How to be a Productive Student

  When learning a particular skill set, it's usually necessary to be shown the individual pieces of that skill slowly (at least in the beginning of the learning process). When attempting to reproduce that motion, a greatly reduced speed of execution is necessary. To do so otherwise, amounts to having a “sink or swim” attitude about the instructional process. It would appear to be that this is the very attitude being put forth for the learning, and the instruction of Tuite (regardless of who's version one is attempting to learn).
  Oyata repeatedly emphasized that tuite should be practiced slowly. Despite that fact, the vast majority of practitioner's attempt to perform tuite motions with speed during their practice of it. Most often (from my own experience) this comes from a lack of ability to do so otherwise (and/or achieve any positive results without doing so).
  When I first began my studies with Oyata's method of Tuite, it was commonly being done with speed (and power). This was not a mandate presented by Oyata (himself), but was being promoted by (supposed) “students” of Oyata (or at least by “seminar attendee's”).
  Once I began working with Oyata (himself), the preferred (ie. “his”) manner of tuite practice, was to do so slowly and incrementally. This meant that you would take (any) particular Tuite application, and divide it into “pieces”. Each piece would then be studied, understood and then practiced. Once that piece could be performed correctly, you would work on the “next” piece. This continued until the entire technique was (actually) understood (which is reminiscent of his “kata” training method). When the (basic) application of the technique was understood, potential weaknesses would be identified, and the prevention of those flaws from being exploited would be practiced.
  This was a fairly long (involved) process. There are numerous factors that could cause/create certain weaknesses in an applications ability to create the desired results. This could involve a great amount of time (per technique), and there are numerous variables that could be included in determining those factors as well.
  Numerous systems have attempted to alleviate their student's concerns (regarding those factors) when having them attempt to utilize the (sophomoric) “10 Principles” that are being peddled by numerous groups. The problem with that list, is that it doesn't address the “main” problem (that the student hasn't learned the required individual segments of how/why the technique will or won't work). It attempts to make “additions” to something that isn't understood by the student to begin with.
  The most commonly (recommended) “corrections” (by these individual's) are to go faster, and/or more powerfully. Neither of which address the (real) problem, nor are they relevant to the techniques ability to work (as desired). I have to blame that belief on the fact that the majority of “instructors” are male. Males are (commonly) raised to believe that strength and/or speed are the answers, or they are the means to accomplishing the desired result (to most anything). This is not an accurate belief, especially in regards to the application of Oyata's style of Tuite.
  One of our students recently attended a seminar that included a “Tuite learning/practice session”. That student was amazed (or horrified, depending on your perspective) at what was being emphasized/believed as being “correct” by the majority of the participants that were practicing the shown applications. These were not (all) “new” students, but included numerous Yudansha as well, who were (supposedly) “experienced” with the application of  these types of techniques. That student now understands why we have stated that the majority of tuite practitioner's/styles haven't attempted to understand the techniques (meaning how/why those techniques do/don't work, or what results should be expected from their application).
  It would seem that the “Training” aspect of attending a seminar, doesn't necessarily always include the concept of “Mutual Understanding” for what was shown (much less individual understanding). But to be fair, the majority of the individual's attending that seminar had little to no experience with the application of Tuite. The attendee's were instructed to apply the shown motions slowly, but the majority were unable to understand how that concept would or even could work. Students (regardless of their experience level) too often focus on the “results” that are/aren't achieved when applying the shown technique (as opposed to understanding how the technique should be applied to achieve the desired results).
  It's also become “popular” for the (designated) “uke” to counter the other students training motions(?) before either of them actually understands the practiced technique. Because of this all too common trend, students (both uke and tori) are more often beginning to speed-up their training motions (thereby nullifying any of the “training/research” that could have been achieved through the original form of the exercise). Those students who don't understand why the motions should be performed slowly, are the one's who are in greatest need of that (slow) training.
  “Training” is initially (only) for the familiarization of specific motions and reactions that are intended to produce (equally) specific responses to specific actions made by an aggressor.  
 (Commonly) Once those motions are learned and understood, the practiced motions are then expanded upon, to understand the possible variables to/from the initially practiced motion.
  The (recent?) "Live" (practice) myth is based upon an individual's imagination. Nothing about this practice is similar to a physical confrontation, nor is it an applicable training method when initially learning a (new) technique. This tendency, along with the “Learning to take a hit” mantra are bogus beliefs as well. Wearing a full complement of protective equipment is the modern equivalent to signing a waiver. Neither actually prevent injury or teach (sic) someone to "take" a strike, but they pacify the unknowing. The only “hit” that will matter, is going to be the one you never see coming. 
 Students should remember that "class/practice" time, is for understanding the instructed motions. Only once that is accomplished, can practical "use" be worked on. 







 

Continuous Motion Does Not Equate to Fluidity...

