Face Your Threat

 Of the numerous "saying's" that we utilize in our instruction of Oyata Te, one of the more commonly heard ones, is Face Your Threat. Though being a seemingly obvious statement, it is also a commonly misapplied strategy.

As with the majority of the instructed motions, whether a “strike”, a “Parry” or the application of a Tuite technique, the student should align their (entire) body to be utilized with the technique being attempted (that of their own body, not with the opponent's). What is more commonly seen, is that the student will (often) choose to align their body with the opponent's “center-line” (meaning their chest, or face), and not upon the (actual) threat being applied by the opponent (commonly their striking limb).

If/When making this attempt, one will observe the student's arm's motioning outside of their effective range for technique use/application. Will (can?) that motion still achieve an effective defensive action? Yes, but it will require a greater commitment and greater physical effort on the part of the student (in addition to requiring higher levels of arm motion/speed and strength to achieve their intended purpose). Doing so will also create a greater “recovery” time (for the striking arm's use in any required additional applications).

By (simply) rotating their body to “face” the actual “threat” (the opponent's striking limb), the student is more (easily, and effectively) able to utilize their arm's in achieving the purpose of the defensive motions being utilized. Though being a (seemingly) slight variance, this minor rotation (of the student's body) changes the range (and the effectiveness) of the student's limb motion (being used in their defensive application).

In addition to this use in responsive (defensive) actions, the same principle is used with the application of those techniques being utilized by the student (upon the opponent/Uke). When applying a manipulation technique upon the arm/wrist (of an opponent), the student will (or should) “face” the opponent's opposite arm/side (I.E. when applying a technique upon the subject's “right-arm”, the Tori should “face” (their body) towards the Uke's “left-side”, which is the actual “threat” at that time, during the technique's application). Student's will (often) attempt to align (their entire body) towards the “center-line” of the Uke. Doing so will require that the student expend greater/higher levels of force (muscle) to achieve the desired reaction (by the Uke). If/when dealing with a larger/stronger opponent, this makes the application of the technique more difficult to achieve the desired results (if any).

The use of this meme, is (often) the student's introduction to an example for, Force Efficiency. This principle is present in every (physical) motion taught and utilized in the Oyata Te system. It is present in every stance, every strike and every application taught. When a student is having difficulty with a technique, their “first” concern should be with their use/application of Force Efficiency.

When shown a defensive action, the student initially faces the impending threat, having responded to it, their attention is diverted to the next (imminent) "threat" (commonly from the Uke's opposite side). To accomplish this may require the student to realign (and/or "Rotate") their body in order to effectively do so. If/when the student attempts to (only) "twist" (their upper-body) to respond to the next/additional "threat", they will be slower and demonstrably "weaker" (with that attempt).

This can be (obviously) demonstrated by having student's attempt to “punch” (a bag or hand target) on one side of their body, with the opposite side's arm (without rotating their hip's/body or shoulder's). Even when allowed to rotate their shoulders (alone), there will only be a (minorly) appreciable increase of (delivered) “Power/Momentum” if/when the hips are included with that rotation. That level of (delivered) momentum, can be further increased, with the inclusion of the knee's/feet being rotated towards the location of the desired impact. This demonstrates another example for the principle of Ka han shin, Ja han shin (“Upper controls Lower, Lower controls Upper”).

Oyata showed/taught us that one's (arm) “techniques” should be applied (upon an opponent) within (what we refer to as being) the “zone/area of application”. This is (roughly) the area within the user's (own) shoulder width (horizontally), and between the (user's) “cheek” level and the “hip's” (vertically). Any (arm) application that is attempted “outside” of this area, requires the student to realign their body (to make the desired motion/application occur within that area).

Force Efficiency encompasses numerous factors, but the main concern/relevancy is in regards to the application of the user's (Tori's) motion (of their limb's and torso during the application of a technique).

The Awareness (and use) of this understanding can be used to recognize the strengths/weaknesses of an opponent/aggressor as well.

The Validity of Arm Strikes

  I have engaged in numerous discussions (more accurately "debates") concerning the use of strikes, delivered upon the arms of an aggressor. The “argument”(?) against their use, is commonly accompanied by the person's claim that they have received (numerous) strikes (being made upon their arm's), and have suffered no “ill effects” (that would prevent their continued use of them during a confrontation).

