When the new student begins their study of a defensive art, they
are shown the rudimentary movements for the application of
techniques. Those motions can be strikes, grabs or motions that place
an aggressor at a physical disadvantage. An important aspect of
achieving that advantage is the student's understanding of the
natural weaknesses that exist within the human anatomy. Attempting to
understand the entire body's weaknesses can be an ominous (and
unnecessary) task. We begin that instruction with the student
understanding the movements, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities of the
arm. We start with the arm because an aggressor's arm will be the
more easily accessed and vulnerable to the student's defensive
applications during a confrontation.
Once those vulnerabilities are understood by the
student, that knowledge can be applied to the remainder of an
aggressor's limbs (during the student's application of defensive
actions).
Various instructors attempt to have their student's learn those locations throughout an aggressor's body. We've found
that understanding those locations within the arm, will act as a "reference" for the remainder of the limbs. Those Strikes delivered upon an
aggressor's torso will have greater variance than those locations
that are on the limbs (arm's and Leg's). The variance that exists
between the different body (torso)-types (and weight) are more diverse
than what will be present between (different) individual's arms.
Our
students begin with learning how to perform strikes that are made on
the aggressor's arms. Strikes made upon the Torso, are addressed
differently as they commonly will only be accessible once the arms
have been neutralized. When the student gains an understanding of
those arm strikes, that same knowledge can be "transferred"
to be used when striking the leg's (as the locations that are learned
to be utilized on the arm's, can be directly applied for use when
striking the leg's). Every location that is shown on an aggressor's
arm, can be directly correlated to use on the (opposite) Leg of the
aggressor. Fortunately (for the student), they have their own body
for referencing those locations. Though most of those locations are
known/recognized (by the student), they need only understand the
correct angle that they need to be struck at (to elicit the desired
result). The majority of those locations can be struck at various
angles to elicit different results/reactions. Those variances are
dictated by how the limb is being utilized (by the aggressor) at the
time of the defender's impact (upon the aggressor's limb). The
correct (or more effective) manner to utilize a particular location
is always dependent upon how the aggressor is using that limb at the
time. The utilized locations are places where the nerves and tendons
are readily vulnerable to external impacts and manipulations being
applied upon them.
The term "Kyusho" is commonly used to
describe these locations, though "Atemi" would (IMO) be
more accurate. "Kyusho" implies a devastating result from
its use when more often the locations only exemplify a particular
vulnerability (more akin to the meaning of "Atemi", or
"distraction"). The whole "labeling" thing,
becomes a contest of semantic's. Just as with the whole "TCM"
fallacy, these are simply locations, that may or may not have any
actual relation to one another. We have chosen to utilize Oyata's
perspective on any relationship that those locations may have with
one another (which has shown to share a greater relationship to
Western medicine than to any "TCM" theories). Those
relationships are directly related to commonly recognized principles
that are used (and readily available) within Western medical texts.
The theories and concepts of TCM are based on random idea's and vary
depending upon the presenter's perspective. By using Western
theories, they're subject to (multiple) reviews that can either
validate or invalidate those ideas. Though variances will exist,
those differences can be logically explained/identified and will be
demonstrated through recognized models of/for behavior and reaction
(rather than through some "obscure" example, I.E. "the
position of the tongue" during the application of a technique).
For myself, I can now recognize why Oyata dismissed (all of) the TCM
Theories. Yes, some of it can demonstrate certain actions and
reactions, but it cannot be confirmed, justified or even replicated
through demonstrated examples upon varied/multiple individuals.
Additionally, one need not learn (much less understand) the often
confusing idea's that are contained and taught within that Theory.
Oyata's methodology is based upon how motions should be performed the
most naturally, and effectively. To the casual observer, those
differences often appear to be very subtle, but they change the
manner for how those motions have been commonly taught and used. By
using Oyata's "Force Efficiency" application manner, those
locations are more practically (and easily) utilized. This training
begins with how the student is shown to perform the initially
introduced body positions and limb motions (Stances and Defensive
Strikes). Those variances (from how they are typically seen being
done) are dependent upon the student's use of Force Efficiency. Every
motion taught, must be performed with that principle being utilized.
Student's are inclined to "separate" the instructed
principles (from the various motions beings shown to them). To become
effective, those principles and various motions must be integrated in
order to produce the desired results. This was the concept (ka han
shin, ja han shin) that Oyata continuously stressed. Until that
concept is an integral part of the student's motion/technique
application, any concern for "Atemi/Kyusho" is a futile
effort.
It bears mentioning, that there exists an overbearing concern
by student's, in regards to the use of "knock-out" (Neck)
strikes. The majority of that concern falls into two camps, the first
is in regards to safety (and any lasting effects), the second is in
regards to the subjects "recovery" following the strike.
The safety concern is one that is justified, but for "healthy"
students and the use/application of lightly applied strikes, that
concern can be minimized. Over-enthusiastic student/instructor
application of those (neck) strikes should not be tolerated (nor even
allowed). The lighter application of those motions will convey the
desired understanding/result without causing unnecessary risk to the
recipient. For healthy student's/subjects, the use of lightly applied
neck strikes should not be a concern. The more "troubling"
concern (IMO), is in regards to what is being "taught" as
being "recovery" technique's/actions (being performed upon
recipients of those often "excessively" applied strikes).
For the average (and "healthy") recipient, the effects
caused by those strikes are more related to "fainting" than
to anything else. The commonly taught "Recovery" classes
taught by many of those individuals who use (IMO) excessive force
with their instruction methods are (medically) total Bullshit.
If you
choose to use the TCM theory (for whatever you are doing), when
applying "first-aid" (to those victims/recipients), you
should utilize "actual" First-Aid methods and techniques.
Being on the receiving end of a "neck strike", is most akin
to the effects from fainting (a sudden fluctuation in the blood flow
of the brain). Strikes applied to the neck, only cause a fluctuation
in that blood flow (and they certainly don't cause a "restriction"
of blood flow to the brain). Those strikes only affect the blood flow
from the brain (similar result, just a technicality that's regularly
misunderstood). What should be recognized, is that the subject is
experiencing what is more closely related to a "fainting spell".
With that being understood, the "medical" response SHOULD
be to lay the subject down (if not additionally raise the legs). This
allows the blood flow (and pressure) to more easily/readily return to
normal. What is commonly seen (within the TCM instruction) is the
exact opposite. Additionally, they are commonly seen "slapping"
the subject's on (either) the same or opposite sides of their neck
(to "stimulate" blood flow?), which
as any “first aid” course will inform you, does nothing
(productive). Worse yet, they sit the victim up (which limits
blood flow to the brain (but provides a longer recovery
time, and makes the strike appear to have been more
effective). When people try to promote the whole “Chinese Medicine”
tripe, this is one practice that goes against any logical treatment
method.
What
I find sad (if not disturbing), is that these groups often require
their people to have been through this (their) “training” classes
to learn this nonsense. I'm regularly confronted/questioned why I
have such disdain for these types of “training” practices, It is
mostly in regards to the regularly promoted stupidity that is
associated with it.