  I'm seeing a number of instructors pushing the idea that being “fluid” in one's application of multiple techniques and/or motions, means to (rapidly) apply them in a continuous barrage. Though (possibly?) “looking” very impressive (to the average on looker), more often these examples are totally impractical to apply (in an actual defensive situation). The majority that I've seen, have been exampled by the aggressor beginning an attack, then (once the “exampled” motion begins) they will “freeze” usually without any manor of counter or response to the attempted defense.
  These “defenses” will often include numerous (IMO) irrelevant “strikes” and motions after the aggressor's attempted strike has been neutralized. Perfectly valid (and effective) neutralization techniques are by-passed (or ignored) in order to include numerous (additional) unnecessary strikes. In the examples I observed, perfectly good (effective) neutralization applications were by-passed in favor of being able to continue the confrontation (through the use of repeated strikes being applied).
  The only (valid) reasoning that I can see, is that these individuals don't have adequate applications to effectively neutralize an aggressor (when being in an “obvious” position to do so). What “appears” to be the (their) most utilized method for doing so, is beating the aggressor into submission. For the physically large student, this could (might) suffice as a plausible tactic, for the average student though...not so much. It is rare that a (random) aggressor will attack a Larger opponent. The average (criminal) aggressor will more often choose to attack an “easy” and smaller target/victim.
  It is this “larger” opponent/aggressor that (most) defensive systems train to defend against. The purpose of one's training is not to be able to (physically) “beat” an aggressor into ceasing their behavior. It is only to negate their ability to continue that behavior. That can be accomplished via several avenues of response, the most legally defensible choice, being to immobilize the aggressor (while either suffering and/or inflicting the least amount of physical injury).
  Oyata taught that when delivering a strike (to an opponent) we provide the opportunity to be struck (ourselves). This is why (arguably) the majority of what is taught, is in response to an aggressor's actions. Every motion performed (whether a “strike” or a manipulation) is done in response to an aggressor's motion(s) and/or reaction.
  What is (commonly) being displayed as “Fluidity”, are a continuous (“flurry” IMO) of repeated actions (most often being “strikes”) that depend upon the Blitz theory of over-powering an aggressor. Though legitimate in certain (limited) circumstances (ie. When the defender is large/strong enough to accomplish the action), unless those requirements are preexisting, they are most often pointless, and accomplish nothing.
  The goal of one's training should be in regards to circumventing any (obvious) physical discrepancy's, and become proficient in the application of those ability's that the defender can effectively utilize. In the aforementioned examples, I watched the person apply an “arm-bar”, then (promptly) discard it, only so they could “strike” the aggressor several times (using what I felt were completely pointless/ineffective strikes). In any of those videos, I observed no use of a “simple” immobilization of the aggressor. There were numerous examples of (bizarre, IMO) rolling around on the ground, and elaborate applications that left (both) participants vulnerable to attacks (from 3^rd parties). This manor of “submission” is both pointless, and dangerous.
  What Oyata taught as being fluid, was having the ability to react to an aggressor's actions, as they occurred. Though being possible to predict many of those responses, through correct application of the instructed defensive motions those “responses” would be limited in their (available/required) variance.
  There were also provided examples of “drills” (in the video montage). These routines had either/both parties (tori/uke) going “back and forth” with identical motions. I understood the intent was to practice the motion, but if/when either would “break” order/routine the motion would collapse(? Thus calling into question the purpose of the exercise).
  Continuous motion is a valid concept, the intent is (or should be) the “efficiency” (of motion). Efficiency implies productive results from the performed actions. If/when there is no productive result, then the motion was wasted. “Fluidity”, is the continuous transition between multiple motions, that produce an efficient result. In the case of defensive applications, that equates to the neutralization of an aggressor's actions. This can be (either) from their “choice” to desist, or because of an inability to continue that aggression (whether by submission or physical inability/injury).
  Oyata taught that his methodology was for “Life Protection”. This implies the life of both the practitioner and that of the aggressor. 





 

6 Principles of Tuite Book and Seminars Now Available to the Public

                                                                                    The Wait is Over!

  I am happy to announce that our 6 Principles of Tuite book is now (finally) available to any/all interested party's. This book is designed for use and reference by both the beginning and experienced practitioner of Tuite Jutsu (as taught by Taika Seiyu Oyata). The authors have been students of Taika Seiyu Oyata over the past 30+ years (directly, until his death in 2012).

  This book lists, illustrates and explains the 6 (primary) Principles for the application of Oyata's foundational Tuite Jutsu techniques as well as illustrates and explains those beginning Tuite applications as taught to our students. These principles can be applied to any type of Tuite "like" application as well (whether it is one taught within Oyata's system or not). They can also be used to validate the usability and weaknesses of any newly learned/developed techniques (when researching technique validity/practicality).

  This clearly written manual explains each of the 6 basic principles in an easy to understand format so the reader can readily understand how to utilize each of them regardless of the technique to which it is being applied. The included techniques are divided into easy to understand category's, including some that would be considered “non”-standard technique's. These can aid practitioner's in both new technique development and with that technique's validation.

