The Most Commonly Used “First Action” Attacking Methods:
(Right or Left Side
being utilized by Aggressor)
The majority of Oyata's Life Protection methodology is based upon instantaneous responses to any attempted assault. That mandates that the student be familiar with what are considered to be the most "commonly" occurring opening confrontational methods (and having practiced responses to each of them).
Those "choices" are not as varied as one might initially suspect. His methodology was based upon the (obvious) premiss that an unarmed aggressor, can strike you using their arms/hands, or their legs/feet. They could also grab you (whether to "take you" somewhere, or to throw you to the ground). To do any of these, they have their own 2 hands, and 2 legs to utilize in completing their objective.
The aggressor, as with the defender, are only able to utilize 2 arms/hands and/or 1 leg (of those 4 limbs) simultaneously at any given time. Though all of these limbs are available to an aggressor, it is far more common that only "1" of those limbs will be utilized for the "initial" strike in a physical confrontation.
When developing one's defensive methodology there are certain prerequisites to establishing validity to that study. A defensive technique should accomplish several objectives:
#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 User, or the Aggressor.
These were Regularly voiced by Taika,
and have since become the cornerstones of our 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,
Leg Motions Work
Best, Below the waist.
When Applying Technique, Square Your Body Towards Your Opponent
Learn Your Own
Weaknesses, In Order to Know Your Enemy's
"Surprise" is the only real advantage that an aggressor will commonly have. Through training the determined student can minimize and/or negate that advantage.
Though commonly proclaiming that there are "Endlessly" different ways that an unarmed individual can assault someone, the truth is, that there are actually only a limited number of (generalized) ways that an assault can be accomplished.
Using thousands of documented accounts (publicly available gov. records and personal recounting's) of unarmed physical altercations, the most commonly occurring "initial" physical actions are what we use to base our students training upon.
Opening “First Strikes”(using the hands/arms), are most commonly aimed at the Head/Face of the defender ("Tori").
Arm Strikes:
“Roundhouse” Punch
“Shoulder-Cocked” Punch
"Punch from
Waist"
“Upper-Cut”
Punch
The following "kicks" are commonly intended to strike the groin or face of the defender
Leg Strikes:
Knee Strike
Front
Kick
Roundhouse
Kick
“Spinning”
Kick (type irrelevant)
Pushes, are commonly intended to "taunt" a person into initiating a physical confrontation. It should be remembered that any "physical contact" can/will be regarded as "battery". Grabs are the more obvious form of "battery" (often used to "steady/restrain" a subject while simultaneously striking the victim with their free hand).
Grabs & Pushes:
Push to Chest/Shoulder
(1&2-Hand)
Forearm Grab (High-Straight & Cross)
Upper Arm Grab
(Single/Cross-Straight, Double/High-Low)
Bear-Hugs From
Rear (Outside & Inside)
Throat-Grab (One
and Two-Hand)
These are the most
commonly encountered “First Action” aggression's that are
encountered in a typical (unarmed) altercation. The most commonly
taught response/reaction that is taught to “new” students (from
the majority of martial arts methodology's), is to respond by
retreating/backing-up. Though seeming to be a
logical reaction (and often based upon the premise that
one will do so naturally anyhow),
by doing so, it more often places the defender/tori into a more
perilous position.
By “backing-up”, the
tori has started his body-weight motioning in a rearward
direction (away from the aggressor). This will cause any
counter-strikes being made (on their part) to be less
effective.
They are also moving
(further) into the effective range of the aggressor's
(initial) strike. Successive strikes are very often performed in sets
(of 2 or 3), with the first, and the final strikes of
the set (that's being performed) intending to be the most damage
producing blows.
This strategy is intended
to cause the defender to “cover-up” (defensively), and thus
causing/creating openings for the aggressor to exploit. This
is a time-tested (and proven) tactic, that is very
often completely effective (which is why many
people/systems use it). It is also (but one of the
reasons) why, we don't train our student's to back-up.
We (as most every other
system) begin our (new) student's with learning the basic motions and
stances. As they become more familiar with these, we introduce them
to basic applications (of various types, IE. Grabs, pushes, strike
attempts, etc.). Once they've became familiar with those basic
motions, we have them begin to utilize them in various
(combined) defensive/protective sequences.
