Bad Teaching

  The failure of a Tuite application can occur because of numerous reasons. The most common reason is from miss-application. The ability to apply this type of technique requires a good deal of practice to utilize it correctly. The most common “remedy” (for most systems) is the inclusion of a strike. This doesn't fix the Tuite technique, but it provides time to (either) correct the application, or change to one that would then work.

  Unfortunately for many students, the inclusion of a strike has (or creates the appearance of) become the only way that they can use the Tuite (like) applications that they have been taught. Most often this is because they aren't aware of what (exactly) it is that they are doing incorrectly with the (Tuite) application.

  Numerous systems have delegated the role of Tuite applications to a third or even fourth grade/level (priority?) of technique usage/application. This is usually because the systems priority, is how/when to utilize the instructed “strikes”.The majority of this (IMO) is the general belief that a “martial”art is a (yet another) method of “striking” an aggressor. The majority of time spent in training, is in relation to learning how to strike an aggressor. 

 This obviously is a part of learning how to defend one's self, but depending on how one trains this (striking) is only a small part of that (or any) defensive method.

  Being the most dramatic, and the fact that it is the easiest for (new) students to understand, it is what most students spent the most time working on. Most any (new) student knows some way to “hit” someone. It (usually) isn't the most efficient, but they are able to deliver some manner of a punch. This means the instructor only has to “modify” the manor that the student is presently using (to reflect the manor that the system prefers a strike to be delivered). The ability to apply a Tuite technique requires a great deal more practice. The motions are not commonly as natural as student's expect(?) them to be.

  The manor that many systems teach (their) Tuite (types of) techniques varies. The most common is that they are practiced quickly, and applied with force. In (actual) use, that would be fine, but for the purpose of practice it is counter-productive. Class-time practice is intended to learn and understand how and why those applications work. Just as with practicing a kata, Oyata would commonly tell us to slow down (when practicing Tuite applications).

  I believe much of the confusion came about because Oyata would demonstrate the techniques (for us) quickly (so that we would see what it would look like when utilized). This is not how he intended us to practice them (and clearly said so every time we were working on them). You don't get into a car (when first learning how to drive) and “floor” the accelerator until you arrive at your destination.

  Students tend to view a Tuite application as a whole. Just as when studying/practicing a kata, you break the technique down into individual pieces. Every Tuite application has a set-up stage, an engagement stage and an application stage. If/When these three stages are completed (correctly) the student can then apply a variety of Follow-up applications (dependent upon the situation). Although it is possible to blur (or even screw-up) individual sections of an application (and still have it “work”). Until those sections are successfully completed, the control and/or neutralization of the uke cannot be secured.

  I've read numerous articles from “instructors” that proclaim that without striking (the uke) in conjunction with a (any) Tuite application, it will likely fail. Aside from being a very pessimistic view, it excuses the premiss that the student/tori failed to initially apply the Tuite application correctly.

  It's equally popular for instructor's (when a technique repeatedly fails) to not accept that “they” applied the technique incorrectly. It's more common for them to blame the uke (?) and they will make the claim that the uke, is an “anomaly”. I've had numerous students (and others) who have made this “claim” (to me), stating that Tuite doesn't work on them. After eliminating the unrealistic scenarios (that would never occur, or that wouldn't require a defensive response anyhow), I would ask to see their “anomaly” in response to me applying the technique (and BTW, I do so slowly, I have no desire to cause them injury). I have never had an application fail to function as expected. 

 There have been situations where those applications were (slightly) modified (which isn't unusual for any technique), but I have always elicited the response I desired. I have also (always) applied the technique in a slow, controlled manor (again, it was not my desire to cause injury). If they had actually been an “anomaly”, it would of made no difference what speed I applied the technique. Tuite techniques (at least Oyata's) are not dependent upon speed (or power) for their successful application.

  When I see these “seminar master's” (literally) slamming their students to the ground, I am appalled (as an instructor). This is not “instruction”, it is (only) abuse and/or for feeding the Ego of the instructor.

  Many (if not most) schools that teach some manner of Tuite (whether Oyata's or not) have their students practice those applications quickly (and even emphasize the need for that speed). When doing so, this reduces the amount of time that can be devoted to that study. It additionally ignores the student's understanding of the individual pieces of the techniques being practiced.
 That which you don't understand, is inclined to fail.

