The majority of students that choose
to attend a “martial arts” school, are people wanting to learn to
learn a method of protecting themselves (and/or their loved one's) if
they should become involved in a physical confrontation. That
instruction is commonly centered upon that confrontation being with
someone not known to them (ie. A “random” encounter) and that the
aggressor does so with criminal intent. The statistics actually
refute that assumption.
Examining available police statistics
and reports, the most common physical confrontation will be with
individuals known (often intimately) to the victim. This should in no
way dismiss the occurrence of random acts of physical violence by
individuals (previously) unknown to the student, only that the “odds”
are, that it will be most often with someone with whom the student
will have some manner of relationship with.
When students begin their study, they
will often envision an unknown individual as being their aggressor,
and their study/practice will often be centered upon that premise.
Aside from being unrealistic, this attitude can prove to be
detrimental (in regards to accomplishing that goal).
Many of the “popular”
schools/methodology's capitalize upon this (mistaken) premise and emphasize the use of applications that are excessive in their
(physical) effects (upon the aggressor). Students exposed to (only)
this manner of instruction, will often respond to a (less than
serious) confrontation with excessive force/responses.
Though
accomplishing the “basic” premise of protecting the student, it
places the student at (greater) risk of legal repercussions. This is
often justified by a declaration of “better safe than sorry”...
which is a very “jingle-esk”, but is also unrealistic
itself.
Other than a law enforcement official,
the “common” citizen is rarely involved in a “life-threatening”
situation. Official statistics will verify this, serious acts of
violence have steadily decreased over the past 20 years. That's not
to say it doesn't occur, only that the “odds” of being in a
random “life-threatening” situation are very small.
The most commonly occurring physical
confrontation will be with persons known to the victim (often being a
“relative/partner” of the victim). Although this can escalate to
being a life threatening situation, they more commonly are not. The
majority of deaths (that do occur during these altercations) are more
commonly accidental with no intent (of
death) existing. That shouldn't imply that they are less
serious (when they do occur), only that the manner that they should
be responded to is often different than those that occur with a
stranger.
Though the average student believes
that they are training to combat a stranger, the statistics show that
they are more often likely to be involved with someone known to them.
This will effect the manner and types of techniques that they will
feel comfortable with using. If/when they are only taught those
techniques that are (only) designed to “work” by causing serious
injury (damage) to the aggressor, they are essentially left
“defenseless”. “I” believe this is the result of instruction
that is intended to (only) meet the “popular” opinion of
defensive method(s) that emphasis those techniques that cause/create
serious (physical) results.
At our school, we provide greater emphasis on the student's response to (more) commonly encountered
initial aggressive actions (as opposed to the unrealistic “sparring”
types of dueling confrontations, that in 35+ years of
experience, including those in “security/protective” positions,
has never occurred).
For the past 20 years of instruction,
we have taught on the model of there being 2 (basic) types of
confrontation. We have recently (for the past 4 +/- years) been using
the “model” of a confrontation being either a “Predator”or an
“Alpha” type of confrontation. “We” didn't establish this
model, but we did feel it was a very relevant standard to utilize
(see an explanation/definition of this model at “http://lowtechcombat.com").
These amount to being a method of
defining the “type” of confrontation that one will be involved
in. This is important, in that it helps define how a student
should respond to a situation that they find themselves in.
What we've found, is that the majority
of methodology's and instructor's teach their students on the
“Predator” model of defensive instruction. But the reality
is that the majority of physical confrontations are (more often) of
the “Alpha” variety. This is important in that it defines
how/what should be taught to the average student.
This (additionally) fits (very nicely)
with how Oyata taught us to utilize his instructed techniques and
applications. Oyata emphasized that one's ability in the use of Tuite
was vitally important in one's ability to defend themselves.
Additionally, a higher level of skill in that ability would protect
an aggressor as well (in addition to providing the defender with
greater legal protection). This in no way diminished the
importance of the instructed “striking” techniques, only that
those non-striking (ie. Tuite) techniques were of more common
utilization.
Unfortunately (IMO), the majority of
systems relegate these (types of) techniques to a “beginner” (if
not “amateur”) level. Because of this, the majority of
practitioners and instructor's (in our opinion) possess only limited
ability in it's use and application. Instead, they emphasize the
“Punchy-Kicky” types of defense as being the “main” method
for students to utilize.
Much of this belief, comes from
(instructors) believing that the instances that it (Tuite) can be
utilized (only) occur in the manner that they are (commonly) taught.
That is the fault of the instructor, not the technique. The manner a
technique is learned/reviewed during a class, is (most often) for the
purposes of learning how/why a technique can (or can't) work.
Person's who have been in physical confrontations (should) know that
“grab's” occur during a confrontation on a regular basis. The
fact that they are ignored (during those confrontations), is
the fault of the instructor not the student.
Additionally, those situations
(“grabs/pushes”) can often be created by the defender,
thereby negating an eminent “striking” situation. This is another
training aspect that is often ignored/not recognized.
A great deal of our frustration with
how Tuite is being taught, is that we (regularly) encounter persons
who claim that a (Tuite) technique will “not work on/for them”.
This is (in every instance that we have encountered) the result of a
technique being miss/incorrectly-applied. The second most commonly
encountered situation, is if/when the person is attempting to utilize
“strength/power” to achieve a result (with the techniques
application). This occurs (almost exclusively) with “male”
practitioners.
Every Tuite technique taught, should
be equally applicable (by every student) upon any other student
(including instructors) regardless of any size/strength differential
between those persons (tori or uke).
If/when a technique is dependent upon
“speed” (of execution), this too illustrates a lack of
understanding (of the technique). Thus, “practice” of the
instructed techniques need not be done quickly.
This doesn't imply
that the techniques use is performed slowly, only that
practice of the technique need not be done quickly to achieve
the desired result (and thus allows for longer practice periods of
the techniques, and will diminish the possibility of student injury
while doing so).
Slow practice requires that the Tuite
technique be performed (more) correctly. It additionally will
demonstrate any possible “counters” (and how to avoid them) that
become evident when the student is performing an incorrect motion
(during the students performance of the technique).
The time that the “average” class
devotes to the practice of Tuite, is commonly a (very) few minutes
(30 minutes +/- is “average”). Including the instruction of the
basic motions involved, the average time we spend for any of the
instructed (Tuite) techniques, is commonly an hour. That isn't (just)
the “basic” motion of the technique. It includes
instruction/demonstration of the most commonly made mistakes made, as
well as the resultant “counters” attempted (because of those
mistaken application manners).
It has become “common” to teach
strikes to be included with a Tuite techniques application. We
do so as well, but they are not a “mandate” for the application
to work (and are not included during the initial instruction of a
technique). They are only taught as a distraction and/or addition to
a techniques application. They should never be considered to be
mandatory to achieving a successful (Tuite) techniques application
(particularly during “practice” of the shown technique).
Although numerous Tuite applications
can be (initially) “learned” in a single session (class), we have
found that continued repetition of a techniques practice is necessary
to instill a students “immediate” response/reaction to the
techniques (“grab/pushes”) utilization. Each technique should be
be attempted in every possible circumstance to establish a
“familiarity” for it's use/application by the student.
