I was reviewing my training schedule (for my students). As I've stated previously, I've decided to include (a little more) “realistic” practice. To some, this would equate to a more “physical” (ie. More painful, LOL) application of what we do. But, for what I'm intending, my purpose is only to eliminate some of the factors which “I” consider to be superfluous. When I observe their present practice, I see certain “habits” being (created?) preformed that concern me. The most noticeable, would be the tendency to “wait” (for the uke's “action” to begin). To some extent, that would be acceptable. But, to the extent that I've observed them do so, I am concerned that their ability to enact the techniques is going to, or can “suffer” because of how they are responding to it(the uke's “action”).
As an “example”, I would use (during the practice of tuite) the “habit” of the uke pushing, and “freezing” (their pushing hand) until the tori “grabs” it. When first learning the techniques (involved with this action), this may be acceptable, but they have been practicing this motion for a year and a half, far long enough to cease this tendency. The “same” could be said of the practice of the combinations, I'm seeing student's (when preforming the part of “uke”) guiding their own hand to the intended position (as opposed to the tori placing it there). I don't view this as a “great” problem, only one that needs to be addressed.
I believe if I progress their practice, and begin (also) showing them the “visual” clues that we utilize, this may assist in both of these problems. And what the “F#@*” is he talking about?(you ask, LOL). I mean, the physical “signs”, or motions that indicate what the uke may be going to do. Since we begin (our method of “practice”) with our hands at our sides (both tori, and uke), the aggressive action on the uke's part, must be initiated before a defensive action can be done (on the part of the tori). This can commonly consist of a “punch”, or a “pushing” action(if not both).
To execute (either of) these actions, the uke has to “move” their hand/arm(“duh”). This is usually “telegraphed” by a shoulder motion, it can be a “rise”, a “drop” or a “rotation”(“towards” or “away” from the tori). It's at “this” time, that the defensive action (being attempted) should begin. Students also seem inclined to “aim” their (block, strike, catch, “what-ever”) at the “hand” (that is doing the aggressive action). Since we are practicing “slow”, they might have an excuse (but not much of one). Considering the distance that the hand has to travel (to “hit” you), “it” is the fastest moving part of the arm (thereby making it the most difficult to “catch”, “block”, “deflect”). We teach students to (plan?) work towards using the (opponent's) forearm/elbow (to serve as the “focal” point of contact). It moves at half the speed (of the hand) and comparatively travels half of the distance, it remains in a (more) limited area (making it “easier” to make contact with). The amount of “distance” that the tori needs to “move” it (the elbow) to prevent the “fist” from striking the tori's “face” is also “less” (seeing as how, if one “moves” the uke's elbow “2-3 inches”, the uke's “hand” will move “8-12 inches). “This”, used in combination with the tori moving their own body (only a small amount) is usually sufficient to accomplish the “goal” (of not getting “hit”). If one is watching (for these “signs”), they will (very often) wind up “striking” the uke, before the “punch/push”, is even “near” (where they had previously been only “catching” it). Learning to “use” these signs, takes practice, and time (spent doing so).
I have already (“some” anyway) had them practice “kicking” (using our “straight kick”) to the uke's legs. Though (now)I feel they're ready to begin “incorporating” the uke's response (to which-ever kick is utilized). The “reaction”, depending on which kick, or how it is used, will play an important role in determining the “best” follow-up actions could/should be used (by the tori). As long as the “core” technique (tuite or combination) is sufficiently understood, then I will feel comfortable with their experimenting with variations of the kicks “incorporation”. I feel that “that” part of training(the “uke's “ body motion) is greatly “understudied” (by the majority of students, if not “systems” in general).