Seminar

 At the recent seminar that we were invited to teach at, we provided a (very) brief synopsis of our 6 Principles of Tuite. The attendee's were comprised of practitioner's from several different groups and had members from Ryu Te® as well as several other Okinawan practitioner groups. 
 I assisted in the presentation for our 1hr. "block". My associate provided the (far too brief) lecture in addition to the general instruction of practice that we had the attendees perform. Following the lecture, he and I (in addition to another of our Ryu Te®  Yudansha , aka "Lisa") circulated among the attending participants providing individual instruction and explanation for what had been shown. 
 We didn't have (nearly) sufficient time to provide that guidance to every attendee, but I believe most everyone who approached us directly received satisfactory answers to their questions. 
 Not every participant had read our book prior to attending this seminar, but we did sell a number of copies that we had brought with us immediately following our instructional "block".
 A number of the Ryu Te® members were particularly interested in more detailed instruction on (what has been "named") the bunny-hop motion. It was this motion that the majority of attendees were unaware of how to implement (and were therefore misapplying it). 
 Once this was demonstrated to (and upon them) they were able to quickly apply it to their own performance of the motion. 
  If the situation had allowed for more time, I believe we could have detailed each of the 6 Principles more clearly. As it was, I believe the attendees received a decent "run through" of the Principles. 
 The majority of the other presentations were in regards to "weapons". Having little personal interest in those subjects, I didn't participate in those sessions. Therefore I believe it would be unfair for me to provide any opinion in their regard. I did participate in a couple of the sessions that addressed different "unarmed" applications, but I believe other's could provide better accounts of them. 
 In this blog, I tend to focus on (Oyata's method of) Tuite. It's not intended to be an intentional snub of what else was presented, only that those subjects just don't directly relate to my own interests. 
 Over all, the event was interesting and informative. I spoke with a number of the participants afterword, and all (that I spoke to) were very pleased with what was presented (in each of the provided subjects). The Ormaza Dojo presents several of these types of seminars throughout the year, and I would suggest that they are worth attending (at the very least, to meet/converse with the attendees from other groups that regularly participate in them). 
 Oyata's Association (if not it's members) have acquired a (IMO, undeserved) reputation for being stand-off "ish". This is despite the fact that numerous Ryu Te® members (regularly) attend the seminars of other organizations, and allow the attendance of persons from "other" organizations at seminars that our members provide and instruct at. 
 Unfortunately, persons who have had only little (if any) connection to Oyata, have been claiming to be teaching his methodology for Tuite techniques (at their seminars). What those individuals are teaching is not what Oyata taught to us as being "Tuite". In their eyes, I'm sure that their techniques do exactly what they are expecting them to do, that doesn't mean that those techniques equate to what/how Oyata taught his manner of Tuite to be performed. 
 Our goal is to clarify that distinction (between technique/execution styles). We are additionally hoping to provide our own (Tuite specific) seminar here (Kansas City, Mo.) this summer/fall. When plans are finalized, I will provide information in regards to that event here (and I'm sure on "Facebook" as well, LOL). 












  

Methodology

 Seeing that we are about to leave town to conduct another tuite seminar (teaching our 6 Principles of Tuite), I decided to see what has been recently promoted among similarly provided seminars over the past few months (if not years). I usually do so just to prepare myself for the most commonly asked (types of) questions and comments that we are likely to receive (in comparison/regards to those alternate methods).

 Aside from the commonly (and mistakenly) made correlation to “Kyusho”, the only other methodology currently being offered is the manner being promoted by the DKS/ Ryukyu Kenpo school(s).

IMO, what they are presenting is their own version of “ToriTe”, and not Oyata's Tuite. They (regularly) imply that it is derived from Oyata's methodology (via GD), but it is implemented very differently. This is evidenced through their (subsequent) instructional seminars, and the publicly provided information in regards to that implementation.

 I am curious to see if anyone is "still" using the (incorrect) "anomaly" excuse for when their technique's fail (that's always good for a laugh). 

 Understanding Oyata's method of application for his form of Tuite, requires more than attendance at a weekend/day/”?”-hour seminar. Unfortunately, the seminar that we will be teaching at this weekend, is itself limited in the time being allowed for us to teach.

 Our own (minimum) allotted time is (usually) 4 hours (for instruction of the 6 Principles of Tuite). This allows us to teach/explain each of those 6 (basic) Principles fully, and can provide sufficient time for the students to apply those principles in the application of individual techniques (and the allows the time necessary to provide individual instruction/correction of the principles within those applications). Each of the 6 Principles contain elements that can facilitate a techniques application (when done correctly) or can/will prevent it's occurrence when done incorrectly.

 What is commonly being taught (by others) are seemingly vague suggestions, that don't provide students with solid “Right/Wrong” guidelines to refer to while practicing a techniques application (or providing guidelines in how they should correct their application of them). The 6 Basic Tuite Principles were designed to provide those guidelines for students to refer to while learning/refining their own application of an instructed technique.

 Oyata emphasized that Tuite (techniques) are not dependent upon the size or strength of (either) the student (tori) nor their opponent (uke). Many of the commonly taught methods emphasize the use of speed for (their) techniques to even work. Oyata's (Tuite) techniques had no such “requirement”. ALL of Oyata's Tuite techniques can be performed slowly (and be easily controlled) when done correctly. Though speed would be a consideration if/when using those techniques in an actual defensive situation, it is far from necessary in a training (I.E. learning) situation (and could be considered detrimental in many cases).

 I am regularly confronted with (supposed) students from the years following Oyata's initial arrival (mid-late “70's”/early 80's”, and yes, I was there as well). Their arguments against this (slow-speed) manner of practice is based upon (their own) misunderstanding of Oyata's instructional methods. Oyata (at seminars) would commonly demonstrate a technique (doing so commonly at ½ to ¾ speed), and he would then have everyone (attempt to) reproduce what he had just demonstrated. He would also state that students should practice slowly, until they understood what was involved with making the technique work (correctly). "That" portion of his instruction was (usually) disregarded by those attendee's.