Although there are
numerous responsive actions for each of the individual
aggressive manors presented, we (initially) have them work on
(singular) motions that can be used (equally) for any of the
various methods of aggression. By "that", I mean that the motion should be able to react to any of the listed striking methods (equally).
As the student progresses, they
can/will determine (for themselves) which method is the most natural
(and productive) for their own defensive practice.
Though
far from being the most efficient
manor of striking someone, the “Roundhouse” punch is certainly
the most popular of striking methods utilized (by the average
individual). Used by both males and females, this manor of striking
someone (in the head/face) is the simplest for the average person to
use (as well as being similar to the “Face-Slap”). When utilized
as an opening strike, it is (usually) intended to be a “surprise”
strike. Though occasionally used in conjunction with a grab
(performed with the opposite hand), it is more commonly performed as
a singular strike to then be followed with repeated strikes.
A
“Shoulder-Cocked” punch is more often utilized by individual's
who have had experience in physical confrontations. Though not
utilized as often as the “Roundhouse” or “Hook-Punch” (as
the previous strike is also referred), it is the 2nd
most commonly used striking method. This manor of strike is akin to
the “Wind-up” manor of punch (where the aggressor pulls their
striking arm behind their body, in an attempt to coil
their entire body(weight) into the strike, then un-coiling
it as they propel the striking hand forward (this same action is
often displayed when performing the “roundhouse” strike as well).
A
Punch that is thrown “From the Waist” is normally performed by
persons who are experienced with physical confrontations. This manner
of punch is intended to be deceptive
(through it's suddenness and speed). Though not as likely to
(normally) “connect”, it's main advantage is the limited response
time
allowed (for it's interruption). This strike and the “Uppercut”
both share similar traits in their execution (as well as in the
required responses).
These
strikes are the most commonly encountered aggression attempts. They
are utilized in the majority of attempted aggression as opening
strikes. The instructed defenses are designed to be “generic”
responses that will (initially) work for the student's defense
against them. They are then most often modified
by the individual student to work the most efficiently for
themselves.
“Kicks”
are rarely used as an initial
means of aggression. That's not to imply that it can't
happen, only that it is less
likely. If/when it should occur, there are several factors that will
effect the kick's ability to cause injury. #1 is Distance,
the closer that one is to their aggressor, the less
likely that they will attempt a “kicking” manor of assault (aside
from the “Knee-Strike”, which is most commonly performed to
strike the groin of the defender).
Aside
from someone who has spent an amount of time training
to do so, the ability to hit
a target (with your foot as the impacting limb) is a fairly difficult
accomplishment. Other than possibly having played “kick-ball” as
a youth, the average person rarely uses their foot for many
applicable purposes, beyond walking.
For that reason, it is not uncommon to recognize when someone is
going to attempt a kick upon you (this is true for “trained”
individual's as well). The “kicking” person will inevitably look
at where they are going to kick. Only through their own
training will the student gain the ability to recognize and
capitalize upon this weakness.
The
student should never assume that (only) they
are the one's who have received any training (in kicks, punches,
throws, etc.). Rarely have I encountered anyone who hasn't
participated in a “community center/after-school” (type of)
course, or that a “friend” hasn't shown them (some manner
of) basics
for
a “martial art” (sic). This means that the student shouldn't
assume that (only) they
will recognize, and/or have the ability to perform a “martial-arts”
type
of kick.
Should a
confrontation (actually) begin with the aggressor attempting to
“kick” the student, the student need only be able to identify
which manner of “kick” the aggressor is attempting to use. This
isn't as difficult as might be initially thought. The less training
that the aggressor has had, the more that they will telegraph
their intent. With even minimal practice, those attempts can be
easily recognized if/when they occur.
When
the aggressor attempts a forward
manor of kicking attempt (ie. A “Front Kick” or “Forward
Thrust”), the aggressor will commonly lean forward
(at their shoulders) as they do so, or will lean backward
(if they have had no
or minimal
training). It is more common, for an aggressor to lean towards the
opposite
side (from their “kicking” leg) when that attempt is made
utilizing a Roundhouse
or thrusting
kick. This is most commonly done to achieve greater height with the
kick (or to maintain their balance).
Using
any of these kicking methods require that the aggressor have
sufficient room
to do so. This in turn requires the aggressor to maintain the
distance
to do so. This illustrates some of the reasoning behind remaining
within arm's
reach
of an opponent. Doing so tends to restrict the aggressor's
options to the use of (only) their arm's
for any aggressive actions.