 This text discounts the pointless inclusion of "Traditional Chinese Medicine" (TCM) in regards to the use or application of these techniques. Oyata never taught, endorsed or condoned the ridiculous practice of "TCM" or acupuncture "meridians" in regards to anything that he taught. Those pointless studies have never had any relationship to any of Oyata's Life Protection teachings.

  To acquire a copy of this book for your own study/class, go to the following url (http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tuite ) and click the “Add to cart” button/link. It's available in both hardback and paperback. Interested parties can also contact me here if you have any questions regarding the books or in regards to acquiring a copy for yourself.

  Also available is our “Pocket Reference” book, which lists pictures of all of the technique's illustrated and described in the 6 Principles Manual. This text is designed to be used for quick referral in/during a practice/research class.

 If your school/dojo is interested in hosting a Tuite seminar (explaining and demonstrating the included information in detail), contact us at this e-mail (tuite1@kc.rr.com) for availability, scheduling and prices.

Ingredients of a Defensive Response

  The majority of confrontations are initiated via one of three methods. The most common is through an attempt at striking the defenders face/head. The second is started through a grab or shove, and the third is through the use of a kick. Though several other methods are possible, these are the most common. Many confrontations will consist of varying instances of each of those situations.

  Though many systems teach their student's to defend against the type/manner of (arm)strikes that the student practices to perform (in their class), the majority of people do not perform those attempts in an equivalent manor. The most common (initially used) assault method used, is the “head punch”. The “reasons” are debatable (attempting a knock-out, or just making an attempt to shut the mouth that said the offending statement), but reports (both police and personal) have documented that this is the most popular opening (offensive) action.

“Grabs”, run a close second. These can be performed in the attempt to immobilize an individual (while attempting to strike them), or to cause them to fall, or with the intention of moving them to another location.

Lastly, are the attempts made at kicking the defender. The majority of people are not skilled at delivering an effective kick (and are equally aware of that fact), so they are rarely utilized (except as a distraction/feint).

  Oyata taught that students should practice to deal with an aggressor who is at “arm's length”(distance) from them. This is the most common distance that verbal confrontations take place. Those interactions may (initially) take place at greater distances, but the situation is only considered to become serious when that distance (arm's length) is achieved.

  Much angst has been made in regards to the reaction time required to respond to a strike delivered at this distance. That ability is determined by the amount of time that has been spent practicing the required motions. This practice is based on learning (and improving) the necessary factors to increase the students reaction time.When this is accomplished, reacting to physical assault attempts will become easier (with both time, and practice). 

  Most importantly, the student is shown how, and what to watch for when involved in a confrontational situation. New students (often) only watch the hands or the face of an aggressor. The hands are the last part of the arm to exhibit motion if/when delivering a strike. Though the eyes may indicate some intention of use, that will vary between individual's and their experience with performing the particular action.

  The defensive imperative, becomes seeing/noting when the aggressor's arm is being motioned. The hand is the last part of that arm to move. It is more important to watch the shoulder for indication of motion (This can be illustrated through numerous simple example/exercises).

  Once the student understands this, their attention can remain higher on the aggressor. This is (usually) taught to students as being done though watching the chest, or the cheek (region) of the aggressor. Persons are inclined to “face” the direction of any action they may perform (therefore, watching the eyes can be misleading, and is often practiced as a distraction/feint by experienced fighters).

  The students use of their peripheral vision is stressed and practiced during class. Although common to watch the eyes of someone when engaged in conversation with them, that behavior is discouraged (when practicing the instructed defensive actions). Focusing upon the eyes (of an aggressor) can create the problem of “tunnel vision” (thus limiting the defender's ability to see the more important indications that would demonstrate the initiation of an aggressive motion).

  The delivery of a head strike (using the arms) is the fastest of these three possibility's. A strike (attempt) can be delivered in (only) 4 ways (via either arm). Those are the Upper-cut, the (from the) Waist Punch, the Straight Punch (shoulder/jab) and the Roundhouse Punch. Any of these may be known by various names, but these are the most commonly recognized (general) motions. The particular method most likely to be utilized in a situation, is dependent upon the aggressor's (initial) hand position.

  When the aggressor initially instigates a confrontation, and their intent is to make that confrontation physical, they will often begin with their hands raised (most often with both hands raised and “cocked” in front of them). This has both of their arms bent (coiled), and in front of them (allowing for either arm to be rapidly extended as strikes).

  When an aggressor approaches the defender in this manner, they are displaying an intent to do injury (or at the very least, to intimidate). This provides the defender with an initial reason to expect (and be concerned for) bodily harm. The defender should raise their own arms (with open hands) in a defensive manner. The defender's hand's should be extended slightly (towards the aggressor) to provide (and demonstrate) a defensive position and attitude. This is important for both one's initial defense, and for exhibiting a non-aggressive intent (for any possible legal defenses including the statements of witnesses).

