the desired result (motioning the aggressor's arm to the left or right) requires that the tori rotate (their own body) when performing the (arm's) forward motion. As a result of the tori's rotation, their arm (should) perform the preferred forward motion (to deflect the aggressor's arm). By making this (the tori's arm) a forward action, it can additionally be utilized as a striking motion (as opposed to being only a deflection of the aggressor's arm). This is also why Oyata stated that “Inside/Outside block (strike) same”...

 This exemplifies the concept of Force efficiency. There are (numerous) other factors shown as well, but this is one of the easiest to example and understand.

“Realistic” Self-Defense Factors

  The majority of students that choose to attend a “martial arts” school, are people wanting to learn to learn a method of protecting themselves (and/or their loved one's) if they should become involved in a physical confrontation. That instruction is commonly centered upon that confrontation being with someone not known to them (ie. A “random” encounter) and that the aggressor does so with criminal intent. The statistics actually refute that assumption.

  Examining available police statistics and reports, the most common physical confrontation will be with individuals known (often intimately) to the victim. This should in no way dismiss the occurrence of random acts of physical violence by individuals (previously) unknown to the student, only that the “odds” are, that it will be most often with someone with whom the student will have some manner of relationship with.

  When students begin their study, they will often envision an unknown individual as being their aggressor, and their study/practice will often be centered upon that premise. Aside from being unrealistic, this attitude can prove to be detrimental (in regards to accomplishing that goal).

  Many of the “popular” schools/methodology's capitalize upon this (mistaken) premise and emphasize the use of applications that are excessive in their (physical) effects (upon the aggressor). Students exposed to (only) this manner of instruction, will often respond to a (less than serious) confrontation with excessive force/responses.  

 Though accomplishing the “basic” premise of protecting the student, it places the student at (greater) risk of legal repercussions. This is often justified by a declaration of “better safe than sorry”... which is a very “jingle-esk”, but is also unrealistic itself.

  Other than a law enforcement official, the “common” citizen is rarely involved in a “life-threatening” situation. Official statistics will verify this, serious acts of violence have steadily decreased over the past 20 years. That's not to say it doesn't occur, only that the “odds” of being in a random “life-threatening” situation are very small.

  The most commonly occurring physical confrontation will be with persons known to the victim (often being a “relative/partner” of the victim). Although this can escalate to being a life threatening situation, they more commonly are not. The majority of deaths (that do occur during these altercations) are more commonly accidental with no intent (of death) existing. That shouldn't imply that they are less serious (when they do occur), only that the manner that they should be responded to is often different than those that occur with a stranger.

  Though the average student believes that they are training to combat a stranger, the statistics show that they are more often likely to be involved with someone known to them. This will effect the manner and types of techniques that they will feel comfortable with using. If/when they are only taught those techniques that are (only) designed to “work” by causing serious injury (damage) to the aggressor, they are essentially left “defenseless”. “I” believe this is the result of instruction that is intended to (only) meet the “popular” opinion of defensive method(s) that emphasis those techniques that cause/create serious (physical) results.

  At our school, we provide greater emphasis on the student's response to (more) commonly encountered initial aggressive actions (as opposed to the unrealistic “sparring” types of dueling confrontations, that in 35+ years of experience, including those in “security/protective” positions, has never occurred).

  For the past 20 years of instruction, we have taught on the model of there being 2 (basic) types of confrontation. We have recently (for the past 4 +/- years) been using the “model” of a confrontation being either a “Predator”or an “Alpha” type of confrontation. “We” didn't establish this model, but we did feel it was a very relevant standard to utilize (see an explanation/definition of this model at “http://lowtechcombat.com"). 

  These amount to being a method of defining the “type” of confrontation that one will be involved in. This is important, in that it helps define how a student should respond to a situation that they find themselves in.

  What we've found, is that the majority of methodology's and instructor's teach their students on the “Predator” model of defensive instruction. But the reality is that the majority of physical confrontations are (more often) of the “Alpha” variety. This is important in that it defines how/what should be taught to the average student.

  This (additionally) fits (very nicely) with how Oyata taught us to utilize his instructed techniques and applications. Oyata emphasized that one's ability in the use of Tuite was vitally important in one's ability to defend themselves. Additionally, a higher level of skill in that ability would protect an aggressor as well (in addition to providing the defender with greater legal protection). This in no way diminished the importance of the instructed “striking” techniques, only that those non-striking (ie. Tuite) techniques were of more common utilization.

  Unfortunately (IMO), the majority of systems relegate these (types of) techniques to a “beginner” (if not “amateur”) level. Because of this, the majority of practitioners and instructor's (in our opinion) possess only limited ability in it's use and application. Instead, they emphasize the “Punchy-Kicky” types of defense as being the “main” method for students to utilize.

  Much of this belief, comes from (instructors) believing that the instances that it (Tuite) can be utilized (only) occur in the manner that they are (commonly) taught. That is the fault of the instructor, not the technique. The manner a technique is learned/reviewed during a class, is (most often) for the purposes of learning how/why a technique can (or can't) work. Person's who have been in physical confrontations (should) know that “grab's” occur during a confrontation on a regular basis. The fact that they are ignored (during those confrontations), is the fault of the instructor not the student.

  Additionally, those situations (“grabs/pushes”) can often be created by the defender, thereby negating an eminent “striking” situation. This is another training aspect that is often ignored/not recognized.

  A great deal of our frustration with how Tuite is being taught, is that we (regularly) encounter persons who claim that a (Tuite) technique will “not work on/for them”. This is (in every instance that we have encountered) the result of a technique being miss/incorrectly-applied. The second most commonly encountered situation, is if/when the person is attempting to utilize “strength/power” to achieve a result (with the techniques application). This occurs (almost exclusively) with “male” practitioners.

