The Oyata Te Defensive system, is
intended to train students in effective manners of defending
themselves when they become involved in an (unarmed) confrontation.
It is taught with a "defensive" aspect ("non-aggressive").
Various applications are instructed to be utilized in/for
authoritative situations as well (I.E. Law Enforcement/Security
applications).
There exists a fairly common belief,
that the practice of a "defensive" art does not include (or
even instruct student's in) applications that are intended to
cause/create injury. There is no implication being made that a
"defensive" art is
not capable of
causing/creating injury upon an aggressor, only that it is not
the intended goal with its use. The priority of a defensive
methodology is to protect the user ("first, and
foremost"). There are situations where that objective can only
be achieved by inflicting sufficient damage/injury (upon an
aggressor) that the aggressor is unable to continue their
assault. The argument that a defender should (always) be able to
"immobilize" (or even restrain) an aggressor (rather than
cause/create injury upon them), is an unrealistic expectation.
Even when an aggressor can (successfully) be restrained, the
situational circumstances may not allow for that to be a valid
expectation to utilize in every situation).
The purpose of a defensive methodology
is to is to instruct the students of that methodology to protect the
student from receiving physical injury if/when they find themselves
attacked and/or physically threatened. Although that may require the
student to inflict physical (limb) impacts upon that aggressor, the
training focus is mainly upon learning to apply manipulations upon an
aggressor.
The student of Oyata Te is initially
shown to be observant of their surroundings. “Avoidance” is the
most practical method of “Self-Defense” and requires the least
amount of training or skill to accomplish. The most commonly
encountered “aggressor”, is someone who is known to the
victim. The majority of physical altercations begin with some
level/degree of verbal interaction (whether "hostile" or
not), and has escalated into a physical exchange. These can (often)
be avoided by not using any "challenging" or "derogatory"
language or phrasing during that (verbal) exchange. If the exchange
should become physical, the student's first priority,
is to avoid becoming injured. Next, they need to neutralize
the aggressor's ability to continue their assault. New students are
inclined to focus on the second of these defensive aspects. If
the first is not achieved, the second is moot.
Providing an effective method of
defense should be done by combining one's initial (defensive) actions
with those that achieve the second (simultaneously).
The student begins their study by
learning the “Natural” movements (ability's and inability's) of
their own body. The student's knowledge/awareness of those
abilities and limitations allow them to more effectively utilize
those motions when applying various instructed applications.
The initially shown motions are
(obviously) defensive. Those motions (when they are correctly
utilized) are used as transitions to the application of technique
responses intended to end a confrontation. The situation will
commonly dictate what that will consist of. Because any
application has the potential of being miss-applied, and/or being
ineffective, the student should be familiar with (multiple)
variations of/for those applications. There is no "one-technique"
that will work (effectively) in every situation.
The (latest) "popular" trend
(in the martial arts community), is the "single-motion"
defense. These are commonly "attached" to some alphabetical
acronym that makes them easier to remember. I can agree with the
concept, but not with what is being shown for the application
of those methodologies. These motions are taught as being a "basic"
response for any/every type or manner of (attempted) assault. Every
one of them (that I've observed), lead into a "grappling"
situation. As long as the student is physically strong
(enough), the student will (commonly) be able to maintain a superior
advantage. If the student is smaller (than the aggressor), they are
automatically at a disadvantage. Oyata's methodology avoids the
(creation of a) situation that would allow these factors be
(or become) a determining factor to the instructed applications.
Once the natural ability's (and
inability's, if not limitations) are understood (by the student),
they can begin to implement the necessary adjustments to the
instructed motions (to maintain their effectiveness in use). A
student's initial training is (often) in regards to dispelling
(numerous) false/inaccurate assumptions about “natural”
and/or commonly used (if not taught) motions. The easiest way
(IMO) to discern whether a motion has been taught inaccurately,
is if/when that motion has been (purely) instructed in regards to the
individual limb's potential. The inclusion of the (remainder
of) user's body is treated as being supplemental to the
applied motion/action. This is regularly displayed when students
perform "regimented" practice (with student's lined-up
in formation) to review the instructed motions. This is commonly
being done with the students arranged in “Horse” stances (for
their arm motion review), and “Back” or “Forward”
stances for the leg techniques. This will (subliminally)
train the student to assume those positions prior to the
techniques use (in a defensive use/situation).
This type/manner of practice is done
(primarily) for the instructor's benefit. It achieves little
to nothing for the student's abilities (in regards to the
individual motion). It is mainly done, because that's how the
instructor (originally) learned it (and they haven't
considered the probable consequences that result from practice
done in that manner). Justification is attempted through
"commonality" of use (with
no concern in regards to the detrimental
results from having done so).
Within the practice of Oyata Te, we have attempted to avoid
these detrimental training practices. We are continually modifying
our own training methods to reflect that objective.
The (next) most “popular” type
of practice that we don't include, is that of "sparring"
(as it is popularly practiced). Our (equivalent) is closer to that of
"3-4 step" (defensive) practice (though could easily be
considered "freestyle"). This is done with both student's
beginning in "natural" stances, and following the "begin"
command, the (pre-designated) aggressor, begins their assault. This
practice can include the use of protective gear (or not). The match
is commonly ended when one participant is immobilized and/or submits.
There are no "points" in these matches, they are intended
to be for the student's experience with the use of the instructed
motions and applications.
This manner of practice is considered
(in general) to represent when the student has failed to perform the
instructed applications correctly. If/when those applications were
done correctly, the (“fight”) situation would not be as likely to
occur.
Student's are shown the (basic) use of
the “Tuite” applications early on in their training (often from
their first class). As the student's abilities with those
motions progress, the situations that they will become
applicable within are increased as well (during the student's
training) including when those motions can be initiated by the
student. Many of the basic techniques are commonly bring dismissed
as impractical or too rare (in their occurrence) for
the student to concern themselves with their (varied) use. The use of
"slow speed" practice (to represent a confrontation) can
demonstrate the value/applicability of those techniques when being
properly applied.
Tuite is an integral piece of the Oyata
Te system (having an equal importance as the instructed
stances, strikes and application's provide).
Those systems that provide (their own) versions of it, (often)
treat it as a separate study.
Within the Oyata Te system, It is trained for and is utilized in
conjunction with the
use/application of the more commonly recognized defensive motions
(used during a defensive confrontation).
No comments:
Post a Comment