To myself, this claim is equivalent to those who state that they have never been “taken to the ground” (during a confrontation), so working on “ground tactics” is a waste of time. I could (easily) make the argument that those individuals have never had "effective" arm strikes utilized upon them, but it is more productive to define the expectation's for those types of strikes (than to argue one's presumed vulnerability to them).

The majority of utilized strikes (intentionally delivered to/upon the arm's of an opponent) are a rare occurrence. This is (commonly) seen regardless of the "style" being taught. Student's are often more concerned with striking the "face/body" of their opponent. This is seen whether the strike is delivered by an aggressor, or by the defender (during a confrontation). Achieving an effective delivery of these types of strikes requires a greater degree of accuracy with their delivery and the student's understanding of how those strikes should be implemented.

If/when a “defender” chooses to not “close” with their aggressor (for whatever reason), that aggressor will (commonly) attempt to strike the defender by using their arm's. Those person's with “longer” arm's will often focus upon the use of their own arm's as well (to implement their attempted strikes).

If one's arms are shorter (than their opponent's), the “best/easiest” remaining option, is to focus their own strikes being made upon the arms of that opponent. “Random” placement of those strikes will rarely achieve any productive results. When those strikes are (accurately) placed upon those locations that are vulnerable (to being struck), the opponent's use of that arm will diminish (if not cease). Although an immediate cessation of (that arm's) use is not always achieved, the delivery of a single (if not continuous) accurate placement of those strikes will diminish the aggressor's continued use of (or effectiveness with) that arm. It will (often) cause that aggressor to (either) change tactics (ceasing to “strike”), or modify their method of attack. This will (often) equate to then “grabbing” the Tori/student. This can often negate the aggressor's (presumed) superiority (if not their greatest threat) in the confrontation. With the application of the defender's strikes (having been made upon the aggressor's arm's), despite the aggressor's belief's, those “arm-strikes” have diminished the aggressor's use of them (their arm's), and have reduced their abilities with any continued use of them.

For myself, I utilize few (if any) strikes that are placed upon the “body” (of an aggressor). The majority of the strikes that “I” utilize, are made upon the arm's, legs and (occasionally) the neck. I have (almost) never been involved in an altercation with someone who was smaller than myself. Though being (comparatively) "tall", I am not (physically) large, (nor “strong”). This has equated to my confrontations being with individual's who were (both) larger and stronger than myself. The ability to use superior size and strength has not been an option. As a result, I have focused on the use of the applications (taught to me by Oyata) being made upon the weaknesses (or vulnerable locations) of my opponent's. When I state that strikes delivered upon the “arm's” (of an aggressor), will affect their use of/for them, I can do so with the experience that I have had with my own use of them.

When people have asked (within our classes, whether by regular student's or by attending guests) the (often easily accomplished) use of these types of (arm) strikes can be easily demonstrated. No, they are not (or at least are rarely) "fight ending" applications. But they can definitely create significant (detrimental) effects upon an aggressor's abilities.

Definitions and the Use of Motion, within the Oyata Te System

 Oyata's methodology (regardless of the time-period for that instruction) has always emphasized (entire) "body" motion/use during the application of the instructed motions. That instruction varied/changed over the course of his (years of) instruction.

Force Efficiency is the term that we use in our instruction of the (physical) application of the instructed motions utilized within the Oyata Te system. Oyata did not utilize this term, it is the phrase that we coined to define the manner that he (Oyata) utilized those motions. The term is used to define the efficient use of the physical actions that are taught to our students. Our use of the word “Force” should not be confused with Forceful or to imply “strength” (within the use of those applications).

The average student is initially inclined to believe that having a greater amount of (physical) “strength” will assure that students use of the instructed motions. Of the (multiple) factors that determine the effectiveness of an application's use, the amount of applied “power/force” is considered to be the least important (the correct “placement” of that application being significantly more important).

When one is determining what factors are the most readily (if not universally) available, physical strength is one of, if not the lowest/least important on that list. If/when a technique is dependent upon that “one” factor (I.E. “power”), it is (then) only applicable by a limited number of individual's (male or female). That use is additionally dependent upon it being greater than the opponent's ability to resist/absorb that application.