 Because most would fail at their own implementation of the technique (when doing so slowly), they would be inclined to speed up their attempts (to achieve some sort of result). That increase of speed would additionally include a (generous) use of muscular strength (if not physical weight) as well. The vast majority of Oyata's form of Tuite techniques can be performed (incredibly) sloppily, and still achieve a “reaction” (by the uke). That reaction is rarely the optimal/preferred reaction, but any reaction is often sufficient (I.E. “good-enough”) for those who don't really understand what “optimal” amounts to.

 Oyata's methodology was so (radically) different from what most of these early (often Yudansha) attendee's were accustom to, that their (own) “corrections” (although wrong) were accepted as being a correct application of the instructed techniques (at least by them). At those “seminars”, Oyata would rarely (if ever) “correct” those attendee's (as they were content with their accomplishments, and Oyata just presumed that they would continue their study with him, and they could/would be corrected later,...little did he realize, LOL).

 The 6 Principles of Tuite, are a modest portion of the (numerous) principles and application guidelines that Oyata had provided to us over the past 30+ years. We've taken a (directly) relevant portion of those guidelines, and are demonstrating their use/application in a defined portion of Oyata's Life Protection methodology (“Tuite Jutsu”). There are additional principles that are utilized as well, but for introductory purposes, these 6 Principles will provide (more than enough) direct application use, to keep the average student in research/practice/application for some time. 

Silence is Golden

  I was recently reading a blog describing that persons manner of using  “Kiai” (“spirit yell”), as well as it's “use” in defensive applications. It was well written, but lacked in any actual application (information). It mainly focused upon the commonly held (and IMO, superficial) beliefs regarding it's use (while equally ignoring the weaknesses associated with it's use). The individual's stated reasons for it's use, consisted of the following:

When you wanting to channel/direct your energy.

 Hmmm, well this “breathing” thing is an internally controlled physical action. “Energy” (momentum??) is not controlled by breathing (except to a very minor extent). The implication (via this statement) is, that it is something else (I.E. “Chi”/”Ki”). Physical motion is how the directing of that momentum is accomplished, not through breathing. 

When you need to kickstart your fighting spirit (?).

“Spirit” is something one has, or doesn't, a breathing method will not change that. The implication is being made that one will “suddenly” become a better or more effective combatant via the act of “yelling”.

When you’re attacking or countering an opponent.

I agree with this statement, just not with the vocalized aspect of it (as explained later).

When you do a kata.

Again, I agree with the action, just not how it's commonly being done (vocalized).

When you want to demonstrate your power (?).

This one completely baffles me, why would I need to “demonstrate” power ?

When you need to breathe.

Vocalizing your breathing, is only informing your opponent “how/when” you will be breathing (an obvious weakness in one's defense). Ask any person who has done some (any) manor of “aerobic” exercises, the only thing that a student needs to learn, is to exhale (they will inhale, and do so without thought). It is very common for a person to “hold their breath” when beginning a confrontation. If they train to exhale with any/all motions that they perform, they will naturally inhale (thereby avoiding their own hyperventilation).

When you want to startle your opponent.

Though possibly providing some level of effect/response upon a completely clueless individual, an effectively applied technique is far more productive.

 These are all commonly believed and taught concepts. I just happen to not agree with how they are usually being taught.

Oyata taught us to utilize kiai, but he interpreted it more akin to how one should be breathing. As a combative component, it is more in accord with body motion/use (than as some extra/supplemental component).

 The body has natural reactions to certain actions when they occur, breathing is one of those actions. When the body inhales, internal organs (and body muscles) will relax. As the body exhales, those components will be inclined to tense (flex).

 This is clearly illustrated when numerous actions are being performed. (for example) When practicing the art of Shodo, the writer is taught to exhale in a smooth controlled breath. After initially inhaling, the body has relaxed (allowing the user to motion) and by then when exhaling in a smooth controlled breath, the user is able to (more effectively) control the actions of their brush. The same is true with the motions used in the performance of Te.

 In martial arts study, Students are taught to exhale during the performance of every performed physical action. This allows the user to maintain a level of control over when and how the utilized muscles are tensing while performing motions and remain relaxed when they aren't being used.

 Oyata emphasized the use of Silent (non-vocalized) Kiai. He didn't want students (vocally) “Kiai”-ing during the performance of kata, or at any other time for that matter. He viewed this as telegraphing one's breathing to your opponent. This would (in turn) inform them when it was most effective to deliver strikes upon you.

 I've recently (in the past 10 years or so) encountered students who are using a “hissing” instead of using (proper) Kiai breathing. Aside from sounding ridiculous, it is also incorrect (breathing). This “hissing” is only using air being exhaled from the (upper) lungs. A proper exhalation for Kiai, should come from the abdomen. This manner of hissing accomplishes nothing (productive). It additionally restricts the speed of exhalation (an important element of effective Kiai use).