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Stances and “Body Dynamics”
Now that my students have (begun to) become “familiar” with the kata (of RyuTe), I (now) feel more comfortable with explaining certain motions, and their implementation. My first priority, will be in regards to “stances”. I haven't really noticed that their previous system utilized them to the extent that RyuTe does. Stances, have become used (by most systems) simply for “moving”, from one place to another (at least from my observations of them). They are an integral part of the execution of our technique's (in both “tuite”, and in the combinations). Up to this point, (our) student's have been focusing on (only) the “hand” motions (of techniques). Various students have indicated several “weak” points to several of the combinations (and tuite technique's) shown to them, and they were correct.
RyuTe techniques (be they “tuite”, or the “combinations” we practice) are “all” a synthesis of hand, arm, leg position and body motion. The various “combinations” can (and usually are) combined (themselves) with “tuite” techniques also. Up to the present time, these students have (only) focused on the practice of the individual components (of what “we” would call a “technique”). Preformed individually, these motions could/would “likely” work (on an aggressor). I (personally) feel more comfortable with a higher level of certainty being implemented. Till now, these students have only been shown the “motions”(of techniques), not (so much) the “use” of them.
A “major” portion of that implementation, is the correct use of stances. Many (if not most) systems emphasize the (possibly) added “power” that can/could be gained from their use, but RyuTe (tends to) stress the natural (mechanical?)”motion” advantage that is acquired through their (proper) use.
When we have students work on techniques (be it with tuite, or combinations) we have them “pair off” at arm's length from each other. Up to this point, we have only (briefly) discussed the “mechanics” behind the use of the hand/arm motions (with little emphasis on the relevance of the stances utilized).
Proper use of stances, will place the tori (defender) into a position which allows their “counter”, to be implemented in a manner which makes it difficult/awkward for the uke to strike them(either initially, or with a second strike). Using “kata” (motion) for “examples” of this is part of the training, Taika (constantly!) is telling “us” to “squat”(down) while preforming the various motions. There are numerous reasons for this (and in “most” systems, goes “unexplained”, at least without any obvious defensive advantages being explained). By motioning “deeper”( in stances), you are placing your body farther (in distance) from the uke's arm, yet “you” can still strike the uke at various points on their body. Taika teaches that techniques should be done “naturally”(as in the physical execution) in regards to their “motion”.
Using (what “we” call) an Outside Forearm Strike (or an “outside block” to many), the arm crosses the body at waist level, then raises rapidly until the “hand” is even with the shoulder (not traveling “past” it). Even at the beginning level, students are taught to “strike” the uke's arm, with their own forearm. When done in “formation”, this seems “awkward” (as far as “striking” with it), at least with the “back” of the forearm. Many times, students will “over-travel” (ie. “past” the shoulder) in order to execute the “strike”. When utilized with proper “body motion” (ie.”stances”) the motion is done (more) like when practiced “in formation” (more at a 45° angle, and “downward” onto the arm). The arm (then, “obviously”) has no reason to travel beyond the shoulder when the motion is executed. The same reasoning can be applied to many of the other hand/arm motions as well.
Similar “reasoning”, is applied to “strikes”and “range”(of those strikes) as well. If the tori motions into a “back stance” (by dropping down, and pivoting) they will (effectively) “move” their own head “out of range”(from being initially “struck”), and simultaneously motion (one) shoulder “closer” to the uke (allowing that arm to strike the uke). This is “easily” shown (in person), but a little difficult to interpret when being written out.
RyuTe techniques (be they “tuite”, or the “combinations” we practice) are “all” a synthesis of hand, arm, leg position and body motion. The various “combinations” can (and usually are) combined (themselves) with “tuite” techniques also. Up to the present time, these students have (only) focused on the practice of the individual components (of what “we” would call a “technique”). Preformed individually, these motions could/would “likely” work (on an aggressor). I (personally) feel more comfortable with a higher level of certainty being implemented. Till now, these students have only been shown the “motions”(of techniques), not (so much) the “use” of them.
A “major” portion of that implementation, is the correct use of stances. Many (if not most) systems emphasize the (possibly) added “power” that can/could be gained from their use, but RyuTe (tends to) stress the natural (mechanical?)”motion” advantage that is acquired through their (proper) use.