  When an aggressor approaches the defender (with both of their hands raised) with their hands open or closed, it is accepted that one can presume a hostile intent. Defensively, when the aggressor's hands are both raised, it (actually) limits the possible actions that they are capable of doing, or at least the number of ways that they can perform those actions quickly (without being perceived by the defender).

  A students training, should include research regarding how any aggressive strike is able to be delivered through these (various) positions. When either of these positions are utilized, it will directly effect how any (type of) strike can/will be delivered (as well as the defensive requirements to avert them).

  Very few aggressor's can deliver a (true) “jab” (punch) effectively. The majority will “cock” their strike (before delivering it). That may only amount to an increase in the bend of the striking arms elbow, or it may include a rapid retraction of the hand (before extending that hand as a strike). Either of these motions are an indication of an impending strike. The ability to recognize these motions (which are done very quickly) requires practice that (specifically) focuses on detecting those motions.

  In a class-room environment, it is common for (fellow “uke”) students to attempt to mask the shown actions (ie. shoulder movements). Though possible (to a very limited extent), this is rarely (if ever) done in actual confrontational situations (an aggressor's primary goal is usually speed).

  This practice is began at an arm's length distance (between the two students). This is later modified to include a distanced approach. This is practiced by the students beginning (approx.) 8 feet apart, and the aggressor (uke) rapidly approaching the tori (to deliver their strike).

  Though the visual impression is that the situation is different (from being practicing at “arm's length”), the physical situation remains the same. The aggressor still must move to an arm's length distance to deliver their strike. For the defender, the situation remains the same (as when beginning close to the aggressor). This situation additionally provides the opportunity to (further) disrupt the aggressor as/before they are able to deliver their strike.

  Persons in motion make the assumption, that they have created an advantage to their tactics. This is only true to a limited extent. They have additionally created weaknesses that can be (more easily) exploited by the defender as well. It is the study of those weaknesses that the student should focus their defenses upon. 

  By moving forward, the aggressor has created momentum (making it more difficult for them to change the direction of that motion). This additionally makes it easier to predict the aggressor's subsequent position (which will include leg/body position and placement).

  This forward movement requires that the aggressor place one leg forward (with each step) to move closer to the defender. Each step provides the opportunity (for the defender) to (both) predict subsequent positions and the ability to strike (kick) one of those legs. With the aggressor moving forward, the forward leg will be carrying the (full) body-weight of the aggressor with each step (including any additional strike attempt). This creates additional susceptibility to the tori's defensive actions.

  If/when the aggressor attempts to include a kick with that motion, students will commonly retreat, or focus upon the impending “kick”. Either of these choices are flawed tactics (on their part). It is more practical/effective to deliver a (defensive) “kick” to the aggressor's support leg. New student's are often hesitant to make this attempt (at kicking the aggressor's support leg).

  If/when an aggressor attempts a (serious) “kick”, they will commonly focus (only) upon delivering that kick (making it easier to deliver a defensive kick to their support leg).

  Students often (mistakenly) assume that a “leg strike” must be performed with force. When the leg is weight bearing, even a moderate/light strike will provide substantial results (and thus nullifying any arm motions/strikes also being attempted at the time).

  It is additionally common (when a leg strike is performed) for the recipient of that strike (kick), to fall/stumble. The most common response (when that person is falling), is for them to reach out and grab (at something) for support. Very often, that “support” can/will be the defender (tori). If/when that situation occurs, it is important that the defender be versed in the various “simplistic/common” Tuite responses. Tuite skills are (very often) side-lined (by many schools) as being for “non-threatening” situations (only). Students (and schools) that endorse this belief are dismissing a major/common occurrence during a physical confrontation. Focusing only upon the possible “striking” actions, is restricting the students ability to effectively end a confrontation.

  In 30+ years of experience with physical confrontations, I have never had one ended with the use of “strikes” alone.

Tuite Pocket Reference

 Tuite Pocket Reference
 A Pocket Reference book of start positions of Tuite for use in picking through training topics in the dojo. There are NO explanations for these techniques, see larger book "The Six Basic Principle of Tuite".
  This book is only for quick reference of the basic techniques during a Practice session. This book lists all of the (initially shown) basic Tuite techniques as were taught by Taika Seiyu Oyata. Full descriptions of the techniques with photographs and explanations of the 6 Basic Tuite Principles is found in our Training/Instruction manual "The 6 Basic Principles of Tuite" (available soon).   