 The (exaggerated) use of vocalized Kiai, is the equivalency to proclaiming to an opponent, when that opponent should strike the person (as well as informing them when their strikes are being delivered). 
 It could be argued that a vocalized Kiai could be considered the equivalent to calling out for help (though I doubt the effectiveness of that ploy). IMO it's more likely to alert an aggressors compatriots than to elicit any assistance from strangers.
 I've also heard it stated that there is an "intimidation" factor that presented with the use of a (loudly) vocalized Kiai. Personally, I find this to be one of the most ludicrous of the stated reasons. It reminds me of the "intimidation" argument presented by Police departments for their implementation of the PR-24 (side-handle baton). If someone isn't (already) "intimidated" by the firearm at your side, why would they be intimidated by a stick with a handle on it's side?
 The same is true with the use of Kiai, yelling loudly while attempting to hit someone else does nothing to intimidate the perpetrator of a crime (the aggressor). They expect someone to yell (to some extent). Yelling loudly (yourself) could be considered motivation for them, to shut you up (?). 

 Kiai can provide a conferrable advantage/improvement to one's technique application, as well as their defensive capabilities. The only (major) argument I would put forward (in regards to it's use), is that of providing excessive information to an opponent.  Therefore,  I am an advocate for Silent Kiai. I choose to avoid providing any more information to an aggressor than I have (no other choice) to. 

What to learn at a Seminar

 I've written extensively on my opinion of how “other” person's have been attempting to make the claim that they are teaching techniques that are the same as what Taika taught to his students. That opinion is not based on arbitrary bias, but through having students of those individuals perform (or usually attempt) those methods upon myself.

 I don't state that these variations don't work (somewhat), just that they aren't being done in the same manner, nor producing the same responses that Oyata taught (as being optimal). The majority of those individual's are basing their opinions (of how to perform the techniques) on (usually) their own limited experience with the applications (commonly, a few “seminars”).

 Taika's instructional method wasn't done in the same manner that is commonly experienced here (in the West). His instructor's based their only student's (Oyata's) training on an established trust that had (first) been developed between them. Taika was similar with his own instruction. The (numerous) fly-by-night attendees that frequented his seminars were rarely (if ever) provided with technique insight beyond that of foundational pointers.

 During a seminar or even within his own classes, Oyata didn't provide step-by-step instructions on how to perform the techniques he had developed. He would demonstrate (on a Yudansha) as an “example”, and we would be told to “work on it”. He wanted to see what/how you would perform the motion. Unless you were WAY off track, he would rarely provide much of any specific correction. He was very big on students developing an attentive eye (to learn his methodology) and understanding how a technique worked.

What was shown at “open” seminars was very general instruction. It was all valid, just without many, if any specifics (to his methodology). His own classes could seem to be very similar (if you were unfamiliar with his teaching method), the major difference would be that he demonstrated those techniques more often (as examples) in his classes. Oyata believed in students figuring out technique and application on their own (no “spoon-feeding”).

 Oyata usually taught Concepts and Principles (believing these to be far superior to simplistic individual techniques) at his seminars. We have video that encompasses over 30 years of seminars and summer camps. Yes, there's a lot of techniques being shown, but those that paid attention, understood that he didn't care whether you learned the individual “technique” being shown at the time or not (necessarily). His purpose was to teach a Concept and/or a Principle that was being conveyed in the particular technique(s) shown. That principle and/or concept could then be utilized for a multitude of technique applications.

 He also recognized that there would be individual's that would take what was shown to them and begin to claim that they came up with those methods (once they had left). Of course, he was (obviously) correct in that assumption.

 In every example of this, I have only seen incorrectly performed techniques (by any of those individuals). None (ever) remained with Oyata long enough to actually learn the techniques that they had been shown (and Oyata didn't bother to correct them...they were already sure that they were correct, so didn't ask for further instruction/correction).

 Of course there are others who claim to have learned their techniques from Oyata, but in truth, only attended demonstrations (of Oyata doing the techniques, while they watched, then practiced what had been shown upon one another), rarely if ever actually being able to perform the techniques in the required manner. The majority of those individual's are inclined to include (what they are calling) “Kyusho/Atemi” strikes to their technique (usually, because their technique's tend to fail without those inclusions).

 I've received criticism for demonstrating that those (their versions of what Oyata taught) are inclined to fail. I've heard numerous excuses as to why that is. Usually, it's because I have them attempt their applications slowly (I'm not stupid, I'm fully aware that there are individuals that would love to cause me physical injury, LOL).  Forcing them to perform the technique slowly, requires that it be done correctly. Numerous techniques will cause a “reaction” if/when done quickly, but only when done correctly will achieve those same responses when done slowly (and nobody suffers serious injury).

 To many of these faux Tuite “experts” depend upon physical speed and power for their applications to work. Oyata's depended upon neither. This is what differentiated his technique's from that of others.