  Every Tuite technique taught, should be equally applicable (by every student) upon any other student (including instructors) regardless of any size/strength differential between those persons (tori or uke).

 If/when a technique is dependent upon “speed” (of execution), this too illustrates a lack of understanding (of the technique). Thus, “practice” of the instructed techniques need not be done quickly.  

 This doesn't imply that the techniques use is performed slowly, only that practice of the technique need not be done quickly to achieve the desired result (and thus allows for longer practice periods of the techniques, and will diminish the possibility of student injury while doing so).

  Slow practice requires that the Tuite technique be performed (more) correctly. It additionally will demonstrate any possible “counters” (and how to avoid them) that become evident when the student is performing an incorrect motion (during the students performance of the technique).

  The time that the “average” class devotes to the practice of Tuite, is commonly a (very) few minutes (30 minutes +/- is “average”). Including the instruction of the basic motions involved, the average time we spend for any of the instructed (Tuite) techniques, is commonly an hour. That isn't (just) the “basic” motion of the technique. It includes instruction/demonstration of the most commonly made mistakes made, as well as the resultant “counters” attempted (because of those mistaken application manners).

  It has become “common” to teach strikes to be included with a Tuite techniques application. We do so as well, but they are not a “mandate” for the application to work (and are not included during the initial instruction of a technique). They are only taught as a distraction and/or addition to a techniques application. They should never be considered to be mandatory to achieving a successful (Tuite) techniques application (particularly during “practice” of the shown technique).

  Although numerous Tuite applications can be (initially) “learned” in a single session (class), we have found that continued repetition of a techniques practice is necessary to instill a students “immediate” response/reaction to the techniques (“grab/pushes”) utilization. Each technique should be be attempted in every possible circumstance to establish a “familiarity” for it's use/application by the student.

Syncronicity

  The practice of Oriental Brush Calligraphy has numerous correlations to the practice of a martial art. In his book, Taika had mentioned one of his instructors lessons that related to a particular “kanji”, exampling a technique's motions. Though not necessarily being a consistent analogy, when used as a (mental) exercise in motion application, it can expand one's conceptions of those motions in regards to (kata) motion interpretation, or even “Bunkai”.

  Oyata taught us that kata motion(s) represented various applications/motions. Those motions were (most often) required to be used in combination with “other” motions (from the same or from “other” instructed kata). Depending upon which (other) motion it was being utilized with, would determine the motions interpretation. There was rarely (if ever) only a “single” interpretation for any of the instructed kata motions. That interpretation would be dependent upon which other kata motion it was to be utilized with.

  For the majority of practitioners, knowing a single interpretation for each kata motion, is more than adequate to satisfy their level of study. As an instructor, that inquiry level should go (much) deeper.  

 Different instructor's utilize different methods to decipher the kata motions. Those interpretations should be made in conjunction to a set of standards (to establish a theorized motions validity) as well. Too often (IMO), so-called “Bunkai” are being demonstrated that are completely impractical (if even applicable) for the average student.

  In order to (effectively) utilize this meme, one must establish a set of standards that will equate to any/every students abilities (male/female, young/old, strong/weak, large/small, etc.). Though these “standards” are subject to a students willingness to practice the technique's execution, the (typical) physical differences between subjects should make little, to no difference (in a technique's application and/or effectiveness).

  As a student progresses in their study, they (typically) will tend to expand their practice/study methods to include different manners of practice that can/will broaden their understanding of their chosen art.

  Brush Calligraphy is a very comfortable analogy to Oyata's Life Protection System. It is very easy to correlate the manner of brush manipulations used to create the kanji, to the hand/body motions that are seen in his system.

  Just as a kanji can be brushed in several “styles” (of writing), a kata motion can be utilized in several different manner's of technique application. In one, it may represent a “strike”, and in another a grab. To limit one's understanding of a motion, to being (only) a single interpretation, is to limit one's abilities in applying that motion.

  If one examines the 4 most commonly used “styles” of brushing the kanji, they will see 4 different methods of using a brush (when brushing kanji in each of those styles). This is akin to Oyata's instruction of technique/bunkai application (ie. There can be different ways to apply the same motion, that can result in “similar”, but different results).

  Though hardly a precise correlation, the practice of brush calligraphy contains numerous similarities to the study of any protective/defensive art (in Japan, Shodo is a required skill to be practiced by students of Kendo/Iaido). When one compares the writing styles of the brush, to a students progression through (learning) a martial art, those similarities become more apparent.

  Relating to the practice of “kata” (as an example), the motions are taught individually, one at a time. This is similar to how “Kaisho” (the “block-style of brushing kanji) is done. As the student improves in their understanding of the kata motions, they are shown to “group” those motions (into various sections). This is similar to how “Gyosho” (the “semi-cursive” style of brushing kanji) is brushed, often “combining” several individual strokes into one. As the student becomes more competent in those motions, they will combine all the instructed motions, to create a continuously moving exercise. This is most like “Sosho” (the “fully-cursive” style of brushing kanji). Like the kata, Sosho intends to give the appearance of one continuous brush motion across the page.

  I tend to utilize my (own) practice of Shodo, to example the similarities to how the practice of kata are being practiced, not as something I will be required to replicate, but as something that can enhance my study/understanding for the practice and use of the open-hand art that was taught to us by Oyata.

 The provided kanji and kana shown here, are simple but will directly illustrate several examples of this correlation to Oyata's Defensive methodology. The first (the Hiragana for "no") examples the 2-hand defensive motion, and the second ("ichi") examples Oyata's "Milking Punch". 
 This should not imply that technique is limited to (or even determined by) "kanji". Only that with experience, one will begin to see technique associations in numerous (different) types of applications. This is just one of those methods that will provide instruction in a "different" skill set as well.