When we have students work on techniques (be it with tuite, or combinations) we have them “pair off” at arm's length from each other. Up to this point, we have only (briefly) discussed the “mechanics” behind the use of the hand/arm motions (with little emphasis on the relevance of the stances utilized).
Proper use of stances, will place the tori (defender) into a position which allows their “counter”, to be implemented in a manner which makes it difficult/awkward for the uke to strike them(either initially, or with a second strike). Using “kata” (motion) for “examples” of this is part of the training, Taika (constantly!) is telling “us” to “squat”(down) while preforming the various motions. There are numerous reasons for this (and in “most” systems, goes “unexplained”, at least without any obvious defensive advantages being explained). By motioning “deeper”( in stances), you are placing your body farther (in distance) from the uke's arm, yet “you” can still strike the uke at various points on their body. Taika teaches that techniques should be done “naturally”(as in the physical execution) in regards to their “motion”.
Using (what “we” call) an Outside Forearm Strike (or an “outside block” to many), the arm crosses the body at waist level, then raises rapidly until the “hand” is even with the shoulder (not traveling “past” it). Even at the beginning level, students are taught to “strike” the uke's arm, with their own forearm. When done in “formation”, this seems “awkward” (as far as “striking” with it), at least with the “back” of the forearm. Many times, students will “over-travel” (ie. “past” the shoulder) in order to execute the “strike”. When utilized with proper “body motion” (ie.”stances”) the motion is done (more) like when practiced “in formation” (more at a 45° angle, and “downward” onto the arm). The arm (then, “obviously”) has no reason to travel beyond the shoulder when the motion is executed. The same reasoning can be applied to many of the other hand/arm motions as well.
Similar “reasoning”, is applied to “strikes”and “range”(of those strikes) as well. If the tori motions into a “back stance” (by dropping down, and pivoting) they will (effectively) “move” their own head “out of range”(from being initially “struck”), and simultaneously motion (one) shoulder “closer” to the uke (allowing that arm to strike the uke). This is “easily” shown (in person), but a little difficult to interpret when being written out.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Using “Logic”, instead of “Mysticism”
As I read thru numerous postings and /or have discussions (in various places) regarding the (so-called) “use” of Acupuncture “points” (in regards to technique application), it becomes apparent (at least to myself) that these “advocates”(of their use) are desperate for (some sort of) “validation” of their use.
The practice of a (any) martial art, requires the user to spent a vast amount of time to perfecting the various motions required of them (stances, punches, combinations, kata, kicks etc.). One of the most challenging of these, is the practice of Tuite. Learning “how” the body does, and doesn't move, is not necessarily “difficult”, but it can be time consuming. Most of the individuals that I have these “conversations” with, seem to be focused on the “Striking” aspects of (so-called) “kyusho” application.
Atemi/kyusho (points) vary greatly in their use/application. There are a large number of them, that merely “contact”, is sufficient to elicit a necessary response (which doesn't always include “pain”).
It's my opinion, that people (in general, “martial artists”) are “ate-up” with the whole “kyusho” thing. I see perfectly “good” techniques (that require minimal “thought” to apply) being “tech-no-fied” to the point of absurdity with this silly nonsense of worrying about which “TCM” points their using. I would (easily) place 95% of this BS in the category of fraud (and completely unnecessary).
As I've stated, I have been teaching for (now) 30yrs, and have Never, found it necessary, or even applicable to teach some “mystical” reasons for a technique to work(or “fail”), it either does, or it doesn't (usually because of a miss-application on my part, yes, I do “F”-up on occasion, LOL).
I have (forced myself to) sit and listened to these “advocates”, preach their wares, going (on and on) about how one “has” to understand how the meridians are all interactive with each other and how “that's” how they can preform these “devastating” techniques (of which I haven't seen them “do”, But Kind of like “diarrhea” I just go with the “flow” of their explanation). And, on the “rare” occasion when they “do” (attempt) a technique, (when it fails) they blame it on some “chi/ki” inadequacy or “flow” disruption,...what-ever (never on the fact, that they did the strike/technique incorrectly).