 In the upcoming seminars (that we will be instructing and/or hosting), we are going to (hopefully?) change the manner that people learn, practice and perform those techniques. Virtually all of the Clone methods being shown (I hesitate to use the word “taught”) lack in any real methodology to their techniques application. Many have based their (own) methodology upon vague rules and beliefs, that we (almost always) disagree with.

Oyata NEVER based any of his applications upon any “mystical” guidelines, and we have continued with that practice. I have experienced/caused the failure of those other methods repeatedly. I don't make that statement to claim any “superiority” of personal ability, but to point out that those methods are generally flawed (especially) when performed under controlled conditions (commonly, meaning Slow). The vast majority are based upon size (of the tori) and strength (again, of the tori) for their success. Many of these “other” individual's will (out-right) state, that what they're teaching, has to be performed quickly (for it to even work). This is not true with Oyata's Tuite Techniques (IF, they're being done correctly).

 The “Purpose” of a training session, is to Learn (something). NOT to try to hurt one another (as I've seen happen at numerous similar events). Maintaining a slow practice of these techniques allows students to practice longer, and learn more about the technique's application. Numerous techniques can be performed quickly, and will achieve some manner of reaction (whether done completely correct or not). That shouldn't dictate a “standard” for one's practice of those techniques.

 When both participants are familiar with a technique's application, both can discover intricacy's about the technique's strengths and weaknesses. I have (easily) learned as much, if not more about how an application should be applied, by being on the receiving end (uke) of that technique's application. When I observe students having problems with the performance of a technique, I (usually) will have them perform the technique upon myself (this is evidently “Taboo” in the seminar world). This usually provides me with the information I need to correct them (if I can't immediately see what's being done incorrectly).

 Over the years, I've received numerous questions and comments about “what I meant” by some of my statements/writings. Well, if your wanting to know, then attend some of our seminars and ask me, I'll be more than happy to talk to you regarding that inquiry and explain what I meant when I made a statement/point (though I might have to look up a particular post to see exactly what it was that I said, LOL). 

North Carolina Seminar June 13/14

   My associate (Lee Richards) and myself in conjunction with one of our fellow Kenshukai/RyuShinkan Yudansha, (and who is another personal student of Oyata's, Lisa Ohmes) will be teaching in  Dallas, North Carolina on June 13/14 
(at the Classical Bujutsu Regional Training Camp). 

  We will be teaching our 6 Principles of Tuite as well my two associates teaching the introductory sliding Tan Bo bridge/drill  (and applications as time allows), as well as the exclusive Chizikunbo bridge/drill.  (These were both learned by them directly from Taika Seiyu Oyata).

 We'll have to see what's available (time/space wise), but for those wanting to exclusively work on Tuite Jutsu (instead of the weapons), I will make myself available for individual Tuite tutelage during the weapons instruction portions (as I won't be participating in the weapons training myself). 

 Later this year (TBA), we will additionally be hosting our own "open" Tuite Jutsu seminars (in K.C.MO.) focusing upon the 6 Principles of Tuite. They will (likely) be 6+ hr. seminars to explain each of the Tuite Principles in exampled detail.These will be held as "open" seminars for anyone who wishes to attend. They are being presented to example/explain the differences between how (many) of the other groups/individuals are teaching Tuite in comparison to how Oyata taught his applications to be utilized (and yes, there are differences, LOL). Contact me/us here, or at the Ryushinkan/Kenshukai dojo website. 












(and Yes, I am acutely aware that the word "Jitsu" is being used (incorrectly), instead of "Jutsu" in the flyer,...oh well..."I" didn't write it, LOL)

Dedication

                                          Dedication

        “Verb: to devote wholly and earnestly, as to some person or purpose”

 I generally check out websites that make the claim that they are teaching some form of Oyata's Life Protection art (or are related to it). The majority have only faint (if any) actual connection to Oyata, or his art. Many are teaching some form of "Ryukyu Kenpo" (the system that Oyata abandoned 20 years prior to his death).

 After that time, Oyata began teaching his system (of Life Protection). Many of the sites in question tend to either state directly (or at least imply) that they are teaching the same thing as what Oyata was teaching during those last 20 years.

 Regardless of any suggested or actual connection to Oyata, these sites regularly spout an unending devotion to Oyata (and/or his teachings). The majority are making the implication that they are teaching the same system/teachings as his organization does today.

 What I find amusing, are the one's who actually did have some level of connection to Oyata (and may have actually studied with him for a while). Many of them had quit (or were kicked-out of) his system's organization. The majority that were Kicked-out, were gone before he had fully transitioned into (only) teaching his system. There were a few who quit (on their own) following Oyata's death. Most of those were either unhappy with the resultant organization (following Oyata's death), or had pursuits of their own that didn't include (or were in conflict with) that organization.

 Oyata didn't allow/permit member's of his organization to post videos or detailed information about his system (on the internet). The present leadership has continued that policy. This was done (from his view) to prevent person's from broadcasting his system's technique's (and claiming them as their own). I've received numerous complaints in regards to doing the same on this blog. I've had to assure (and demonstrate to) those persons that I have not.