 Use this "link" to connect directly to the Tuite Pocket Reference,

 http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tuite



 Available Titles,                   Tuite Pocket Reference

 Available Soon                    The Six Principles of Tuite

Titles coming soon,              Advanced Tuite Principles
                                              "Stepping Stones of Kyu Rank" Kenshukai-Ryushinkan Student Primer
                                              Women's Self-Defence
                                              Handgun Retention     

Kyusho Pocket Guide

Practice is Research

  When learning a particular skill set, it's usually necessary to be shown the individual pieces of that skill slowly (at least in the beginning of the learning process). When attempting to reproduce that motion, a greatly reduced speed of execution is necessary. To do so otherwise, amounts to having a “sink or swim” attitude about the instructional process. It would appear to me that this is the very attitude being put forth for the learning, and the instruction of Tuite (regardless of who's version one is attempting to learn).
  Oyata repeatedly emphasized that Tuite should be practiced slowly. Despite that fact, the vast majority of practitioner's attempt to perform Tuite motions with speed. Most often (from my own experience) this comes from a lack of ability to do so otherwise (and/or achieve any positive results without doing so).
  When I first began my studies with Oyata's method of Tuite, it was commonly being done with speed (and power). This was not a mandate presented by Oyata (himself), but was being promoted by (supposed) “students” of Oyata (or at least by numerous “seminar attendee's”).
  Once I began working with Oyata (himself), the preferred (ie. “his”) manner of Tuite practice, was to do so slowly and incrementally. This meant that you would take (any) particular Tuite application, and divide it into “pieces”. Each piece would then be studied, understood and then practiced. Once that piece could be performed correctly, you would work on the “next” piece. This continued until the entire technique was (actually) understood (which is reminiscent of his “kata” training method). When the (basic) application of the technique was understood, potential weaknesses would be identified, and the prevention of those flaws from being exploited would be practiced.
  This was a fairly long (involved) process. There are numerous factors that could cause/create certain weaknesses in an applications ability to create the desired results. This could involve a great amount of time (per technique), and there are numerous variables that could be included in determining those factors as well. 
 Any (if not All) of Oyata's Tuite applications can be applied slowly (and continue to achieve the desired results). When they are applied quickly (even if/when done so "sloppily") they will produce those results faster (obviously). The "difference" is in whether the student is intending their study to provide them with Knowledge (regarding the technique), or the more simplistic "results". Either, can provide the student with information on "basic" defensive motions. 
 Oyata didn't teach "generic" applications, He taught his techniques. His instruction was intended to produce knowledgeable students (and instructors). Oyata would (often) describe some schools as teaching "Monkey see, Monkey do" techniques (and thereby, students). When something didn't occur (exactly) as those students had learned them, they didn't know what to do (to fix their technique). 
  Numerous systems have attempted to alleviate their student's concerns (regarding those factors) by having them attempt to utilize the (sophomoric) “10 Principles” that are being peddled by numerous groups. The problem with that list, is that it doesn't address the “main” problem (that the student hasn't learned the required individual segments of how/why the technique will or won't work). It attempts to make “additions” to something that isn't understood by the student to begin with (something about "no matter how much paint you put on a turd, it's still just shit").
  The most commonly (recommended) “corrections” (by these individual's) are to go faster, and/or more powerfully. Neither of which address the (real) problem, nor are they relevant to the techniques ability to work (as desired). I have to blame that belief on the fact that the majority of “instructors” are male. Males are (commonly) raised to believe that strength and/or speed are "the" answers, or that they are the means to accomplishing the desired result (to most anything). This is not an accurate belief, especially in regards to the application of Oyata's style of Tuite.
 There's also a (completely False) belief that the inclusion of a "Kyusho" (type of) strike is required to "allow" the shown Tuite technique to work. This Fallacy is being promoted by individuals who have no idea how the techniques (should) work to begin with, nor how to (correctly) apply them to begin with. 
  It would seem that the “Training” aspect of attending a seminar, doesn't necessarily always include the concept of “Mutual Understanding” for what was shown (much less individual understanding). But to be fair, the majority of the individual's attending seminars have had little to no experience with the application of Tuite during an (actual) defensive situation. The attendee's are instructed to apply the shown motions slowly, but the majority are unable to understand how that concept would or even could work. Training isn't (initially) intended to duplicate actual usage. Students (regardless of their experience level) too often focus on the (end) “results” that are/aren't achieved when applying the shown technique (as opposed to understanding how the technique should be applied to achieve those desired results).
  It's also become “popular” for the (designated) “uke” to attempt to counter the other students training motions(?) before either of them actually understands the technique. Because of this all too common trend, students (both uke and tori) are more often beginning to speed-up their training motions (thereby nullifying any of the “training/research” that could have been achieved through the original/intended manner of the practice). Those students who don't understand why the motions should be performed slowly, are the one's who are in greatest need of that (slow) training.
  "Training” is (only) the familiarization of specific motions and reactions that are intended to produce (equally) specific responses to those actions made by an aggressor. Once those motions are learned and understood, the practiced motions are then expanded upon, to understand the possible variables to/from the initially practiced motion.
 The ability to "counter" those applications (if even possible) is usually only possible when the tori has applied the technique incorrectly. When performed correctly, the ability of the uke to apply those "counters", is practically non-existent. 

