The Two-Handed Forearm Strike

Note:

“This is a re-post/edit of an earlier blog. The reason I've re-posted it, was in reference to a reader's question on a previous blog in which a comment was made in reference to the lack of difference in performing a defensive motion/technique in regards to a Left or Right-handed punch by an aggressor.”

Ambidextrous Defense, The Two-Handed Forearm Strike

  We teach this technique as one of several “beginning” Defensive combinations to student's when they begin their study of RyuTe.   

 When instruction is initially began, the student should determine their dominant (or “Strong-side”) hand. If the student is Right-handed, then (usually) the Right hand will be their “dominant” hand (and vise-verse, if Left handed).

  This technique is often taught as a Reaction/response motion for unperceived, or surprise aggression as it is a very simple, yet effective protective motion. As with most RyuTe beginning techniques, this motion is ambidextrous in it's response capability (meaning it works equally well in defeating a Right, or Left hand Strike from an aggressor/uke, though the tori's motion doesn't change, regardless of which hand the uke uses).

  Practice of this, as with most RyuTe combinations, Begins with the tori and the uke standing face-to-face, at an arms length of distance from each other (confirmed, by the tori placing his hand on the shoulder of the uke to establish “distance”).

  Practice is began with both parties having their hands at their sides. As the uke begins their strike, the tori will raise both hands straight up (bending at the elbow), then will loosely close the finger's of their strong-side hand. This is done without clenching them together, so as to keep the muscle's of the forearm relaxed, while protecting the finger's from accidental injury.

  The fingers of the other (non-dominant, or weak-side hand) are left open, intending to parry an approaching strike. The dominant hand then crosses in front of the tori (to the opposite side) at face level, while the weak-side hand, will also cross in front of the tori's face, but is done with an open-hand.

  The strong-side's motion will be closer to the uke, and performed with the intent of being a strike, the weak-side will motion with the intent of a parry, or deflection. Both of these motions will cross (in front of) the tori's face (to protect it), and be performed with the intent of Injuring the aggressor's striking arm. Emphasis should also be placed on utilizing the forearm of the strong (striking) arm, as opposed to the (sole) utilization of the hand as being the striking implement.

  When performing these actions, the tori's body should rotate slightly to face towards the tori's weak side. This is done to add (body-weight) emphasis to the dominant (striking) arm as well as repositioning the tori's head (which was commonly, the originally intended target of the uke).

  The tori has several targeting options available to them (upon the uke's striking arm). There exist numerous atemi points on the uke's arm that could be utilized (depending on the tori's desired reaction from the uke). Initially, the tori should limit their (defensive) strikes to the uke's striking arm's forearm. As the tori becomes comfortable with striking specific points on the forearm, they should begin practicing strikes upon the uke's upper arm (at the relevant points located upon it).

  When these strikes are performed correctly, the uke's arm will be unable to close it's respective hand's fingers, and/or will be unable to bend at the elbow (depending on the struck point). 

 

  Too often (especially beginning) students attempt to “target” their defensive strikes towards the uke's Head/Neck area. It Must be remembered, the threat, is the uke's arm's (and/or legs), and our goal is to immobilize those threats. If necessary, any other threats are dealt with after the offending arm (ie. The “Punch”) is neutralized.

  At beginning levels, the tori can rotate into a Back stance (which is faster), or step towards the uke into a step stance. Once the student is confident with the action, then tori will add the option of a straight kick to the defensive action. Doing so, will change the dynamics of the student's initial stance use/choice (usually) because of the change to the uke's reaction resulting from the kick. For this reason, the addition of a kicking motion, will usually be delayed until the student has been shown several of the initial combination technique's.

Right-Handed Strike

  When student's are comfortable with the execution of this motion/technique, we offer them the option of full-speed/power practice (utilizing Full-Coverage Protective Head-Gear). This optional practice method is encouraged, but not mandated. It's utilization illustrates (to the student) how this motion will work effectively for either a Right or Left-handed strike attempt.

 Left-Handed Strike

  There are multiple “follow-ups” available, and student's should be encouraged to experiment with discovering what (and/or which one's) would work best for them (be it Tuite, arm-locks or strikes) in varying circumstances and/or their individual level of instruction.

Describing Technique Applications

  I am repeatedly being asked to describe various technique's applications. For a few, I have given a simplistic description (not including all the tweaks, and variables that are present). If one is really wanting to understand what I describe here, then attend a class and see it, first hand.

  If you live close to our locations (Kansas City, Mo. And/or Excelsior Springs, Mo.), then it's not like it would cost you anything to do so (and no, we don't charge for explanations/demonstrations).

  I've explained (numerous times BTW) that this blog, is not a teaching blog. It's purpose is for comparative discussion and explanation of instructional technique's and methods. I utilize RyuTe for the basis of doing so. I enjoy (friendly, productive) debate, I believe it can expand one's understanding of a subject (and often reveal possible weaknesses in one's understanding of that subject).