The student's knowledge of an opponent's natural "weak spots" (not necessarily "Pressure Points") is necessary for the use of those applications. That awareness/knowledge is taught through the instruction of the student's use of their own body (within the instructed motions).

Force Efficiency is the initially instructed "awareness" of those strengths (and vulnerability's). Though (initially) taught as an efficient means of technique delivery/use (by the student), it additionally exemplify's an opponent's vulnerabilities. If/when involved in a physical conflict with an opponent who is larger/stronger, the student must have the ability/knowledge that allows them to circumvent those advantages. This awareness is exemplified in every aspect of the instructed positions/motions.

When people (generally) speak of Oyata's technique application, they (commonly) will refer (if not “obsess”) to his use of a “neck-strike/knockout”. This technique (though being very impressive) was often difficult (if not impractical) to utilize in a (more "common") altercation. If that technique were as "effective/practical" (as people generally imply) why didn't Oyata spend more (if not the majority) of his classes devoted to his student's perfecting it? (obviously) Because it wasn't (either “easy” nor practical). Depending on the circumstances, it more often resulted in a “stun” (or temporary imbalance) of an opponent (thus becoming a glorified “atemi” strike, which was what Oyata considered it to be).

Our use of the term "Force Efficiency" is used to exemplify the student's most efficient use of their body and appendage motion in the application/use of the instructed positions, motions and techniques (whether defensively or offensively). That instruction begins with the student learning/understanding what motions are natural and what motions are not. That includes the subliminal motions that occur in response to expected and/or unexpected actions (performed by the student or Uke during an altercation). The student's awareness of those responses allows them (those responses) to be utilized within the student's application of (the instructed) technique.

When one examines what constitutes “natural” motion, it commonly consists of forward motion (by the bodies limbs). Those motions that are “circular” (or rearward) are not considered to be as “threatening” (as those that are delivered directly forward). (in general) circular motions require “room” to develop momentum. It is also difficult to (efficiently) include the user's body-weight with those types of strikes.

Oyata Te demonstrated the positioning of the student's hip's and shoulders during those application movements. In general, the hip's and the shoulder's remain (consistently) "square" (to one another) during any motion/movement. When that alignment is altered, the student will be (and "feel") off-balance. I have recently seen (several) “examples” of individual's performing (their own) versions of Oyata's method for performing the Kata (the versions that he taught). What's commonly exampled, is a quickly performed example, that includes (numerous) incorrectly “added” motions (as well as motions that were removed by him, I.E. Oyata, as well). Oyata did include additional motions, but they were intended to be (very) subtle (and barely recognized/noticed).

One of the most obvious (of Oyata's changes), was the elimination of (any) "shoulder-wag" (during the performance of the kata). The reasons for doing so are multiple, but its inclusion is an obvious indication of not having been part of his later (I.E. the last 10-15 years of his life's) instruction. The examples I've seen may have been (at one time) "valid", but they should be (more accurately) considered as being "basic" (and certainly not "advanced", as those posters have claimed).

Oyata's later years of instruction focused on the student's use/positioning of their body (whether during technique or kata) motion. He felt that this was of higher/greater importance than (individual) “technique” use or variance. Those motions held greater importance than the learning of different or additional technique motions. Once those motions were understood by the student, techniques would become more obvious (via the kata motion) to the student.

I've received numerous inquiries as to why I don't post "video's" of new/different technique applications. If my readers refer to our Oyata Te (member's) page, my associate has included (numerous) videos that example (much) of what I have addressed here (technique motion/application, etc.). Frankly, "feeding" the internet's need for video examples is not my goal (here).

Those that (actually) are interested in what/how we teach Oyata's methodology should attend our classes to get a more descriptive (and physical) “exampling” for what/how we teach his methodology. Our Classes are (very) relaxed and we are very open to explaining the “how” and “why” of Taika's teachings (as well as those teachings that he didn't agree with).

Validation

 Numerous individuals inflate their association with recognized experts, regardless of the field being addressed. This happens with diplomats/world leaders, musicians, political figures and other popular individuals. It's done as a way to legitimize whatever the individual is promoting. Whether this equates to promoting a business, a product or just as an attempt at legitimizing whatever the individual is attempting to sell/promote. The falsehood of that promotion is (generally) known to those individual's who actually have experience and associations with the stated individual's and/or material.