In
regards to defending against an aggressor's kicks,
the closer
that the defender is to the aggressor, the lower the aggressor's
ability
is to perform them. If the aggressor is determined to perform (some
of the more popular types of) “kicks”, they will need to
establish
sufficient room to do so. This will mandate that they move
(sufficiently) far enough away
from the defender to use that kick. It also places the burden of
recognition
of
that attempt (prior
to it's occurrence) upon the defender.
For
the majority of kick attempts, the easiest manor to foil their
performance is to step closer
to the aggressor. This is contradictory to how (many) systems teach
their students to defend against kicking attempts made upon them. The
most commonly taught defensive method, is to retreat
away from the kick (which does nothing
to prevent it's recurrence).
The
most
common attempted “kick”, is the Front
Kick.
Though not always performed correctly,
or even effectively,
(almost) anyone can perform some
manor
of this kick. It is quick, easy and will accomplish (at least) some
level of result from it's use. Because of flexibility
issues, this kick is commonly performed upon the legs
of the defender (most often intending to impact the groin).
For
the untrained
(and those who have the ability
to do so), one of the most common types of “kick's” that are
utilized in an attempt to intimidate
(though not as commonly used),
are often made in an attempt to kick the head
of the defender. Though considered to be “Flashy”, any attempt to
kick someone in their head is a stupid
tactic, and should be (easily) suppressed by the defender kicking the
aggressor's supporting leg (during their kicking attempt). Though
it's common for an aggressor to be concerned with being struck in
their groin
(while making their “head” kick), rarely do they seem to be
concerned with their support
leg?
(while attempting their “head” kick). This is commonly excused(?)
by their practice of “sport sparring” where doing so is against
the rules.
Those that would claim to be able to do so too
fast
for that to occur, have never done so against anyone
who has spent 5
min.
practicing against it's occurrence (it's that
easy to counter).
Spinning
(types of) kicks are (IMO) probably the easiest to counter/defeat.
Regardless of the “type” (“Straight”or “Round”) of
spinning
kick, one need only step into
the kick to neutralize any of it's potential for causing injury. This
is another example of “closer
is better/safer”.
The most common problem
with this defensive method, is that the defender doesn't step-in
close
enough.
If/when the aggressor is allowed any
amount of “space” (between the two individual's) the potential
for them to complete a successfully attempted “spin” kick is
increased.
Grabs and/or
Pushes, are used when the aggressor feels more confident with their
ability to respond to any offered resistance. The aggressor may also
be “baiting” the defender to escalate the situation (thereby
providing some level of (self) “justification?” for escalating the
encounter. Regardless, grabs or pushes can commonly be ignored, or
(if/when they are performed with significant force) be utilized as
cause for an escalated defensive action being utilized.
Any physical
contact from a perceived “threat” (the aggressor) provides legal
justification for the defender to respond with sufficient force to
nullify any further aggressive actions occurring from the aggressor.
Continuing beyond that point though,... raises the probability of (then)
being considered to be the (“new”) aggressor in the situation.
For that reason, we
train students to (first) protect themselves from receiving injury,
then nullify/restrain the aggressor (if/when they are capable of
doing so).
This is commonly
accomplished through the use of “Tuite” techniques. Numerous
individual's take the position that these manor of techniques cannot
be utilized in “combative” situations. The only viable answer to
that critique, is that those individual's haven't learned, or
practiced in how to do so.
The listed “Pushes
and Grabs” are the most commonly encountered manner of assault. The student should
(initially) focus upon having a “response” to each of them. There
are normally several responses that are taught for each of
these situations. The student should have at least one (and
preferably several) for each of them.
The newer student
is usually most concerned with learning defenses for
“striking” attempts. As that student acquires (training)
experience, they will learn that strikes are more easily evaded and
are less likely to occur when the student has practiced to circumvent the aggressor's (ease of) ability to utilize them. It will then become more
likely that a “grab” or “push” will be the choice of the
determined aggressor (when the ability to easily strike has
been compromised). This mandates the students familiarity with the
use of Tuite techniques.
Those that believe that Tuite is a "passive" defensive method, are (obviously) unfamiliar with Oyata's method of Tuite application (there is nothing passive about it).
Though not providing any "detailed" descriptions (here) of our training methods (we have books in varying stages of completion and publication that cover those subjects), this article provides a basic explanation of how our instructional method is formulated and provided to our students.