 This mandate has allowed numerous individuals to make false claims of association (both prior and existing) to that system.

The linking factor between all those sites that have claimed supposed “devotion” to Oyata and his teachings, are that many of them are people who either quit or were kicked-out of his association. The one's who had no actual (1^st person) connection to him, are just using his name to promote themselves (IMO), or what-ever it is that they're teaching. Any claimed Affiliation to Oyata's system is easily verified via his systems website.

 It's those's persons that quit (prior to his death) that baffle me the most. If they were Soooooo dedicated to him, then why did they quit studying from/with him? When one examines their websites, they heap praises, respect and devotion to Oyata, and yet … they quit the opportunity to study (directly) with him (???).

 A number of the sites (of those who quit) are still using his associations logo, as well as the name of his system. Why the legal dept. hasn't made these sites remove those symbols is confusing (to members and anyone seeking to become a part of Oyata's association).

 It's most troubling to those of us who have remained in that association. I have encountered no one who is upset about (any of) those who have left. They are free now to pursue their (own) goals. Those of us that have remained in the association (these 3 years now?) after Oyata's passing, have (finally) began to move forward with the goals of the association (as Oyata wanted it to).

 There has been a fair amount of discord among  members (instructor's, students and the leadership) of Oyata's association. It's difficult to (fully) blame the present leadership alone. Oyata wasn't able to implement all of the changes that he wanted to prior to his death, nor did he leave (explicit) instructions on how he desired it to be done. This left (a lot of) room for individual presumptions to be made, and (often false) expectations to remain unrealized. To deny that it hasn't effected the membership would be (totally) unrealistic (it has).

 Oyata had quit “recruiting” new students a number of years ago. He was focused on training the (actual)  students that were dedicated members of his association. He had made numerous changes to that instruction since the transition to teaching only his system (Ryukyu Kenpo was dead, Long Live RyuTe®, LOL). 

 That transition had included numerous changes in the instruction of that system that he expected his instructors to enact/continue with.

These included (but were certainly were not limited to):

No more “Kiai” during the performance of Kata

No more “Deep” stances

emphasizing the impracticality of "sparring"

“Heel's out” (for “horse/forward stance”)

Inclusion of “kakae” strikes (during the performance of all kata)

Numerous additional “fix-up's” and changes were also made to kata performance and various technique execution as well.
 Performing kata in the manor that he wanted them done, NOT as they were done on those (20+ year) old tapes (which were for Ryukyu Kenpo).

 A number of individual's have expressed the desire for the (present) association to return to what's shown on the “Ryukyu Kenpo” video tapes. Having heard Oyata (directly) state that what is shown on those tapes is not what he was teaching (for these last 20 years), doing so is counter-productive (to learning/studying his system).

“Dedication” should include following his wishes in regards to his system of Life Protection. Simply claiming to be "devoted" to him, should include adhering to how he wanted his art to be practiced, performed, taught and advanced. 

Kata Purpose

 Every Eastern Defensive system being taught in the West utilizes their own version of the kata that were taught in Okinawa (some via Japan) and/or China. There seems to be a lot of concern as to where each kata originated, and where  it was (if it was) changed/modified. 
 Oyata was familiar with numerous kata that were being taught at the time of his own research (after his 2 instructors passed on). He had sought the most original form of those kata that he was able to locate. Many of the original/older instructors had died during the time of the second world war, this meant that he in many ways, had to "settle" (?) for what remained available to him to learn. 
 Of the numerous kata (that he learned) he choose 12 to teach in his system. He felt that these kata provided his students with the greatest range of  motions/examples (technique?) for his students study/research. 
 The (2) kata that he had been shown/taught originally (by his two instructors) had been explained to him and the method of "breaking down" (interpreting) those kata is what he used to decipher the kata that he learned afterword. 
 He (Oyata) explained to us (his students) that each movement/motion performed within the kata served a purpose. Beyond the formality of the "bow", every motion should reflect an applicable purpose for "Life Protection". That didn't always imply a "technique". Some motions and positions were a display of a "principle" (for application and/or protection). 
 In his own words, he stated that kata was not for learning how to (publicly) display one's knowledge and/or ability (I.E. "spar"). It was a reference for the individual techniques that are utilized for Life Protection. There is no need to be able to "spar" for minutes on end, a (true) Protection technique only requires seconds to utilize (and the confrontation should be ended). 
 (According to Oyata) The techniques displayed in the kata motions, are of varying levels (of interpretation). The most "obvious" are those that anyone could see/understand. The next group of techniques were those that only students who had practiced the motions would discover. The last were those that would only became apparent to those with the experience of being involved in confrontations would recognize.   
 Aside from being a little vague, the point was that a student had to study the kata in order to decipher the motions. The majority of interpretations that are presented on the internet (if not in "seminars") fall into the first category. 
 Oyata's explanation did not define a "one technique, for every motion". It was a multiple techniques and definitions for every motion performed in the kata. 
 This required the student to research as to whether the (every) motion performed was the forward or reverse version? (of what it was demonstrating). Was the motion that of the tori? or the uke? Was the motion (only) the important part of an application/motion? or that of an aggressor? Was it a "striking" defensive/offensive motion (as well as who's it represented, tori/uke?). Was it an example of a commonly made motion (be it aggressive or defensive). 
 When approached in this manner, the study of a kata should require years of research/practice. Oyata (often) stated that each student will find "1" kata, that they are most comfortable with.  Everyone is different, so he provide us with an assortment of kata that he felt would (each) provide similar opportunities for discovery of that individual "comfort" kata for varying students. 
 When a student has found their kata, that student should practice that kata repeatedly (over years). Every motion will become second nature (without thought) and those motions will become that students defensive motions. 
 While in class, that student should examine the motions of that kata in every defensive situation that they can imagine, or be presented with. They should examine the use/application of every motion within that kata and determine which motions should be utilized in which situation(s). 
 The purpose of an instructor (in a research situation) is to either validate/invalidate a student's use of a motion, or to help them to refine that motion (to be more practical/effective). 
 This is not a practice reserved for "Black Belts", a new student should be experimenting with this as well. That's the purpose of being in a class, to learn, question and experience the application of what's being shown to you. This can't occur with those "student's" who believe that they can only engage in "solo" practice (alone). There has to be interaction  between two (and preferably more) students. All must be fully aware of what they are practicing, and willing to question how/what they are being shown. 
 The greater the variance in (practice) partners, the better. Being able to dominate (only) a (single? two, three, five?) fellow classmate(s), is not the best manner to determine one's ability (or lack thereof). 

