The Misconception of Basic and Advanced

 When discussing Techniques, there is a general misunderstanding of what constitutes something as being "Advanced". For most students, this generally is in reference to something that the individual has not learned or mastered (yet). Techniques are often similarly misnamed (in our opinion). Claiming that a "technique" is advanced, is just weird (IMO). I might understand how a particular application of a technique may be considered to require a greater amount of practice (to accomplish), but I don't see how a (or any) technique (itself) could be considered to be "advanced". If the (supposed) "advanced" version is so superior (to the "basic"), then why does the basic continue to be practiced? The only logical reason would be that "basic" would be better defined as being the introductory or instructional version (of whatever is being shown/taught).

Within the instruction of Oyata Te, we attempt to avoid the term "advanced" as much as possible. We began this when referencing the instruction of "Kata". We do not teach a "basic", "intermediate" or "advanced" version of any of the kata that are taught within that system. We only recognize one version of each kata that is included in the curriculum. As our students are learning the various rank requirements, their kata are being continually refined (until they are performing the kata in its final form). Although the individual kata are introduced at varying ranks, a student will begin the practice of additional kata with each kyu rank advancement. Satisfactory performance of an individual kata commonly occurs after several advancements in ranking (prior to the performance of the kata becoming satisfactory). The awarding of a Yudansha ranking, should (in our opinion) represent that you know the kata.

We have done similarly with the practice of individual techniques. We no longer have student's perform (any) "hand/arm" techniques from a "Horse stance" (as is commonly practiced in most systems). Those motions are always performed in conjunction with a "stance" change or motion. This is but one of the ways that we begin having students perform multiple actions simultaneously.

Many of these changes have been made for reasons of practicality for instruction, and to avoid student frustration. It arose from our own (as well as that of students) asking why (?) they have to learn the manner of doing something (kata, tech. stance, etc.) "one-way", only to have to later change it (to be something that is actually used/applicable). If/when we would ask Taika (Oyata) about this, he would say that "he" didn't say it was basic, we did, he was only referencing the motion (and what was being done with it at that time)."Basic" was Western (American) terminology (that we seemed to understand). "Kihon" translates as "Basis" (not "basic"). There is a slight but distinct difference. Taika taught motions and principles, how we choose to practice/perfect them was (individually) up to us. His concern was that we could correctly perform the final version (of the demonstrated motions).

Being that we are not a "store-front" Dojo, we are not obligated to maintain a (or any) level of "income" (beyond a students monthly tuition/dues). We don't charge for individual kyu-rank examinations or have mandated time requirements for a student's study. Many of our students have prior study/experience (in some level of "martial arts" study) and those students are required to learn the manner that we instruct and perform those motions. "New" (inexperienced) students are (actually) easier to teach this system to (as they don't have to re-learn the way that we perform certain actions). This can be an (obviously) difficult thing to do (for many of those "experienced" students). Although many of the motions/principles that are taught in Oyata Te are similar to those taught within other methodology's, there are differences.

The majority of our (new) students will often express frustration at the amount of (menial) things that we emphasize during their instruction. We have speculated that this may be the reason that many instructors teach their syllabus incrementally (I.E. "Basic, Intermediate, Advanced"). Seeing that we (only) train "adults", we feel that they can handle it. If an individual needs a consistent level of external reinforcement (certificates, awards, belt's etc.) they will likely not be content to study within Taika's system.

We've had numerous students (or at least "attendees" of class) who only desired to learn our manner of Tuite application. Those students (obviously) only wished to learn the manner that we utilize "Tuite". The vast majority of those individual's quit after a comparatively short time. Most found the techniques to be very difficult to utilize. This was usually because they were trying to integrate it into what they already did. Tuite was intended (if not designed) to be utilized in conjunction with the motions utilized within Oyata's methodology.

Oyata taught "Life-Protection", not methods for combative exchanges. Though being a "cool" (sounding) name (for what's being taught) that phrasing is counter-productive to/for (practical) defensive training.

The ability to utilize this art is dictated by the actions made by an aggressor. Every (physical) action perpetrated by the aggressor (whether "pre-conflict" or during the altercation) will dictate how the student will respond to those actions. Every (physical) conflict will involve (if not mandate) a specific response to counter (and end) that assault. Though we have students practice (numerous) foundational responses, those responses must have the ability to adapt (in order to adequately respond to the individual aggressive action). There are no defensive responses (taught) that are intended to only deal with a specific aggression. Every defensive action should have the ability to (adequately) respond to whatever action is attempted by an aggressor. Being that several (of those methods) are learned by each student, it becomes their choice as to which is the most practical for themselves to utilize.

When a student is initially shown a defensive response, they will practice that motion in response to multiple types/manners of aggressive strikes/actions (using the same motion). That motion should be able to adequately protect the user from receiving any serious injury/damage (when performed correctly). The only differences (in the motions use) will commonly be in the "timing" (of that use). To be considered as a "practical" application, it should not matter whether the aggressor attempts a Right or Left side-hand strike or grab (or even kick) to remain applicable. This was often where students (with prior experience) would falter (or at least experience their greatest frustration).

Those students will commonly attempt to change the (over-all) defensive action to respond to the differences in the (individual) method utilized for the attacking motion. When the defensive action is correctly performed (with the correct timing) it should continue to be a viable defensive motion (regardless of the manner of the attempted assault).

One's ability to (correctly) perform those actions entails the student's use of their entire body. It matters not that the motion is a strike, a kick or a grab. That defensive action should be able to effectively respond to an aggressor's attack (regardless of what or how that attack is attempted).