  My hesitancy to describe technique's (in detail) stems from the fact that the various systems being taught today, often utilize different names and/or meanings for similar (if not the same) actions. My description/break-down of an outside forearm strike, will (for many) seem overly descriptive, if not down-right boring. Most will think “why not just say outside block?”, well, for numerous reasons. First off, we don't call, nor consider that motion to be an outside block (hence, the name difference). Second, the manner that we teach/perform the motion is is different (though at first glance, it appears to be the same motion). Third, this is the “internet”, which means that any Jack-off can get on-line, and make a blog proclaiming anything they want, with little to no retribution for having done so. Technically, I fall into that category, I could be anybody, who's actually a nobody. I prefer to be confronted/challenged face to face.

  I am more than comfortable, and happy to demonstrate anything that I write about on this blog (technique's, principles and/or theories). If one has read the side-bar, I make no claims of complete knowledge or competency with all that Taika teaches, only a moderate ability with that which I am familiar.

  Some have accused me of being too lazy to describe those subjects here (and I would agree with them, LOL, I am!). It's a whole lot less effort on my part, to demonstrate a motion/principle than it is to write it out (at least well enough for myself to be comfortable with doing so). It was also suggested that I utilize video on here, Why? (who's being lazy now?). Those that have the desire to learn, will seek out an instructor. There are numerous RyuTe instructor's across the country (and/or world). It all comes down to how badly you want to learn RyuTe, and will you compromise with something else. 

 

  Rather than reading what I have to say about teaching RyuTe, ask our student's what they have to say about learning RyuTe. Better yet, come by and ask all those questions that are presented here, but I brush-over because of my reluctance to write it all out, LOL. I will provide full explanations and demonstrations of anything I've written about.

 My #1 passion is teaching, whether it's RyuTe, or Shodo, I enjoy teaching, to anyone who really wants to learn. The problem I see today, is that very few really want to learn, they only want it handed to them. 

 

The Viability of Headlocks, and Control Techniques

  I recently viewed a blog that was addressing head-locks. I'm not a big fan of head-locks, but I can see how one can fall into one (either performing, or receiving).

  Before I began studying RyuTe, the majority of head-locks that I'd been exposed to, only restrained the person (somewhat). Their arms remained free to do what-ever (hardly an effective manner of restraint). Taika showed us his method of applying a head-lock, and it elicited a completely different reaction from the recipient.

  Taika's version, caused the recipient to (immediately) pull their own hands towards their own face/neck/chest (it would vary per individual) and they were unable to reach any other location (upon the tori). Likewise, he showed an escape (from an improperly applied head-lock). This was a simple pressure point application that usually causes the recipient to reel backwards (screaming) as it is applied (my students do not like to practice this technique, LOL).

  Either if these (Taika's version of the head-lock, or the escape) are simple enough, that excessive practice is rarely required to become proficient at them. Previously (in my experiences), I had been subjected to practicing elaborate throws, reversals and attempts at strikes that were all subject to the uke's physical build and/or pain resistance threshold.

  As I mentioned, head-locks are not a personally preferred application. I (still) envision the drugged-up crackhead who feels nothing being the individual that I wind-up attempting to apply one upon (call me paranoid, LOL). I feel more comfortable with an arm/leg restraint. If I disassemble someones limb, at least they can't hit me with it, if they get free.

  The application of a controlling technique upon a (single) limb, is often viewed as being inadequate for (truly) controlling an individual. This belief is most usually accepted by individual's that haven't had the techniques properly applied (many times including BTW, L.E. Officer's). I've stated (repeatedly) that the worst example of an arm-bar application, is usually done by a Police Officer. Very often they're able to accomplish the task, but it wears ME out just Watching them.

  The arm-bar, is only a transitional technique. It's intent, is to motion the individual into a safer position (for the applier) before a more effective controlling position/technique is applied.

  The problem with any controlling position/technique (for civilians) is the practicality of their application. Circumstances have to allow for their application. When those circumstances don't exist, then higher levels of injury (to an assailant) are usually required to assure the tori's safety.

  It's for that reason (the lesser requirement of inflicting injury) that I prefer to utilize controlling techniques. I have no problem with escalation, but why go there, if it's unnecessary? Even if you ignore the (possible) legal consequences of doing so, it just seems petty to me.

  It could be argued that escalation involves less physical effort, which (you would think) would interest me, but maybe it's the technical challenge of applying the technique that holds my fascination.

 Nah, I just enjoy causing the guy pain and humiliation by holding them there. And, if I leave no permanent marks or injury, it's harder for them to press charges if he gets a shyster lawyer. LOL.

Training to Counter “Kicks”

  One of the most discussed aspects of training in a martial art, is in regards to countering a kick made by an assailant. Presumably, because the martial arts tend to utilize leg techniques, more than any other form of Hand to Hand methods of personal conflict. 

 

  Despite the “sport” emphasis upon head height kicking methods, the most commonly encountered kicking methods will be the front kick and/or the roundhouse kick. These also are commonly executed with the intent of striking the stomach/ribs (areas). It seems every Tom, Dick and Harriet, have been shown, or have seen these two popular kicks. If there's going to be a kick utilized, it's most often going to be one, if not both of (some form of) these two kicking methods.

  

 The advantage (at least to our student's) is that neither are necessarily practical when standing close to an opponent. Though the knee could be utilized, it also suffers from vulnerability to counter-strike techniques.