Additional Guidelines

  In addition to the general guidelines, there are additionally some specific preferences that we also attempt to adhere to. These were Regularly voiced by Taika, and have since become the cornerstones of his protective teachings.

"Size or Strength is not Relevant to a Technique's Effectiveness"

"Utilize 3 Defensive Motions at Once"

"Avoid Moving directly to the Rear"

"Hand Motions Work Best, Above the Waist," (and)

"Leg Motions Work Best, Below the waist."

"Always Square Your Body, Towards Your Opponent"

"Learn Your Own Weaknesses, In Order to Know Your Enemy's"

 Students are initially taught to “pre” determine the defensive motion that they will utilize when they are confronted by an aggressor. That motion can be orientated towards a submissive outcome, or a physically damaging outcome. One's initial priority is to protect themselves from receiving any (serious) injury. Once that is accomplished, the students emphasis should be upon the neutralization of the aggressor.

 This can come in the form of a physical inability to continue their own aggression, or a mental change of attitude/intent. The preferred neutralization would be the attitude change/reassessment. Unfortunately this is usually achieved only following a physical demonstration of one's defensive capability.

With that in mind, we practice the demonstrated technique's with the previously listed guidelines being applied to them.

Size or Strength is not Relevant to a Technique's Effectiveness

 With this in mind, it will force the student to study and understand each techniques strength's and weaknesses. When an opponent is (obviously) using strength to deliver their attack, the student should study/understand the inherent weaknesses to that attacking method and counter by applying their own defensive strikes/manipulations to those weaknesses.

Utilize 3 Defensive Motions at Once

 This is commonly misinterpreted to mean “applied” at the same time. Though possible, to do so, that is more often than not impractical to physically perform (or plan on). It's fairly simple to utilize “2” motions at once (with practice), then utilize an immediate follow-up. This is also (easily) performed by initially using a single (limb) technique, followed by 2 additional applications (1 hand/arm, 1foot). Either instance will provide the “3 motions” required.

 The logic Oyata used for this, was that anyone can stop/prevent a single motion, two is more difficult and three are extremely difficult to prevent.

Avoid Moving directly to the Rear

 Although this should be obvious, it isn't (to many people). It's natural to move away from a physical threat, unfortunately it's common to move directly away (rearward) from that threat.  Movement to one's rearward side, is the slowest direction that one is able to move towards (this is clearly illustrated in class).

 By moving at an angle (to either side) rearward, is more effective (being out of line with the standard aggressive technique) than moving directly rearward, and is just, if not faster, than moving directly rearward.

Hand Motions Work Best, Above the Waist

Leg Motions Work Best, Below the waist

 Another one that would seem to be obvious, yet isn't. As with anything, it requires training/practice to not attempt to use one's hand's to deflect/strike an opponent's legs (when an aggressor is using them to attempt a strike upon you, using their own). (strangely?) the same is true with some hand/arm motions. I've witnessed instructor's attempting to teach students to use their leg's to “kick” an aggressor's hands/arm's (as a “defensive tactic”?).  Aside from being impractical, inefficient and ineffective it also requires too much training (even if it could be forced) to be effective.

Always Square Your Body, Towards Your Opponent

 This is both a tactical and a strategic mandate. Tactically, by remaining square (to the opponent), you display no side preference's (Left or Right). You also provide the most efficient way to deliver force (via strikes) using either arm. Strategically, this allows the defender to utilize either arm without displaying your preference to an aggressor.

