My associate and I were recently
discussing how to best describe (and teach) the various instructed
motions that we show to our students. Our “problem” was with how
the student should be shown those motions. Many of the motions are initially
taught to students in a manor that emphasize a particular aspect of
the motion (as opposed to the manor which it is utilized in a
defensive application). Though it's possible to teach the motions in
their (final) utilized form, there are often certain aspects of the
motion that a student can/will disregard if those aspects are not
emphasized to them individually (or sufficiently).
Part of our “problem”, has been
with how those motions are initially (imagined?) presumed to be
performed (via casual observation by the student). When a
motion is viewed independently (out of context with an application),
numerous misinterpretations can be made.
For example, the Forearm strike
(or “block” if you prefer). Our instruction (as with all
beginning motions) is started with the tori's arm's being at their
sides. This motion is commonly taught with the utilized arm sweeping
across the tori's body (at groin level, close to the user's body) and
traveling upward to a position that places the tori's hand (with
the elbow bent) at shoulder level. It then travels forward, to a
position that extends the utilized arm's hand/elbow forward.
This motion is initially taught as
being a forward arm motion (though, it is often misinterpreted
as being a sideways arm motion). That presumption is
often made because the student hasn't been shown (as yet), that they
will also be rotating their body accordingly (either to their
left, or right side), thereby determining that the motion utilizes
the inner, or the outer side of the arm. Regardless of which
direction the tori is rotating, the arm's motion is performed in the
same manner (it is the rotation that determines that it
be considered either an inside or outside motion).
As the student gains experience with
utilizing the motion (in application), they will often short-cut the
motion (beginning to motion forward when the hand reaches the
opposite side's waist level). This causes the motion to move forward
during the process of raising to shoulder height. “Visually”,
this can appear to be a sideways motion, but it is still
(mainly) forward. When the student is rotating their body with
the motion, the appearance of sideways motion is created (and thus,
the confusion).
The problem, is that beginning
students haven't (as yet) began to rotate (their body) with
their arm motions, and therefor will motion their arm sideways
(instead of forward) to perform the parry/block/strike. Though
(somewhat) accomplishing the motions intended purpose, it is an
extremely weak motion (when compared to the forward
motion, that it is intended to be).
In an effort to ease the
learning curve associated with performing these (and other) basic
motions, our students are (often) allowed to perform these arm
motions in a sideways manner (initially). This means that the
student will then have to modify their arm's motion as they
progress in their learning.
My initial feelings about this, are
that I disagree with allowing them to perform the motion in an
incorrect manner (at all). (IMO) the student should be shown the
correct (final)
manner of performing the motion, and they will have to contend with
the higher degree of difficulty (in learning the motions
performance). Though (possibly) more difficult for the student to
learn initially, I feel it better to learn it in the correct
manner that it (should) will be utilized, rather than have to learn
to modify it later (because of poor initial practice).
I consider this to be akin to our
instruction of kata. When we first demonstrate a kata to one of our
students, they are shown the “skeleton” manner of performance
(without the inclusion of various nuances and motion detail). As they become more familiar with the basic structure of the kata, those details are included. When
the student is shown their next kata, those nuances and motion detail
are included (because they have already learned them while practicing
the previous kata). There is no (instructional) reason for them to
not be included (from the beginning) once they have been learned. Various kata will have
distinct/different motions (that haven't been shown to the student in
a previous kata), and those motions will be included as the student
progresses in their performance of that kata's skeleton form.
We've already been doing this (manner
of teaching) with our instruction of tuite. Beginning arm motions
should be taught in the same manner. The fact that something that is
taught to a student can't be immediately utilized, does not
invalidate the motions validity. What we teach takes time, and
practice to learn. Additionally, we do not instruct children
(under the age of 16) at our school, so comprehension should not be
as great a problem for our students (as could be the case for some
schools).
Prospective students are often under
the impression that we are there to provide what they want, how
they want it. That's only accurate to a certain degree. We provide
instruction in a particular methodology, we do not teach what is
commonly being taught at (many) store-front dojo. What we do
teach, is what has been shown to us by Taika Seiyu Oyata. That
instruction has been modified and improved over the past 35 years (by
him), and we intend to adhere to that method of instruction to the
best of our knowledge and ability.
Many of the prior methods/techniques
and training methods that he (Taika) employed in the early years
after his arrival in the U.S., he abandoned later as not being
relevant, or of value to/for training (ie. “Bogu-sparring”,
over-use/emphisis of the makiwara, tamashiwara etc.). A lot of
his attention was focused on efficiency of motion (be it leg,
arm or hand motion). With that as our premiss, we are continually
attempting to improve our own instructional methods.
Part of that attempt, is in
eliminating any unnecessary “steps” to a technique's
instruction. Oyata had the luxury
of only teaching Yudansha level students (and no, “seminars”
don't count as instruction, they were only for “introduction to”,
and/or “examples of” purposes). Oyata left the instruction of the
“foundational motions” to his (Yudansha) students (to teach to
their own Mudansha/kyu-rank level students). By the time that those
students were of sufficient level to study (directly) with Oyata,
they had already (theoretically)
been shown all of the “basic” motions. His only goal was to teach
those Yudansha how to
effectively apply what they had been shown.
Now
that Taika is gone, we (his Yudansha students) have to determine how
to teach those lessons he provided to us, effectively, and
efficiently to our
students.