  

  What's most commonly encountered (when standing close to an aggressor), is that they will step back, before throwing a kick (or even a punch for that matter). This provides room for them to execute the motion, and to establish momentum for the strike/kick.

   

  Though sounding strange, it is often part of how they have been trained (to act/react when in a confrontational situation). It's (also) commonly taught that by initially retreating, one is (avoiding?) preventing being struck by their opponent (in this case, the tori).

  

  In the RyuTe methodology, this retreating motion (By an aggressor) is often the first indication of an aggressive action. RyuTe student's practice attacking the remaining leg as the aggressor steps rearward. Even if/when the aggressor has already began their kicking attempt, student's are taught to attack the support leg (of the aggressor).

  

  I've had numerous individual's (and student's) “claim” that they could step-back, and still be able to execute a kick (upon me). It hasn't happened yet, I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I have Extreme doubts as to it's occurrence.

   

  Training in these regards, is (some-what) limited. The risk of (accidental) injury is fairly high, so greater caution is required during it's practice. Though we have (in the past) utilized Padded Gear during it's practice, my own experience has found it's use to be more detrimental than anything. Because of that, we usually restrict this particular practice to the higher kyu ranks. This is mostly done because (presumably) student's of that range have usually acquired at least some measure of control (over their own kicking abilities).

   

  They begin their practice (in the usual manner) by pairing off, at arm's length (distance) apart from one another, both facing and square to one another. The first exercise, has the uke (aggressor) take a step back (with either foot) and the execute a kick (front kick or roundhouse) at the tori. This kick should be aimed at the mid-section of the tori. As the uke initially motions their leg rearward (while stepping back), the tori will raise one leg (as if protecting the groin). This motion is done in a manner that quickly raises the knee, until the thigh is level (to the ground).

  

  As the uke has stepped rearward, they have had to leave one leg (unless they “hopped” like a bunny rabbit, LOL) behind. For the majority of kicks that are, or even can be utilized, this will be the supporting leg during the execution of any kick by the aggressor.

It is this leg, that the tori's own counter-kick should be executed towards/against. Dependent upon situational circumstances, this could be a straight kick (using the bottom of the striking foot) or a front kick (using the ball or top of the striking foot).

  

  It is very common, for student's to initially not raise their knee (when an aggressor steps-back). This comes from improper training (be it on their part, or from their instructor's). It (also) is an ingrained result of “sport sparring” (to not raise the knee). Having NOTHING to do with REALITY, sport sparring doesn't train you to react correctly in a real situation.

  

  The tori's kick, should be directed towards the uke's support leg, slightly above the knee (if using the bottom of the kicking foot) or on the inner mid-thigh,(when using the ball or top of the striking foot). When using the bottom of the striking foot, the kick's intent is to rotate the uke's knee (sideways), and press rearward (sideways to the uke) and downward. This will place damaging pressure upon the uke's ankle (which is one reason why we don't “kick and return” with this, or many other of our kicks). For obvious reasons, this manner of execution cannot be fully carried out in practice. Student's will commonly (only) place the bottom of the kicking foot above the knee of the uke.

   

  If the kick is performed as a front kick, we would (usually) target the mid-thigh using the ball or top of the striking foot. Though either kick could be used (in either location) we stress that student's attempt specific reactions from either executed methods.

  

  As stated previously, this practice can have a high-risk of injury if/when improperly done. For that reason we limit it to student's who are experienced and can control their own kicking ability.

RyuTe also use's Counter hand strikes (to the aggressor's leg) , though not in this exercise (to hard on the uke, LOL).

Should Kata be Changed

  I was reading various blog's, regarding the performance of (traditional) kata. Numerous one's (though not all) advocated the idea of modifying (essentially, changing) the manner which they are being practiced/performed.

   

  Several of them stated that (in their opinion) the kata's bunkai, was inconsistent with the application of (their) interpretations. Some went further, in stating that the bunkai was inapplicable (as presented within the kata). There was also an apparent advocacy for allowing student's (as well as instructor's) to change the kata, to match their own (individual) interpretations of what the kata motions represented.

  

  Each of the aforementioned blog's had their own perspective on the matter. What captured my attention, was the dismissal of the fact that these individual's may not be correctly interpreting the motions to begin with (thereby causing their problems with correlating their bunkai with the motions performed within the kata).

  

  One, proclaimed that the practice of kata, as it was originally (as possible) conceived and taught (by the creator's of the kata), was “limited, stifling, and stunting”......(?). They went on to (supposedly) point out, what the kata did not teach (in their opinion). They further included their own evaluation, of what was being represented by the beginning motions of Seisan (kata).

   

In a nutshell, I disagreed, with every point they presented.

  

  To begin with, they (all of them) were approaching it from a western perspective. They're to be forgiven for that (I suppose), being that they were all of western origin. I am too, but I still disagree with every (supposed) reason, that they presented.

  

  The most popular (excuse) reason for their disbelief that kata contains (any of the less than obvious) techniques, was that there was no reason to conceal those techniques. To a certain degree, I would agree with that assessment. When you are (already) aware of what the motions actually represent, they aren't (considered to be) concealed. I don't believe that the motions were changed from their application manner at all. They may be done in a generic manner, but are applicable, just as presented. 