Although this “problem” occurs in numerous fields of study, it is particularly problematic within the various martial arts. Throughout the years, it has been accepted (whether rightly or not) that particular aspects of a defensive methodology should be kept “secret” (from the general public). There is a general belief that just having “knowledge of” (something, I.E. that “secret” knowledge/ability), equates to having the ability to utilize that knowledge. This is commonly recognized as riding the coat tails of the acknowledged expert (who has proven themselves to possess that knowledge).

Whether done for monetary gain or only to inflate the ego of the perpetrator, it is (at best) an exaggeration of those abilities and/or knowledge, or it is an outright lie. More often (than not), the claimed/stated knowledge and/or abilities are more limited than the individual would care to admit to (or even realizes). There are individual's who (actually) believe that they do possess the claimed knowledge. If/when they “go public” with what they know (or think they do), They are commonly proven to be incorrect.

For the most part, persons of this ilk are ignored by the individual's who do have knowledge of the stated/claimed knowledge. Those individual's making the (commonly incorrect) claim, will rarely present themselves (or whatever they're promoting) for public review/critique (if not simple “questions”) in regards to the stated claim(s).

Individual's of this type (who make numerous claims) rarely (if ever) will meet with individual's who are (publicly) recognized as having experience/knowledge with the claimed knowledge/persons who the individual is claiming their (own) association. If that association is confirmed, what difference would it make? It would only increase that individual's legitimacy. If that association was more limited (than claimed), it would (obviously) cast doubt upon the subject's claims.

There have been numerous individual's who previously studied Oyata's methodology (at varying times over the past 40 years) that have attended our classes. Those individuals possessed varying degrees of knowledge (in regards to what was instructed during the period of their claimed attendance). The knowledge that they had was (generally) "correct", for the time period that they studied with him. The amount of that knowledge was commonly limited to the amount of time that they (actually) studied with him (the attendance of a “seminar” was not considered actual “study/instruction”). Many had knowledge in regards to individual aspects (such as what was commonly shown/demonstrated at a seminar), but few had (any) amount of comprehensive (much less complete) knowledge in regards to his later/final teachings.

“Open” Seminars were not considered “training” (by Oyata). Their purpose was to recruit student's (and demonstrate/expose attendee's to his methodology). Many of those attendee's only sought to learn motions/techniques to add/include with their (already) studied/taught curriculum's. To a limited extent, this could be achieved, but the system that Oyata taught was intended to include (all of) the numerous additional aspects of his teachings (which were never completely included within the provided seminars).

Many of Oyata's teachings were in direct contradiction to commonly adhered to practices. The use of the makiwara, sparring, stances, weapons, the list of those differences is extensive, yet individual's claim to have (full) “knowledge” of/in regards to his system (after having only attended a few of his early seminars?). During the final 10 +/- years (of his life) Oyata only provided (training) seminars to his association's membership. Though being restricted to the present (at the time) "membership", those seminars were intended to emphasize individual aspects of his teachings. What was shown was intended to be incorporated into (the attending student's) general instruction. Oyata had ceased any increase of his personal students. What was shown in those (his own) classes was (intended) to be passed on (by those Yudansha) to the general student membership. A number of those Yudansha choose not to (readily) share that instruction (one can formulate their own reasons why that was the case, IDK).

If/when someone (actually) studied with Oyata (personally) for 5 (or more) years, then they acquired a decent/respectable amount of instruction. Depending on the time/period of that study, dictated what was shown/learned.

As stated within his own writings (and repeated within the writings of others, including myself), Oyata was modifying/improving his defensive system continually throughout his life. He believed (as do/did many of the prior “masters”) that “Te” was a continually evolving and improving art. If/when it became "stagnant", it would be surpassed by those systems that continued in that improvement. This was why Oyata never ceased to improve his methodology, Oyata would (readily) admit that "he" didn't have all of the answers/knowledge (for any/every question regarding the practice of this art form). He expected his students to continue with the advancement of that instruction. Oyata was not afraid to "cease" those practices that were not (or proved to be less than) "productive", as well as those that were "counter-productive". If/when he discovered/developed what he believed to be an improved method, and following extensive experimentation/research (often using his Yudansha students as “Guinea Pig's”), he incorporated it into his instructional methodology.