Head Hunting

  When I practiced Shito-Ryu (38yrs ago, AAAKK!), we used to do a lot of “sparring”. For what was being taught at the time, it made sense. With what I've studied and learned over the years since then (in following Oyata's methodology), I haven't participated in that exercise more than a handful of times (and only for amusement purposes) since.

  When I was active in that practice, it was then (as now) popular to strive for “head-shots” (strikes to the opponent's head). The intent (naturally) at that time, was to try for the ever popular “knock-out”. This was pretty much mandated by the fact that the “rules” for sparring (so we didn't cause serious harm to one another) didn't allow for “leg” strikes. We had to utilize gloves, foot pads, chest protector and headgear. We had the option to use shin guards and/or forearm guards (though most didn't).

  With Leg strikes removed from the target options, head strikes were a popular target to try for (and it just Looked cool to do so).  
 This manor of practice emphasized speed and power, Oyata's instruction didn't. Though important, they held less relevance in his methodology. Sparring asserted that those traits could (or should) assure one's ability to triumph in a confrontational situation. In fact, this manner of practice instilled more bad habits than usable traits.  
 With the included “padding”, strikes that would (normally) produce cumulative (if not immediate) effects, became pointless to even attempt. Those strikes that were less effective (in an actual confrontation) were commonly implemented in the “sparring” arena. Though commonly argued that sparring is the “closest” way to practice for a confrontation, it is (actually) the best way to instill bad (ie. Non-productive) habits (at least when compared to Oyata's normal training methodology).

  At one time (back in the late 70's, early 80's) Oyata used to demonstrate what he was teaching (at the time, Ryukyu Kenpo) during the “half-time” at tournaments that his student's schools sponsored. In those early years (while he was still “recruiting” students for his association) he used these events for publicity.  
 After the mid-eighty's, sparring was never addressed (at his dojo, nor in the Yudansha classes that he taught). It was Oyata that initially emphasized the inherent drawbacks to participation in this practice.

  In Oyata's methodology, one's defense begins when the eminent threat is initially perceived. This is commonly when the student is first confronted by an aggressor (before it becomes “physical”). Oyata's training encompasses the identification of “tell-tale” signs (from the aggressor) that can provide the student with information that can assist in their pending defense. Though not (exactly) being a “list” that one can reference before a fight begins, there are commonalty's that can be used to assist in identifying traits that provide the student with applicable (defensive) information.

  This (piece) of Oyata's defensive methodology is but one of the reasons we have students begin their practice (of Tuite, defensive motions, striking methods etc.) from a static (face to face), arm's length distance from one another. Critics often choose to highlight this method as being “unrealistic” (as both persons would more often have their hands up, and possibly will have already assumed a “fighting” stance). Surprisingly (to some), this training method is done to illustrate and identify the common body motions made by the aggressor (uke) when beginning an assault. Although the average student will attempt to conceal these motions (in a class environment), the identified motions are still being made when the aggressive method is attempted. When these motions occur in an actual confrontation, they are far more pronounced (and thus more easily identified).

  Oyata taught that the head, and the groin (though both being regularly targeted) are both popular targets, neither can (actually) easily be struck, nor will doing so (easily) cause sufficient injury to the aggressor during a confrontation. Therefor, neither is an efficient location to perform a strike upon (for defensive purposes). Regardless of how unpleasant someone looks, nor how ever large their testicles, they are extremely unlikely to strike you with either (and/or cause damage to you with them).  Defensive strikes are taught to be directed upon an opponent's arms, legs and the side of their neck (not the throat, learn the difference, LOL). Body strikes are commonly applied (if still required) once the arm's and/or legs have been neutralized.

  These types of strikes have paramount importance (in regards to Life-Protection training). The practice of “sparring” negates (through the imposed “rules” of it's practice) for neutralizing those areas. Additionally, this practice is particularly favorable to the young, strong and male student. These should not be priority's for learning to protect one's self. These are (in fact) the traits of the most commonly encountered aggressor. Defensive training should be designed to negate any advantage that is held in those regards.

  Oyata's methodology was intended to do that. His methodology does not depend upon any of those traits for his techniques to remain effective. It is designed to exploit the common physical weaknesses that are present in any physical confrontation (by male or female aggressor's). Training should dictate how those applications should be used.

  The instructed techniques can be applied and escalated (if/when necessary) to meet the defensive requirements of the situation. Not all situations or aggressive actions mandate that the defender cause debilitating injury (to an aggressor). Students are provided with defensive actions, which they can escalate or reduce as the situation requires.

  Arguments can (often) escalate beyond their original intent, but they can subside as well. Students should have the available repertoire to respond to either situation (as it occurs). The most common physical altercations, arise from verbal disputes. Learning to diffuse these situations can negate many confrontations that (otherwise) might become physical.

  The practice of “sparring” (among it's many downfalls) does nothing to train a student in how to defuse these situations that might otherwise become physical, or when they do. Training only for the last resort situation, is not the only (or best) way to practice true “Life-Protection”. Though important, it only deals with a (very) small number of regularly encountered situations.