    

  I've found it to be more likely, that the individual's simply didn't know the (or any) bunkai for the motions, therefor made up their own. Their student's (now) are faced with (attempting to) making those made up motions work.

  

  Our dojo principles include the passage, that a single kata should be studied for 3 years, and that a particular master analyzed a kata for 10 years. RyuTe teaches 12 (basic) kata, at the rate described that would require 36 years for a simple examination (putting aside the 120 yrs. To attempt the 10 yrs. Apiece).

 

  I feel that people (also) attempt to apply western marketing logic, to a field that was never intended to be mass marketed (especially, in the western market). Originally (from my understanding, from what was told to me) the art of Te, was restricted to the royal guard (for various reasons). If one researches, it was never an art of/for the common person (ie. Peasant). The “old” masters, certainly weren't, and the majority of their student's weren't either. They were business men, school teacher's, basically the privileged and/or elite of Okinawa. When this art was first taught, it was only to a few student's at a time. Those student's were trusted, and known to be of the desired character to pass the information on to. WW2 also played it's part (in eliminating person's of knowledge) when the U.S. Bombed the Ryukyu Islands during the war. During the U.S. Invasion, Okinawa was completely devastated. Records and written documents were destroyed, as were thousands of civilians. Amongst them were many of the older “Te” masters. When they were lost, so was much of the information about the kata bunkai. Once the (western) concept of mass instruction (as a source of income) became accepted, the karate industry became popular. In order to (safely) display the taught technique's, sparring had to be created (adding that sport aspect) for competition purposes (which includes having safety rules).

  

  Reading through many of these opinions, I gather that because the techniques won't work in a sparring situation, these individual's don't consider the techniques effective. I would equally be in (some-what) agreement there. The techniques were never designed for sparring use, so why would they work for it? Sparring, is a fairly recent sport activity, so the probability of the techniques being applicable (in that sport situation) are small. Using that same logic, sporting techniques don't work in a real confrontation, so why practice sport sparring?(oh yeah,.... I don't).

  

  As I read the opinions, my first thought was one of empathy. When I studied Shito-ryu, I shared many of the thoughts expressed by these individual's. Fortunately (for myself), I became acquainted with Taika and RyuTe. From listening to him explain how many of these rumor's came to be started, and his explaining the motions in the kata, the study of “Te” has become much more,..Obvious (at least to myself). As I am planning on continuing to practice the techniques to apply them in actual situations, I will continue practicing and teaching the kata as they were shown to me. 

 

Using the Body, when Striking

  When observing student's practicing their striking, we often tell them that they need to utilize their body-weight (with the strike). This is often misinterpreted as swinging their body and/or limbs (in a circular manner). Taika has repeatedly corrected us on this subject.

 

  Prior to instruction, student's will commonly twist their body/hips when attempting to include their body-weight into a strike. By doing so (twisting), they are (in fact) causing a substantial portion of that momentum to be diverted away from the strike.

  What should be understood, is that any body motion that moves in a/any direction other than the intended strike, takes momentum/energy away from that strike. Performing a strike in this manner, is (often) in direct opposition to the manner which many systems teach (on how to execute a strike).    
 

  Learning how to practice not including these extraneous motions, begins when the student practices their punching in cadence/formation. Standing (commonly) in a horse stance, the student will alternate (Right/Left) performing a punch. While doing so, their attention is usually on confirming the hand/arm positions and/or extension in conjunction with breathing with the requisite hand position and milking action (for the striking manner being practiced).   

  In RyuTe, further emphasis is included on not including any shoulder or hip motion. The only limb that (should) make any motion, is the striking arm. When alternating striking arms, the returning arm (only) lowers/returns to a position in front of the tori's hip. The strike should not “wind-up” (to the tori's side), but only motion upward and forward (from the position in front of the tori's hip).

  While performing these motions, the student should note (and correct) any other/additional body or arm motions being done. It's during this manner of practice, that the student should be eliminating any of those extra (and unnecessary) motions.   

  Those extra motions, though feeling as if (they are helping) more power is being included, are in fact taking power away from the strike. By rotating, the energy (of the strike) is being bled outward (instead of forward, with the strike). Though some would argue, that the amount of energy (bled off) is small, the cumulative amounts of energy/momentum (from the rotation of the hips, shoulder, torso, even the arm itself) are enough to view it as being detrimental to the strikes effectiveness.   
 

  I've had individual's attempt to present speed/momentum theory's as an argument for use of these rotations (the same is often presented for the PR-24). Just as with the PR-24, the circular motion/speed can (in theory) provide a difference in power potential. The part (of the formula) that they ignore/leave out, is that the transfer of that power, is not made into the target, it is reflected back (into the delivery source), in this case the PR-24, or the striking arm. By doing so, the user feels the strike, making them believe the strike is more powerful. 

  Additionally, student's are often told to imagine punching through a target. This is misleading (if not wrong). If your striking a person, your not going to punch through them (despite any movies you may of seen). We inform student's to visualize punching into the target (only as far as their natural extension allows). If one imagines punching through a target, that strike will become a push. 

  The addition of any rotation, will (further) reinforce this pushing action. A strike, only has a limited range of (full) effectiveness. Formation, and free-air practice (of performing strikes) reinforces the awareness of that range (for the individual).