“Most” of these people that I've observed of late, have turned to (just) “adding” (the mention of) which “meridian” is being utilized (without adding any “detail” of the justification). This (again, IMO) amounts to “baiting the hook” for people to believe that there's “something” else that they need to know (in order to make the technique “work”) aside from “practicing” the motion.
This “reasoning” of (attempting to) “Tech-no-fy” martial arts (in general) is really starting to “bug-me”. Having read (as much as I can find) about many (and knowing “one” personally, ie “Taika”) of the (known to be) “skilled” martial arts “technicians”, I have never known/read about any of them being knowledgeable (as in “medically”) about (specific) “nerves” or even “how/why” many of the points “work” (only that they do/will). IMO, this “alone”, illustrates the superfluous (and “pointless”) nature of this path of study. It equates to attending 7 years of medical school, to learn to put on a “band-aid” (except that attending medical school would actually teach you something “useful”, maybe not in regards to preforming “martial arts”, but useful none-the-less).
Just as a “clarification” note, I “do” happen to accept “Acupuncture” as a “sometimes” applicable treatment method for certain physical afflictions (I've had trained professionals utilize it with “some” success on myself). Even “they” make no claims that it is 100% effective (or even 80%), only that it is an “alternative” that it is available. Every one of them (that I have asked) has “laughed” at it's having any “application” to/for “martial arts” (type of) “use”. It's (actually) a “corruption” of the whole “theory/practice”(of Acupuncture) to even (attempt to) apply it in “that” manner (it's for “healing”, not “damaging”). But for “self-taught” amateurs who (can't figure out the difference and) “miss-apply”, and “add” (their own) theories to it, it can be turned into a “money maker”(“price some” of these idiot's seminars).
There are “some” of these theories that follow a “kinesiology” tract of “thought” (which IMO, “is” a valid subject of research/understanding). The problem that I've seen though, is that the TCM(lies) “miss-information” is intermingled with the facts, and hence attempts to gain validity through association. When listening/reading about these TCM “theories”, attempt to keep this in mind, remember that the “best” lie, is one that is intermingled with the truth.
If one will only apply “Logic” to a given problem or situation, one (should) be able to come up with an answer. Logic, is (of course) only an applicable factor “if” one has sufficient knowledge about a given subject. Often, we don't all have the necessary knowledge about a subject to (readily) know the/a “logical” answer (to a given question). That doesn't make the “mystical” answer, the “correct” one.
When “Cavemen” saw lightning, they may have said it was their “God”, pissing on an electric fence, and it would kill you, if you got hit by it. Well, they knew you would die if you got hit by it, so (ergo) it “must” (really) be their “God” pissing on an electric fence(ignoring the fact that they didn't even know what an electric fence was). It gave them an “answer”, not that it was correct, or even plausible. They were none-the-less “happy” (much like these guys are).
The practice of a (any) martial art, requires the user to spent a vast amount of time to perfecting the various motions required of them (stances, punches, combinations, kata, kicks etc.). One of the most challenging of these, is the practice of Tuite. Learning “how” the body does, and doesn't move, is not necessarily “difficult”, but it can be time consuming. Most of the individuals that I have these “conversations” with, seem to be focused on the “Striking” aspects of (so-called) “kyusho” application.
Atemi/kyusho (points) vary greatly in their use/application. There are a large number of them, that merely “contact”, is sufficient to elicit a necessary response (which doesn't always include “pain”).
It's my opinion, that people (in general, “martial artists”) are “ate-up” with the whole “kyusho” thing. I see perfectly “good” techniques (that require minimal “thought” to apply) being “tech-no-fied” to the point of absurdity with this silly nonsense of worrying about which “TCM” points their using. I would (easily) place 95% of this BS in the category of fraud (and completely unnecessary).