Oyata stated that there was only “1” Te, it was only being taught in varying ways.

Symmetry

 I recently read an article that attempted to address the human bodies inclination to not function symmetrically. The argument being made was that being non-symmetrical was an advantage. Although the article only (briefly) addressed the numerous non-symmetrical facets of the human body, the emphasis was (mainly) made in regards to the use of the arms (and presumably the leg's as well) and how being asymmetrical was (in fact) an advantage (?). After reading the article, I failed to understand the writer's reasoning (for this supposed "advantage"), the only thing I concluded from the article, was an affirmation of the existence of this asymmetry.

An individual being fully ambidextrous is an (extreme) rarity. More commonly, an individual will have a (single) dominant side (that they will be inclined to use for their “natural” actions and responses). This is usually addressed as being the individual's “dominant” side (I.E. Right/Left-Handed).

Oyata addressed this distinction by designating those sides (of the Tori/Uke) as being a “strong” side, and a “weak” side. Most systems only address the Tori's use of those distinctions. It should additionally become a “piece” of the student's defensive actions and responses. What is commonly seen, is that a system will have student's use both of their arm's/leg's (equally) while practicing the instructed motions. Although this can (slightly) assist in increasing the student's use of their non-dominant side, it does almost nothing to increase that (non-dominant) arm's abilities.

In regards to the student's use of either side, Oyata stated that the student should use their “weak” (non-dominant) side 3 to 4 times more than their dominant side (in the attempt to increase the weaker sides abilities).

Oyata's technique instruction (and use) in regards to defensive tactics, included “minor” facets that provided (collectively) numerous defensive advantages. These included a number of things that are commonly used as critiques (by other systems of instruction).

Knowing that the most common confrontation begins with the two individual's engaging in a verbal exchange, Oyata stated that (regardless of what is being said) this, and the time leading up to the exchange, should be used to evaluate as much information (about the aggressor) as possible. This includes determining a Right or Left dominance (of the aggressor), any (apparent) injuries or weaknesses, and (of course) any compatriots of the aggressor (who may become involved in the confrontation).

Oyata demonstrated that the student had a greater number of options when they stood “square” (initially) to the aggressor. They should (when space allowed) have their arms “down” (to their sides when practical). Though "scoffed at" (by the majority of defensive systems/instruction) Oyata felt that it was more important to avoid the confrontation whenever possible. The Tori having their hands (down) at their side, does not (necessarily) make them slower (in their responsive action). This has been demonstrated, via easily available technology. If/when the aggressor (initially) positioned themselves within “arm's reach” their use of their legs (to initially attempt a strike) is dramatically reduced (hence, it was more likely that they would attempt a strike/grab with their arms). If the aggressor has "not decided" (yet) whether to (physically) engage with the student, by standing "square" (non-threatening) the student has not (albeit, subconsciously) escalated the situation. The aggressor who has intentions (for continued escalation) will position themselves (commonly) with their “strong” side to their rear side (presumably to provide the greatest amount of distance for their arm to achieve the desired amount of momentum for a “strike”). Aside from allowing the Tori (student) to “know” which arm the Uke (aggressor) is likely to strike with, it also informs the Tori as to which arm should be the focus for (their own) infliction of injury.

The most commonly attempted “first strike” (that begins a physical confrontation), is an attempted strike to the head/face. It can be argued as to “why” this is, but the most probable reason is to attempt a “knock-out” (strike), which (BTW) for that to actually occur is a rarity.

The Tori standing “square” (to the aggressor) allows either arm to be utilized (equally), although students commonly will motion to a "favored" side (regardless of which arm is used by the aggressor).

This is accounted for by the student's practice of the performed defensive actions. The instructed defensive actions are not side-dependent. Regardless of which arm the aggressor utilizes, the instructed defensive actions (with only minor modification) should provide an acceptable response. Once the initial response is implemented, the situation will dictate the appropriate continued response.