 

  Beyond the cadence/formation practice of performing strikes, RyuTe utilizes (what we call) a shuffle-punch. We have student's begin in (either) a natural or step-stance, and shuffle one foot forward towards a target (or in free-air) and strike (using alternate hands/arms). As the strike is executed, the rear leg is drawn forward in conjunction with the striking arm (regardless of which arm is utilized with the strike). As in formation, there is no rotation of any (other) part of the body. Attention is made to not rotate/extend the shoulder of the striking arm, or hips. The student's emphasis is on motioning the whole body (forward) as one action. 

 

  Tactically, there are numerous advantages to practicing to strike in this manner. By not rotating, the student doesn't place themselves off-balance (thereby creating the opportunity for counter's by the uke), and will maintain a stable positioning for follow-up techniques. They also will be delivering their full potential of momentum/energy into their strikes/techniques. One will also become more familiar with knowing (if not feeling) their (personal) range (of technique effectiveness).  

  Though I often stress feeling techniques, I'm (usually) referring to a particular motion and/or reaction. If/when your feeling the energy of your own strikes, it may be in your best interest to figure out why. Energy, should be transferred into your target (uke), not reflected back (into yourself).

Applying Defensive Strikes

  I was reading an article recently, that the author was evaluating various approaches to training for defensive responses to an attack. Most of their evaluations I could agree with, but (naturally) the article was about what-ever training method they had come up with (hence, I quickly lost interest).The article did cause me to consider how I have been defining threat evaluation/responses, and how I explain them to my student's. 

  I begin with explaining the particular “stages” that I (personally) advocate for making a defensive decision. There are numerous other/similar approaches to doing the same thing and I inform my student's that they should use whichever method/manner that they prefer.

The basic “outline” of making a defensive decision (that I utilize) consists of 3 stages.

#1 Perceive the threat,

#2 Decide an appropriate course of action,

#3 Act upon that decision.

  The actual time duration of any of these steps can vary greatly, the sooner that the first is established, the more time that is allowed for the remaining two. The second stage is often the most variable (on the part of the defender). It is based upon the knowledge, and experience of the defender. The final stage is based upon the ability level of the defender. 
  

  Depending upon the particular threat, these three stages could only span a few seconds, to taking several minutes between any of them. If a student has considered the possible situations/circumstances that could be encountered (beforehand), then they may have the opportunity/ability to extend (any) one of them, thus gaining further time to adapt (if necessary) their chosen course of action.

 (I should explain, that a student's instruction would have also included situational awareness prior to any in-depth study into the (actual) response portion of reacting to a threat.)

  The ability to perceive a possible threat, is (in many circles) often considered to be thinking in an “un”-Politically Correct (if not paranoid, LOL) manner (oh, well). For myself, being Politically Correct (PC) is only adhered to in situations where I am circumstantially obligated to behave in a certain manner, and I (have already) perceived no obvious threats. Beyond that, I'm always watching what's going on around me, and I suggest to my student's to do the same. 
     

  Once a threat is observed/noticed or begins, an individual needs to determine their best course of action. That can include leaving (if/when the option is available). When one is obviously forced into a physical altercation, that option isn't always available. It's those situations that I focus my instruction upon. Once the situation has reached this stage, the reactions (of the tori) need to be definitive, and as effective as possible.   
                

  The particular article I was reading, was comparing the various (training) methods of practicing this stage of a defensive response. Though I didn't completely agree with the author's evaluations of the methods listed, the article did present some legitimate considerations for each.          

  The one point I did disagree with, was the authors dismissal of “Blocks” as being (used as) “Strikes”. Evidently, the author only considers strikes to the head/body (of the uke) as being legitimate? Strikes (done to the limbs, in that author's opinion) won't effect the uke's ability to strike. I believe the author needs to get out more. I feel pretty confident that I can effect someone's ability to strike again (effectively, and most likely for a period of time) after striking their arm. Even our student's are finding out that it's not that difficult to do so.         
 

  The other weakness that I detected with the author's logic, was that he apparently considered strikes individually (when evaluating their effectiveness). I realize that many systems/practitioner's tend to focus upon individual strikes (when practicing techniques). The interaction/effects from one strike, can often effect the effects/results from other strikes applied (appropriately, and in area's which are in turn effected from the first strikes application).

 

  IMO, this (at least in student's) comes about from over-focusing on an individual technique. I'm aware that numerous systems (tend to) emphasize a one-punch mentality (to end a confrontation), and I might concede that it's a possible occurrence, but I would hesitate to ever depend upon it.        
 

  I tend to view (individual) strikes, as being akin to chopping down a tree. An individual strike, may bring it down, but (the odds are) multiple strikes (that build upon one another) will do so. Each strike should individually be causing injury (no matter how small) that adds to that outcome. As one progresses through the encounter, the cumulative effects (from the individual strikes) must be evaluated, and corrected upon. Certain strikes require previously established conditions be met, before their application is attempted or even feasible.        
 

