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).