Oyata emphasized the "lead-time" (prior to the physical confrontation), as being when the student should be formulating their defensive strategy. There will exist a “go-to” response (if/when one is

"surprised"), but the majority of confrontations include factors that lead up to the “physical” confrontation itself. This time period is commonly ignored by the majority of the instructed defensive methods. Those systems/instructors are inclined to only deal with the student's defensive actions once the aggressor begins their assault. Oyata would state that doing so, would put the student (at least) 1 (if not more) step behind the aggressor. This is (obviously) not acceptable for a defensive tactic.

Oyata stressed that each motion (performed by the student) should produce multiple functions.

Oyata didn't teach “blocks” (a non-productive term to begin with), he taught defensive strikes. Those strikes should achieve more than (simply) “deflecting” an aggressor's strike, those motions should inflict injury (if not damage) with their use.

An aggressor's “face” (and/or “groin”) are not what will cause injury to the student (despite any claims made). Yet, these are what is commonly focused upon by students. Both of which, are readily (and most often effectively) protected by an aggressor.

The “arm's” (that they are attempting to “strike” or “grab” you with)...not so much. People are inclined to believe (and I've been engaged in numerous “conversations” about this), that they can sustain “any” amount of “pummeling” (upon their arms), and still be able to inflict injury and/or retain their use of them. Each and every (effectively delivered) strike/manipulation made upon an individual limb, limits the aggressor's ability (or inclination) to use that limb. If/when both arms are injured, the level of (actual) “threat” by that individual is greatly reduced (if not eliminated).

For that reason, many (if not most) of Oyata's instructed techniques were focused upon injuring an aggressor's arms. Although injuring an aggressor's leg's could be (argued as being) a more effective tactic, doing so is (often) more difficult to effectively achieve. The logic of this tactic is obvious, an aggressor with little to no use of their arm's becomes a "questionable" Threat (thus “de-escalating” the situation).

To effectively deliver a “strike”, there must exist at least some amount of distance. Without that “distance”, one cannot develop momentum. Without momentum, the effectiveness of a “pummeling” (type of) strike is difficult, if not impossible to effectively achieve. By maintaining a "close" proximity to an aggressor (during a confrontation), the defender (Tori) can dictate the manner and/or ability of the aggressor to continue their assault. This (situation) can often result in a "grappling" situation. One's awareness of the use/application of the instructed "Tuite" applications (then) becomes more relevant (if not important/applicable).

I've encountered (numerous) individual's who believe that “Tuite” (either) won't work (on them), or can easily be rendered ineffective. If/when performed incorrectly, it's unlikely to work on anyone. It can easily be demonstrated, that (even) when done sloppily (IMO), it will achieve the desired reaction (on the majority of people). When performed correctly, I have yet (in 30+ years) to find someone that it doesn't work on. Have I ever “failed” (at the application of a Tuite technique)? of course, I have. I've also (immediately) recognized what "I" did wrong when it did fail. A techniques failure can always be traced to (some) incorrect application of that technique (whether being “Tuite”, “Atemi” or a simple “punch”). People are imperfect. The second one believes otherwise, is when you will “Fuck-Up”.

Using the kata

 A recent comment/question (by a reader) on a previous blog, raised the question of “research”, and the methods we utilize to perform our own. Oyata had provided us with several methods (that he utilized himself) to do so. The “examples” commonly seen being done (on the Internet) usually consist of people attempting to use the motions in the same (if not exact) manner as those motions are performed within the kata. Oyata had been shown that those motions are (generally) individual motions (even if not representing "individual" techniques), and they were intended to be combined with "other" motions (demonstrated within the same and other kata). Oyata's explanation was that the (individual) motions, were more like "letters" that needed to be combined with other/additional letters, in order to form words (more complete techniques and applications). Although certain kata may be assembled to emphasize a particular theme, the individual motions could serve multiple uses, depending on what and how they were combined with other kata motions (whether from the same or different kata).

One of those methods utilized “pictures” for each of the motions contained within the instructed kata. This amounts to having a “deck” of picture/cards that includes the motions from each of the kata. The deck is shuffled, then a number of (random) individual cards (motions) are drawn from the deck (1, 2, 3, 5?). Those cards represent individual techniques/applications and defensive motions, and those motions are (at least attempted to be) combined in some way to illustrate a defensive response to the predetermined manner of assault. It doesn't always “work” (in a practical manner), but it does force the student to formulate how the motions “could” be utilized. It can also illustrate additional uses/interpretations for those motions that had not been previously considered.