As I've stated, I have been teaching for (now) 30yrs, and have Never, found it necessary, or even applicable to teach some “mystical” reasons for a technique to work(or “fail”), it either does, or it doesn't (usually because of a miss-application on my part, yes, I do “F”-up on occasion, LOL).
I have (forced myself to) sit and listened to these “advocates”, preach their wares, going (on and on) about how one “has” to understand how the meridians are all interactive with each other and how “that's” how they can preform these “devastating” techniques (of which I haven't seen them “do”, But Kind of like “diarrhea” I just go with the “flow” of their explanation). And, on the “rare” occasion when they “do” (attempt) a technique, (when it fails) they blame it on some “chi/ki” inadequacy or “flow” disruption,...what-ever (never on the fact, that they did the strike/technique incorrectly).
“Most” of these people that I've observed of late, have turned to (just) “adding” (the mention of) which “meridian” is being utilized (without adding any “detail” of the justification). This (again, IMO) amounts to “baiting the hook” for people to believe that there's “something” else that they need to know (in order to make the technique “work”) aside from “practicing” the motion.
This “reasoning” of (attempting to) “Tech-no-fy” martial arts (in general) is really starting to “bug-me”. Having read (as much as I can find) about many (and knowing “one” personally, ie “Taika”) of the (known to be) “skilled” martial arts “technicians”, I have never known/read about any of them being knowledgeable (as in “medically”) about (specific) “nerves” or even “how/why” many of the points “work” (only that they do/will). IMO, this “alone”, illustrates the superfluous (and “pointless”) nature of this path of study. It equates to attending 7 years of medical school, to learn to put on a “band-aid” (except that attending medical school would actually teach you something “useful”, maybe not in regards to preforming “martial arts”, but useful none-the-less).
Just as a “clarification” note, I “do” happen to accept “Acupuncture” as a “sometimes” applicable treatment method for certain physical afflictions (I've had trained professionals utilize it with “some” success on myself). Even “they” make no claims that it is 100% effective (or even 80%), only that it is an “alternative” that it is available. Every one of them (that I have asked) has “laughed” at it's having any “application” to/for “martial arts” (type of) “use”. It's (actually) a “corruption” of the whole “theory/practice”(of Acupuncture) to even (attempt to) apply it in “that” manner (it's for “healing”, not “damaging”). But for “self-taught” amateurs who (can't figure out the difference and) “miss-apply”, and “add” (their own) theories to it, it can be turned into a “money maker”(“price some” of these idiot's seminars).
There are “some” of these theories that follow a “kinesiology” tract of “thought” (which IMO, “is” a valid subject of research/understanding). The problem that I've seen though, is that the TCM(lies) “miss-information” is intermingled with the facts, and hence attempts to gain validity through association. When listening/reading about these TCM “theories”, attempt to keep this in mind, remember that the “best” lie, is one that is intermingled with the truth.
If one will only apply “Logic” to a given problem or situation, one (should) be able to come up with an answer. Logic, is (of course) only an applicable factor “if” one has sufficient knowledge about a given subject. Often, we don't all have the necessary knowledge about a subject to (readily) know the/a “logical” answer (to a given question). That doesn't make the “mystical” answer, the “correct” one.
When “Cavemen” saw lightning, they may have said it was their “God”, pissing on an electric fence, and it would kill you, if you got hit by it. Well, they knew you would die if you got hit by it, so (ergo) it “must” (really) be their “God” pissing on an electric fence(ignoring the fact that they didn't even know what an electric fence was). It gave them an “answer”, not that it was correct, or even plausible. They were none-the-less “happy” (much like these guys are).
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Action, vs Reaction
As I was reading some “postings” (on the internet), I came across one that was discussing an individual's “reaction” (in response to an aggressor's “action”). The “concept” (that was being attempted to explain)was one of “reaction”must be equal to “action”. This was in regard to a defensive technique being utilized in response to an aggressive action. The “idea” being, that one's defensive reaction(s) should be implemented at the same time as the aggressor's “action” is (which is “somewhat” similar to what we teach). As I read more (of the post), it became evident that the individual seemed to believe that one could accomplish this in response to “any” aggression, with any (chosen) response. I tend to believe it's a nice “goal” to have, but lacks a foothold in practicality (or should that be “reality”?).