  When explaining this (to students) I'm often questioned about whether the tori will have the endurance to apply this methodology long enough to apply it. This is the common misconception of the application of RyuTe techniques (and with describing their use/application) in a confrontation. The (actual) time involved (and/or required), only amounts to a few seconds. The average amount of time involved in a confrontation, will rarely exceed 20-30 seconds. I've found that people (in general), including student's, often attempt to compare a sparring match, to an actual confrontation. Those matches can last several minutes (unlike a real confrontation). Though endurance is an admirable attribute, it is not a prerequisite to guaranteeing a successful outcome in an actual confrontation.        
 

  The point that the author (of the aforementioned article) attempted to make, was that student's often over-emphasized their training, upon strikes applied to the aggressor (and their individual effectiveness). His argument, was that not enough emphasis was placed upon blocking. To a certain degree, I could agree with that assessment. Where I would differ, would be with the manner that those “blocking” techniques were being utilized. Simply deterring the completion of an attempted aggression, is insufficient to end a confrontation.        
 

  The entire concept of “blocking”, needs to be abandoned. In the “big picture”, the goal is to end the confrontation. Only Blocking, amounts to wasted motion. It's short-term benefits (the prevention of being struck), do nothing to prevent the aggressor from continuing their assault. Though not always possible (or practical), personal experience has shown (me), that by causing sufficient injury (to only an aggressor's arms/legs) can end a confrontation (without causing permanent injury). Legally, this works out very well (for the defender/tori), by only bruising up someone's arms and/or legs, makes it very difficult for them to press charges (if/when they began the confrontation).

 

  The ability to apply this principle, is (without doubt, LOL) not easy. It requires extensive amounts of practice to do so. That's the purpose of class-time. Practicing these applications is frustrating, and can often discourage student's (from their immediate inability to apply them). RyuTe is recognized as being a long-term (if not Lifetime) study. For those who require/demand the right-now results (from what they're being shown), I would suggest that they look elsewhere than RyuTe, for instruction. 

 

What constitutes a technique being “Tuite”

  Though not being a really big deal, we have always categorized our technique's into separate groupings (Combination's, & Tuite). This was done mostly for our own benefit (for writing them down), but it did make it easier for distinguishing between them.

  

  Well, (to add to our frustration, LOL) Taika was asked (by my associate), and he stated that arm-bars, shoulder-locks etc. are (also) considered to be Tuite. This doesn't (really) change anything (in regards to how we teach), other than a (minor) change in paperwork.

  

  Though this may create a bookwork headache (for us, LOL), the change is not that big of a deal. The logic behind it makes sense, Tuite, means “grab-hand”, which has always been understood to be either the uke or the tori grabbing (something). We, had (simply) limited it, to only be in regards to wrist manipulation (not including all of the possible arm manipulations of the uke).

  

  Oh well, .... the next question (for us) is how to differentiate between the individual manners/types (of Tuite). My first inclination is to do so by “joint-type” (wrist, elbow, shoulder, etc.). I'm thinking this may prove easier than I first believed (going against my usually pessimistic nature, LOL).

  

  We will still differ from most of the Internet claims (that have Tuite being strikes, throws, kyusho, and anything else that they can think of). Granted, Tuite techniques can include (from their additional use) any of those subjects, but that doesn't (also) make them Tuite (In our opinion, well, unless/until Taika tells us otherwise, LOL).

  

  I've found it interesting that (other) system's would choose to begin utilizing the term Tuite. If they had decided to use the term Torite, it wouldn't of been that big of a deal, but by using the term Tuite, they are (directly) attempting to equate what they teach, to what Taika teaches (which BTW, it isn't).

      

  I have explained elsewhere, that this was a word created by Taika. It is not a word in common usage, so the (obvious) only reason for it's usage, is to associate/equate (whatever) they teach to Taika's technique's.

   

  Those technique's (taught by others) are often similar, so I can understand the mistake being made by them, but the fine points of the individual technique's execution are performed differently. I have had numerous individual's attempt to make this equation of technique application (upon myself), and though sometimes close, none have been the same.

   

  Those differences are often minor (hence their dismissal of importance). Though being (only) minor would imply that the (alternate) method would work (and they usually will), they also offer numerous opportunities for being countered, (and/or not working on certain individual's).

     

  Claims of immunity from Tuite technique's application(in general) are false. These are commonly cases of misapplication (of the technique in question). What is usually being assumed, is that the technique must cause/create pain. Pain, is not the primary result from a Tuite technique's application. Pain tolerance varies from person to person. If/when pain is being used as a standard (for correct technique application), then the technique is being practiced incorrectly.

      

  For the majority of individual's, the application of a Tuite technique will cause/create a painful reaction/result. Regardless, this is only a supplemental reaction. The primary purpose, is the uke's (whole) body reaction to the technique's implementation (whether the technique causes/creates a painful reaction or not).

      

  The application of a Tuite technique requires an understanding of the body's natural ranges, and limitations. Student's are shown and demonstrated, the various limbs ROM and limitations. Though the majority are (already) known (by the students), the correct/efficient manor of exploiting the limits of those ranges is not always realized.

Even after student's are made aware of these ranges, opportunities for their exploitation are often overlooked, or (again) are not realized. Because of the (very) possible occurrence of injury, our practice of these technique's is kept at a (very) slow speed.