Tuite Failures

  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 (or what appears to be) has become the only way that they can use the Tuite (like) applications that they utilize. 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 (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”). Not until those sections are successfully completed, can the control and/or neutralization of the uke 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. 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 (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.

 I think some of this misunderstanding is the result of referencing Jim Logue's “Blue” book. Within that book is a “chart”, illustrating the “required” factor's of a techniques application. This chart has little (to nothing) to do with the application of Oyata's Tuite Techniques.

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. 
 When correctly applied, (Oyata's) Tuite techniques should not have the ability to be countered. When shown (various) "counters", they inevitably are only available because of a misapplication of the technique. That shouldn't imply that there isn't any that aren't susceptible to being "countered", only that those counters can be avoided with proper technique application. 






 

Bad Teachers? or Bad Students?

 I like to peruse the internet and "see" what the latest trends are, and I'm usually (quite) disappointed with what I discover. With my latest venture into the cyber-world, I was taken aback by how it is, that many people/systems perform the "Arm-Bar". I realize that "Logic" doesn't always apply to the martial arts, but many of the examples I found were,...exhausting (just to watch). This altered my search into seeking examples of "any" form of tuite (being applied). Surprisingly, there were few "still-shot" examples (most were really sad videos). Most all of the examples came from persons who claimed to have some manor of connection to Oyata (oh reeaally?).

  Oyata's defensive methodology isn't based upon size or strength for the implementation of the instructed techniques. His previously taught method wasn't either (though many of the prior instructors emphasized those traits, hence the advocacy they still show for “sparring”).

  The distinction between what/how Oyata taught applications to be implemented could seem minor to many, but the distinction is important when utilizing those applications in actual Life Protection situations. (as an example) the following technique (usually being referred to as an “Arm-Bar”, is commonly being taught incorrectly (as illustrated in the included examples).

  I copied all of the included pictures from numerous locations on the internet (for example purposes), identities were obscured to deter direct ridicule.
 The first detail that should be noted is that in every instance, the “uke” is still standing (yet their arm has been placed at a 90º relationship to the ground (and some even further). Most all are pressing down upon the upper arm, close to (if not directly upon) the shoulder to achieve submission. This amounts to being a “reversed” lever, a much more difficult, and less efficient leverage method.

  This shouldn't imply that one couldn't make (force) these to work, only that they are not using the most efficient means to accomplish the motion, most ALL of these examples are emphasizing strength/size to achieve a (if any) submission.

 The following are examples of what is being taught when people have “seen” one of Oyata's techniques (but have never learned how to do it correctly). These pictures are used by our students as examples of (what we would categorize as being) “botched” technique applications . We have our students “list” the mistakes that are being made in each.

Voodoo “Martial Arts”

  As if the martial arts industry wasn't potentially “unsafe” (enough) with many of the practices being taught today, the obsession with achieving “Knock-out” strikes has become ridiculous. Persons entering the market (whether to learn a means of self-defense, personal enrichment or even for “sporting” purposes), are inundated with tales of minimal contact (or even “non-contact”) “knock-outs”.

  Much of this nonsense has been built around the “death touch” mythology, as well as the clearly demonstrated kyusho applications/examples performed by Taika Seiyu Oyata.

In the early “80's”, the only person demonstrating these types of techniques was Oyata. Since then numerous individual's have begun “teaching” (their version of) these types of strikes. Many are no more than blunt trauma impacts, and demonstrate no more “skill” than pummeling someone with their hands/arms. When viewing examples of these... master's? Demonstrating their techniques, I'm usually unimpressed. Having both witnessed (first hand) and experienced Oyata's application of this (his) manner of technique application, I can (easily) state that there is a world of difference between the two.

  Cynics of (anyone) even having the ability to achieve one of these “knock-out” (results) in a confrontational situation are (more often than not) basing that summation upon their own “sparring” experiences. “Sparring” is a controlled and regulated “dual”. It has as much correlation to a physical confrontation as playing a game of (contact) “football”.

  When I initially had this manor of “neck-strike” technique applied upon myself (by Oyata), there was no “stand here, while I hit you” sort of demonstration (That only came about “later” when he did so at his “recruiting” seminars). He would tell you to “hit” him (anywhere), and he waited until you swung at him, only then did he strike you (with the fore mentioned “knock out” strike). Those that didn't know any better (myself included at the time, LOL) were very impressed by this (as well as the results). Only later did I learn that this made the entire strike (on his part) much easier to accomplish. There was no “standing there” while he hit you (during that time), he wanted you to understand what effect the strike would cause/create (when utilized in an actual defensive situation). Though often causing the person to lose consciousness, that was not considered a “requirement” for the strike to be considered effective.

  Whether the subject lost consciousness or not, the (additional) “body” responses were far more “dramatic”. These responses varied, but would commonly result in the striking arm retracting and the subject “spinning” around (away from) the intended “target/victim” (of their strike). Although not having been struck in the abdomen, retreating into a “fetal” position (kneeling on the ground) was very common.