Learn Your Own Weaknesses, In Order to Know Your Enemy's

 Human bodies are all similar. There may be aesthetic differences, but the anatomy remains similar (enough) between any/all humans to be considered “common”. If one's own body has a location that is sensitive (to pressure/impact), the odds are good that the same location is susceptible on other person's as well. The “rule” being that “If it hurts upon you, it will likely hurt on an aggressor”

 Any of these could be expounded upon in greater detail (and I have done so with most of them on this blog). More importantly, a student should recognize that each are an important facet to the implementation of what is being shown to them. Each of them represent potential technique failures (that could have been avoided), and should have been addressed in the students training sessions. 
 Though most appear to be (little more than) common sense, they each illustrate concepts that should be closely examined. 

Technique Considerations

"Technique” Considerations for Training

 A common class period for our student's is spent learning new individual application motions. These can consist of singular actions, as well as multiple motions.

 During the application portion of our class we combine these individual motions to be applied in (either) successive or collective application. These are commonly being practiced in (1-3 Step) two person kumite exercises.

 The most common misunderstanding, is that the application of these motions are “set in stone”. They are completely capable of being (instantly) modified to deal with a continually changing situation.

 As with anything, there first needs to be established a foundation set of guidelines/priority's for determining these motions acceptance (of/for use).

The following guidelines are what Oyata established as being general guides for this purpose. To begin with, the following are the (required) general preferences.

#1 The Motion's Priority, Is to Protect the User.

#2 The Motion Should Be as Natural as is Practical.

#3 The Motion Should Be Able to be Performed Equally by

      the Majority of Individual's.

#4 The Motion Should Not be Orientated to Either (Specific)

     Side of the User.

#5 The Motion Should Not be Dependent Upon the Size or

     Strength of either the technique User, or the Receiver.

 This is not to say, that there won't be some motions/techniques that fall outside of these guidelines. Only that they may very well not be suitable for use by every individual (student).

#1 The Motion's Priority, Is to Protect the User.

 It should go without saying that this is a primary concern for someone training in the (any) Life Protection art. It shouldn't imply that there is (then) a disregard for any other person's life (including that of an aggressor). The implication should be that every motion is taught for a practical (useful) purpose/application in accomplishing that defensive objective.

#2 The Motion Should Be as Natural as is Practical.

 Any instructed motion should not mandate that it's replication require any undue (physical) strain or labor. This should imply that not every technique will “look” (exactly) the same between every two individual's when it is performed. Physical differences will mandate the manner a technique will be performed (by each individual), but it should not alter the desired result for the technique being performed.

#3 The Motion Should Be Able to be Performed Equally by the

     Majority of Individual's.

 This should illustrate the idea that neither size nor strength are a determining factor in a technique's successful use. There may well be differences in how that technique is performed by any (single) individual, but the primary concepts, results and their execution remain the same.

#4 The Motion Should Not be Orientated to Either (Specific)

     Side of the User.

 The implication is that the user should not train, focus or orientate their practice to utilize only one-side of their body's defensive motions, nor should they limit their (own) responses to only utilize one-side of their body over the other. This shouldn't imply that a particular manner that a technique is applied, is done in the exact same way when utilized upon the aggressor's opposite side/arm. 
 What confuses many students, is that Oyata trained us to focus on "1" side's defensive motion, to react to an assault from either of the aggressor's arms. This resulted in faster responses to an assault.

#5 The Motion Should Not be Dependent Upon the Size or

     Strength of either the technique User, or the Receiver.

 Regardless of (any) physical discrepancy's between an aggressor and the defender, any application utilized should possess the ability to be utilized successfully. This doesn't imply that the manner which an application is utilized remains exactly the same in every situation, only that the user should be knowledgeable of a technique's strengths and weaknesses as well as understand how to utilize them in varying circumstances.

 The use of these guidelines can (often) limit the scope of applications that are being taught (in a typical “martial arts” class). It is not the purpose of these guidelines to “increase” one's instructed content. The intended purpose of these guidelines, is to modify the content and intent of a Life-Protection class to serve that purpose (without discriminating against student's who do not meet the expected student “type”. I.E. young, male and physically fit).

 These guidelines actually place a greater burden upon the instructor. They require that the motions/concepts that they are teaching meet the listed requirements, and that their students understand how they need to implement them in varying situations/circumstances.

 In many aspects, it removes the “burden” of learning these types of motions from the students, and places it upon the instructor's ability to teach those students (where it should have been anyhow, in specific individual instruction, instead of generalized group instruction).

 These guidelines in no way remove the requirement that a student must practice the motions and techniques that they are being shown. It only mandates that an instructor must show that what they are teaching is “possible” to be learned and utilized by anyone who practices them (as taught) and understands their use/application.

 When an instructor examines “all” of the technique's that they are teaching to their students, they (most often) find that there have been technique's that (either) they (themselves) do not fully understand how/where/why to use them, but additionally that some that are simply worthless or impractical for the common student (except in particularly uncommon/unrealistic circumstances, and/or by particular individual's).
 By continuing with their instruction (knowing the deficiencies of the application/technique) they are performing a disservice to their students, and to what they are teaching.