   

  As we explain the various limbs ROM, we demonstrate the relevant positional considerations. Understanding that the hand's rotational position will effect the remainder of the arm's ROM, becomes important in numerous arm manipulation technique's. This knowledge similarly aids in a student's execution of Tuite.

      

  Though being only a piece of RyuTe's instruction, Tuite is one of the most popular pieces of it's methodology (IMO, equal to kyusho). Tuite, like any other manipulation method requires extensive amounts of practice, and requires experience with multiple body-types of uke's (Large, small, strong, weak, tall, short). If/when that experience is limited to only a few of these, mistaken assumptions can be made in it's general application (if not instruction).

When I observe example's (of others versions of these technique's) on the Internet, I mostly see individual's muscling the uke into submission. This is fine (for that individual), as long as their aggressor's are always smaller/weaker than themselves. Our Litmus test for an application's correctness, is from having our smallest/weakest student applying the technique upon the largest/strongest person in the class. Equally surprising, can be the reverse situation (the Largest/strongest individual applying the technique upon the smallest/weakest student). This often examples the fact that muscling a technique doesn't always work.

      

  When requested to explain a particular Tuite application (here), I'm often hesitant to do so. Not because of any “Secrets” being revealed, LOL, but because the situation will often dictate the application method.

    

  Tuite technique's are taught in a manner that illustrates the particulars of the individual technique (ie. A situation where the technique could possibly be utilized). The odds of a student (actually) being in that exact situation are often remote. The legitimate situations that these technique's could be used, are momentary at best. The more common occurrence is if/when the situation is set-up and/or created (by the tori).

  Personal experience has shown this to be easier than one would first believe. We encourage student's to practice creating these set-up situations. Obviously, just from knowing these technique's, student's are (themselves) hesitant to grab one another (when being an uke). But experience has shown that (when properly done) these situations are not that difficult to create. Impacting (types of) technique's are the more commonly expected (and utilized) manner of aggression. Grabs, are (usually) only momentary, and are used as a pre-striking action (usually to clear the way, and/or position the tori in order to deliver the strike).

 

  Rather than waiting for the uke to (in some way) grab them, the tori provides the obstacle for the uke to move (out of their way). The uke's thoughts are (commonly) on hitting the tori, by placing the hand/arm in the way of doing so, the tori is interrupting that plan. The simplest action (in the uke's mind) is to move the obstacle, and that involves grabbing and/or pushing it aside (thus, creating the grab situation for the use of tuite).

  For many, this is far too involved, to be applicable. Having done so (numerous times), it's easier than one would first suspect. The problem-solving capabilities of an enraged individual (which is usually the case in the average fisticuffs exchange), are extremely limited and are therefor, kept simple (in order to not interrupt their initial plan, which is to hit you). 
   

  By attempting this manner of defense, the tori sacrifices nothing. The hand/arm placed between the uke and themselves still serves the purpose of being an obstacle (from being struck), and forces the aggressor to modify their initial attack-plan. Anything that causes the aggressor to (have to) modify their initial plans and/or causes hesitation, will allow the tori/defender to (either) consider/initiate their own actions, or to vacate the scene.

  From reading, and/or being (constantly) told, that Tuite is impractical for application in a “real” confrontation, many have actually began to believe it. Considering how it's use is often taught (in these other system's that keep saying so), I can understand why it may be believed to be true. I would also agree that it isn't always practical to utilize those types of technique's, but I (also) believe, that Tuite isn't (always) being utilized properly to begin with.

  One cannot pre-plan the opportunity to utilize Tuite. The ability to “Seize the moment” (OK, bad-”pun”) only comes from repeated practice of those brief opportunities for it's application. 




 

Kyusho (once again) Revisited

  Rummaging through the Internet, I repeatedly see the term kyusho being bantered about, as if it had been in use for decades. My own first exposure to it (the term) was when I first met Taika (late 1970's). I had been involved with martial arts for 7 or 8 year's prior, and had heard the term only once or twice (and never in anyone's teaching curriculum). Even then, the term was utilized in limited context, and only occasionally in regards to training/practice.

 

  When one now looks, every school/system pimp's the term to mean anything that remotely looks like it (or not), and that whatever they teach relates to/is kyusho. It seems to be very common to intermix (any form of) limb manipulation to also represent (or be) kyusho. The two may be related, but they are two separate subject's. Tuite, may (on occasion) also contain a kyusho application, but the two are separate subjects.

 

  It would be simple enough to let it go, and let these individual's display their own ignorance, but for the unknowing reader, it is misleading. It appears that (many) student's (or at least perspective students) have gotten the idea, that kyusho is the god-send, end-all, equalizer, that eliminates the need for (any) repetitive practice of defensive technique's.

  

  Kyusho is nothing more, than a supplemental piece, of one's defensive repertoire. The use of these location's, are commonly contained within various technique application's (and rarely utilized independently). The majority of sites that are promoting kyusho as being their main focus, lack any (viable) technique training (IMO) for the beginning student (and/or limit it's instruction to those who have been with them for an extended period, $$).