  When he began doing “public” demonstrations of this, he had the persons “stand there” (relaxed). This was considered to be for demonstration purposes (not as an “example” of application). Though his strikes were “solid”, they were by no means extreme in the level of force utilized. He (Oyata) also performed “temple” strikes (performed using the “pads” of the fingertips) that resembled “taps”. These utilized minimal force, but attained equal results. These were also being shown as “examples” (and I never saw or heard of him teaching them to be utilized in a defensive situation).

  The use of these (types of) strikes on compliant/passive subjects, was done to allow the subject to (somewhat) experience what an aggressor would feel if/when the strike were used upon them during an altercation. Though startling and sometimes painful, these strikes would (at the very least) demonstrate that they could grant the user time to apply a variety of other possible applications (arm manipulations, strikes, immobilization techniques, etc.) whether the individual was rendered “unconscious” or not.

  One of the things I (regularly) observe and detest, is the whole “recovery”(?) routine/act that many (if not by most All of these clowns) of the “kyusho-expert” category utilize (at their “shows”). This (IMO) is one of the biggest “Snake oil” acts that I've ever witnessed. The entire performance (that they go through) is both ignorant, and pointless (and no one calls them out on it, WTF!?) . These people make endless “claims” of having done medical research (in regards to these types of strikes and their effect). Yet, ALL of them utilize a “Resuscitation/Recovery” routine (that they created, and then require their students to learn) and it serves NO PURPOSE what so ever (other than “showmanship”). (Obviously) None of these people have ever taken a basic “First-Aid” course. What these “kyusho” people teach (to do) is exactly opposite of what (medically) should be done to aid an unconscious person (and it could be argued that what they are teaching is dangerous to do as well).

  It could also be argued that their “victims”, never lose consciousness?,..(which would absolve them from any concern about their questionable, if not pointless “resuscitation” methods).

(I located the following information on the Internet, Several sources provided similar information. I encourage any/all students and instructors to become First Aid/CPR certified, You never know if/when/where it can prove helpful and/or save a life)

Unconsciousness - First Aid

Unconsciousness is when a person is unable to respond to people and activities. Often, this is called a coma or being in a comatose state.
Other changes in awareness can occur without becoming unconscious. Medically, these are called "altered mental status" or "changed mental status." They include sudden confusion, disorientation, or stupor.
Unconsciousness or any other sudden change in mental status must be treated as a medical emergency.
If someone is awake but less alert than usual, ask a few simple questions, such as:

• What is your name?
• What is the date?
• How old are you?
  

Wrong answers or an inability to answer the question suggest a change in mental status.

Considerations

Being asleep is not the same thing as being unconscious. A sleeping person will respond to loud noises or gentle shaking -- an unconscious person will not.

**An unconscious person cannot cough or clear his or her throat. This can lead to death if the airway becomes blocked.**

 

Causes

Unconsciousness can be caused by nearly any major illness or injury, as well as substance abuse and alcohol use.
Brief unconsciousness (or fainting) is often caused by dehydration, low blood sugar, or temporary low blood pressure. However, it can also be caused by serious heart or nervous system problems. Your doctor will determine if you need tests.

Other causes of fainting include straining during a bowel movement (vasovagal syncope), coughing very hard, or breathing very fast (hyperventilating).

Symptoms

The person will be unresponsive (does not respond to activity, touch, sound, or other stimulation).
The following symptoms may occur after a person has been unconscious:

• Amnesia for events prior to, during, and even after the period of unconsciousness
• Confusion
• Drowsiness
• Headache
• Inability to speak or move parts of his or her body (see stroke symptoms)
• Lightheadedness
• Loss of bowel or bladder control (incontinence)
• Rapid heartbeat (palpitations)
• Stupor (profound confusion and weakness)
  

First Aid

1. Call or tell someone to call 911.
2. Check the person's airway, breathing, and pulse frequently. If necessary, begin rescue breathing and CPR.
3. If the person is breathing and lying on the back, and you do not think there is a spinal injury, carefully roll the person toward you onto their side. Bend the top leg so both hip and knee are at right angles. Gently tilt the head back to keep the airway open. If breathing or pulse stops at any time, roll the person on to their back and begin CPR.
4. If you think there is a spinal injury, leave the person where you found them (as long as breathing continues). If the person vomits, roll the entire body at one time to the side. Support the neck and back to keep the head and body in the same position while you roll.
5. Keep the person warm until medical help arrives.
6. If you see a person fainting, try to prevent a fall. Lay the person flat on the floor and raise the feet about 12 inches.
7. If fainting is likely due to low blood sugar, give the person something sweet to eat or drink when they become conscious.
   

DO NOT

• Do NOT give an unconscious person any food or drink.
• Do NOT leave the person alone.
• Do NOT place a pillow under the head of an unconscious person.
• Do NOT slap an unconscious person's face or splash water on the face to try to revive him.