The Premise of Practice

 The study of a (truly) "defensive" system is comparatively only being practiced by a small number of people. The greater percentage of what is being taught is some manner of "fighting" (the willing participation in a physical altercation between two individual's). Though a large amount of what is being practiced makes the "claim" that it is being taught/learned in a defensive context, when examined it becomes apparent that it is being shown in order to allow the individual to participate in (rather than end) that altercation.

This is often the result of how those methods are being taught. Rather than seeking to learn how to end a confrontation, the more commonly taught (and practiced) applications are shown, taught and practiced in regards to how to (mainly) inflict some manner/level of injury to an opponent (Thus becoming an act of aggression itself).

The practice of "sparring" reinforces this ("fighting") premise. Though commonly presented as a tool for learning how an aggressor will "attack" the student, it does nothing of the sort. NO aggressive confrontation begins with both individual's squaring off and (then) beginning that confrontation. That situation is one of a mutually agreed upon desire to participate in that action.

An actual "defensive" situation, is one where the defender is "attacked" for no (obvious or justifiable) reason. More often than not, there is no interaction between the two individual's. This is commonly recognized as being a Predator situation, where the attacker seeks to inflict injury upon the defender for some (commonly illegal) "purpose". A Predator attacks for a specific purpose. Whether that "purpose" is robbery or even revenge, there is often little to no pre-engagement interaction.

The more commonly encountered confrontation is described as being an Alpha confrontation (whether the aggressive person is male or female). When there is any level of (verbal) interaction, there exists the possibility to end or at least prevent a potential (physical) confrontation. The fact that the verbal portion of that confrontation can become heated and/or derogatory (in content) should not imply that it has to become physical. Lot's of people do it every day (and they often possess no combative physical ability's at all). These situations are the more prevalent occurrence. The majority of individual's who are not skilled in a (hostile) verbal interaction, are inclined to resort to becoming physical (in their response). The greater reason for this (by males) is often the result of social conditioning. Physical "strength" is recognized to be a socially superior positioning. It has no validity in a civilized society (or reality) but it exists none the less. It only bears relevance in a physically confrontational situation. If it is the only "argument" for the justification of a viewpoint, that argument is usually invalid.

Although an individual may be skilled in providing a verbal exchange (which should not be limited to the ability to present their own insults), that ability should be used to nullify any escalation of the situation,. It should additionally be noted that the most opportune time to launch an "attack", is while the individual is talking. This fact is readily recognized by experienced aggressor's (I.E. while your presenting your witty come-back, the aggressor is launching their opening strike).

One's Defensive practice should account for this likelihood. The ability to perform a (any) physical action is more difficult when one is engaged with performing a verbal statement (talking). When one is engaged in performing any physical motion, that individual is less likely to (both) breathe, and/or speak. Try reciting some (any) well known paragraph while performing a (well practiced) technique/application in addition to performing a defensive motion, while your Uke performs a head-strike. It is awkward and difficult to perform it (correctly). If/when your argument for "practice" is to make those motions instinctual, this should validate (or invalidate) your argument for doing so.

An "instinctual" motion will occur regardless of the mental level of your engagement. The training that Oyata presented to us (and had us engage in) was intended to expand our awareness of these situations. He didn't have us practice the (numerous) different ways of performing kata just to mess with our heads (though it would have been funny if he had). The idea was to get us to perform those motions regardless of the circumstances (as well as make us realize that the Kata motions are only to remind us of the individual applications of the movements). The same is true/applicable when performing the instructed defensive actions. The purpose of defensive training should reflect actual situations (not contrived and controlled one's).

Numerous instructors/schools make an attempt at having student's do "live" training. This is an attempt to raise the students adrenaline levels and perform the practiced motions. Unfortunately these usually devolve into contests of "strength/power" (with little if any, instructed technique being actually utilized). Depending on what is actually being taught, the practicality of these exercises often only amounts to a more "physical" (if not brutal) form of "sparring" (having all the same limitations of practicality).

Any (if not all) practice entails speed and accuracy. "Strength" is only a variable if one is focused on overcoming that opponent's strength. The techniques shown by Oyata were (never) based upon "Strength". He would regularly demonstrate the fallacy's of that premise. Student's can often confuse the concepts of (physical)"strength" and "power" (effect from technique application). They are 2 concepts that can be similar, but (still) have distinct differences between them. Practice is intended to allow the student to train for the possible variables, and understand how to adapt their instruction to accommodate for them.