  

  Kyusho instruction should begin early in one's training. The word Kyusho, means vital point. Vital, is a relative term, though commonly associated with great pain/damage, vital can also represent necessary (to a technique's execution). I can easily identify numerous kyusho points that elicit no pain (or damage) yet are (obviously) vital to a technique's (effective) execution.

  

  I feel that there is no (real) need, or concern to restricting the learning of these points (and it is often necessary for the student to learn/recognize them). There exists a great fear of possible repercussions for instructor's (from teaching these points to minor's). Though I don't teach minor's anyway, I certainly wouldn't be that concerned. Even without any training, does a minor not know that jamming one's finger's into the eye's of an adversary could (possibly) cause permanent damage? Does a minor not know that crushing a larynx could possibly kill someone? These are more blatant (and obvious/universally understood examples of) kyusho (type) strike locations. If an instructor is so incompetent, that they don't point out these possibility's, the student (or their parent's!) should be seeking another instructor anyhow.

  

  We've had (prospective) student's come to our school, specifically seeking instruction in kyusho (points/striking). First off, they're immediately identified (fair, or not, LOL) as “wanna-be's” (with no real prior training). We then (attempt to) explain that kyusho is (only) a supplemental piece of one's over-all training. For those that have an honest desire to learn the system (RyuTe), this is an acceptable explanation. For the others, they move on (to find someone to fulfill their fantasy's of becoming ninja killer's).

  

  Does this come across as belittling? (God, I hope so!). I've always had a problem with wanna-be's (that don't want to learn anything, yet want to be known as being a bad-ass). Learning any martial art requires time, and work. If your not willing to put forth the effort required, your not going to be any good at any of them. Regardless of whether your studying RyuTe, or any other martial art, your going to have to work at it. I don't believe that learning a martial art should be (necessarily) complicated (and I don't believe RyuTe to be so). But each system has (it's own) challenges. RyuTe's (IMO) is the myriad of minor technical detail's. Determining which challenges a student feels most comfortable with taking on, is what will determine whether a perspective student chooses one style over another. This is why I've quit trying to sell RyuTe. I only offer it's instruction. Our student's choose to study with us.

  

  What should be obvious, LOL, is that we don't emphasize kyusho (as being the main instruction) being offered in our student's training of/in RyuTe. It is recognized, and taught, as only being a supplemental part of an over-all instruction methodology. There are far to many other aspects of self-protection, to do it any other way.

Shihandai

  At the recent Shihandai (Black-belt classes), we had a new attendee (a reader of this blog, LOL) who had never attended one of our Shihandai before. Unfortunately, only about 6 of the local BB showed at that one. Some worked on some weapon's kata, and the new attendee worked with myself and my teaching associate. We explained and demonstrated the 6 basic tuite principles, and reviewed some basic tuite (illustrating their application and use). From what was gathered, he hadn't worked with any RyuTe instructor's in a while, and was just getting some review time in (and “feeling us out” I'm sure, LOL).

  

  The “locals” (here in K.C. MO.) restarted the Shihandai (after an extended hiatus from their occurrence) about a year ago. My teaching associate and myself view this as being a good thing. The ability to interact (not to mention practice) with fellow association member's is always a positive experience. We're hoping to include some of the Yudansha from the surrounding area's to join us when practical (for them). The invitation is out there, all they have to do is show-up, LOL.

  

  In the past (IMO), certain (now departed) instructor's tended to feel (or at least act as if) alienated. This could (and did) cause some unjustified feelings of being ostracized. That aside (and more importantly, IMO), some individual's began to feel that only they were learning/teaching (or knew) what Taika was wanting student's to learn. By creating this (their own) isolation, those individual's have attempted to establish themselves as being (somehow?) especially knowledgeable about what Taika teaches now (though not having studied with/from him for several years?).

  

  Regardless, those individual's are now out of the association, and the present member's are striving to eliminate the possibility of a re occurrence of those situations. The greatest loss (in my own opinion) is by the student's of those who were removed. Having spoken to a few of them, many were (completely) unaware of the situation, and now will have no opportunity to (actually) train with Taika.

  

  Amongst the local Yudansha, there is a consolidation of known weapon's kata being done, and expanding that knowledge to the various (interested) local/regional Yudansha member's (there exist far too many for the average (individual) member to have complete knowledge of/about all of them). 

    

  My associate and myself have been attempting to categorize and record (as is practical, LOL) as many (root/basic) tuite technique's that have been taught over the years to various member's as we can ascertain. This becomes difficult (as far as categorization) in that some border between (what “we” consider to be) “combination” technique's, and (simple) “Tuite” technique's. These also have to be limited to “basic” versions (as the variations number in the dozens, if not more for each, LOL).

 

  The goal of the Shihandai, is to disseminate acquired knowledge amongst the individual attendee's. Individual instructor's often are unable to practice (their own) techniques with (other) Yudansha ranked member's (which is more practically done with non-student's). The Shihandai also provides the opportunity for instructor's to learn weapon's kata that they may not have the opportunity to learn otherwise (as the Yudansha class taught by Taika is often focused upon the concepts and applications that Taika wishes to convey/teach). 

 

  Hopefully, the surrounding schools/individual instructors (who don't have a class to attend to on those dates) will begin to join us at these classes, and we can further unify the Yudansha member's of the RyuTe Association.