The use of the cards additionally gets the student “away” from the (common) belief that the motions are (always, if not only) used in the manner depicted within the particular kata.

Taika used this method (using Kodak "pictures"), we now have the convenience of the internet, and can order a "deck of cards" with the pictures (that are provided) in as many "decks" as necessary. A large number of the "basic" motions are repeated within the various kata, so it isn't (really) necessary to print an entire deck for each individual kata. I believe that our own “main” deck of “kata motion” cards, has 197 cards. That “deck” represents the motions contained within the 12 foundational kata (taught to our students) within the Oyata Te system.

The most common use is done by randomly drawing a set number of cards and the student attempts to develop a defensive action/response using those cards. The cards can also be specified (to 1 or 2 particular cards). The student could also include randomly selected additional cards as well (the possibilities are seemingly endless).

The “goal” is to get the student to begin thinking of the motions as all (individually) being important. Student's (often) get “pigeon-holed” into believing that a single (or group) of kata motions (only) has a “specific” (if not individual) purpose.

If one were to “imagine” being the original creator of a “kata”, Why? Would you create that “kata” to defend against (only) a particular set of “aggression” methods? It makes more sense, to provide motions that would have multiple uses/applications (for a variety of aggressive acts). It's been noted (by multiple sources) that many of the early instructors, only taught a single or only a few kata to their students. When those students would study with another (different) instructor, they would often learn the kata that those instructor's taught to their students (often to learn similar if not the same defensive actions).
The motions contained within the individual kata rarely (if ever) were intended to represent the typically shown/learned techniques (that are rampant throughout the martial art's world). The more important "lessons" (of the kata), were those motions that caused  or created specific actions/results that (either) effected the applications being demonstrated, or provided examples for instructed principles 
Oyata felt that learning the (relatively small number of) kata that he included within his system was more than sufficient for a (diligent) student to learn/understand the demonstrated motions (which is the purpose of the kata). Understanding “how” to utilize those motions is achieved through the student's continued practice/research of those motions.

Once a student has learned a "set" of kata (regardless of the number of kata learned), they should have the ability (through the demonstrated actions contained within those kata) to develop/practice the instructed techniques (as well as adapt those motions) to a variety of aggressive actions.

It should be noted, that numerous individual's (and/or “newly” developed “systems”) have created their own set of “kata”. Every example of these (types of) “kata”, that I have observed, have been lame attempts (at replicating existing kata and/or motion combinations). I could understand (maybe) developing an “exercise” (to learn/practice a particular motion), but none (that I have seen) provide the varying application of instructed motion that the “traditional” kata provide. Kata, do not provide the (actual) responsive “technique” instruction/application. They provide examples of defensive technique motion. An instructor is (at least initially) required to provide examples for the use of those motions. Student's should avoid fostering the "belief" that a (or any) particular motion only represents an individual technique/response (to a particular aggressive action). That motion will often be used in additional defensive actions, but its use may vary slightly (within those defensive actions). What is demonstrated within the kata, is (often) a “basic” example for that motion. The kata provide the principles of/for that motion (not necessarily the exact application of/for that motion). Individual circumstances will dictate the (actual) use (for that motion), but the kata provide the physical execution/use of that motion.

I've seen numerous people (attempt to) demonstrate that the kata includes the (initial) actions of the aggressor, this makes no sense (to myself). There would be no purpose to have included the motions of an aggressor (within a “training” routine, like a “kata”). Those motions would already be known/recognized by the student (and often are what the student initiated their attendance of the class to learn a "defense" in regards to).

The “traditional” kata were (originally) taught in “secret” to a selected few students. Their purpose was to convey principles of/for technique application, not (necessarily) specific techniques. If that were the case, it would be much simpler to (simply) have a "list" of techniques/motions (that the student would be required to learn). When the student gets away from the concept that the motions are (individual) techniques (and in fact represent “concepts/principles”), the ability to recognize techniques (that utilize those motions) becomes more readily apparent (as well as  making those motions more applicable in additional situations).