As our students are shown various defensive actions (ie.“combinations”), we explain to them that the majority of those combinations, are considered to be applicable to an aggression initiated from either side (ie. “Left/Right” without the need to “change” the motions of the combination). A large number of those same combinations can be utilized for several (different types of) aggressive actions.
Unlike the “idea” being proposed by the individual mentioned above, the concept “we” impart, is one of “action” (as opposed to “re-action”). The difference can be difficult to distinguish (until one understands the concept, LOL). “Action”, requires no further “thought”, “reaction” (conversely), requires that you determine an “appropriate” response. Where as the previously mentioned person, is proposing that you (or anyone) can (somehow) “predict/know” which (individual) form of defensive technique to implement, “and” be able to do so (before being struck). “We”, teach that there is no way (in hell) that you ever will know “what” (exactly) an aggressor will (specifically) “do” (much less be able to perform a specific response for “that” particular form of an aggression). The techniques that we teach, are designed to be “ambidextrous” (“Right or Left”, for lack of a better term) in response to what-ever may be utilized against them. It is our intention, for our students to (when “in” a situation) focus on doing “their own” technique (ignoring what the aggressor may be attempting). If the student is using a “proper” technique/combination, then the student should be protected (from any “standard” form of aggression) and/or will “minimize” the effectiveness of that attempted assault. Students are taught that the motion that they utilize, should be completed with force and should, “strike” the aggressor's arm, essentially with the intent of putting it “out of commission” (or at the very least causing the aggressor to hesitate before a repeated attempt). The most commonly encountered “problem” that students have, is that they (attempt) to only “block” the aggressor's attacking arm (and in doing so, neither “strike” the aggressing arm, nor follow-up with any continued “strike” to the aggressor). The manner which we do this, is designed to be continued (in one motion) . “This” ability (alone) requires a great deal of practice by the student.
Of course being able to accomplish this feat requires an understanding of “how” and “where” the tori needs to strike also. This skill, utilized in conjunction with other RyuTe principles/techniques(which makes it much easier to execute this concept) can/will make most (common) assault attempts difficult to complete against them. Students not familiar with these principles will have a difficult time (even executing them) without extensive practice. For this reason (and others), beginning student's can become quite “frustrated” when starting their training.
The biggest “hurdle”(for students), seems to be in “attacking”(the uke), when the they(the uke) “first” begin their assault (as when they pull their arm “back” to begin their “punch”). IMO, this comes from social “habits” acquired throughout their life, ie. The “mistaken” belief that they can't hit someone, unless/until “they” hit them “first”. Students are shown, that (the “average” individual) people have the tendency to “wait”(to evaluate, understand, then determine a course of responsive action). This is natural, and is the reason behind the need for the (amount of)“training” that we require and (attempt to) provide.
Because of, this “habit/tendency”, we spend a great deal of our time training a student, to overcome it. Students come to us, with the belief that they have to “see” (which form of) an assault that the aggressor is attempting to utilize “before” actually(deciding to?) enacting a response, hence, our emphasis (for them) to do “their” technique (and “some-what”, ignore the aggressor's specific “attack”).
Like many(if not “more than ”most) systems, we tend to “nit-pick” almost “every” action that the student makes when executing a defensive action. We train (or attempt to) our students to respond as if they are “fighting” an individual who knows “every” technique/action that “they” are doing. For a student to (believe) think that “they” have, or are doing something (technique wise) that is “special/secret” or unique, is miss-leading (at best), and dangerous (as far as being able to successfully complete it) to their ability to accomplish it.
Our training includes (initially) determining various factors at the “offset” of an assault attempt. Knowing whether the aggressor is “Left/Right” handed, recognizing various “weaknesses” that the aggressor is “providing”, and recognizing the “signals” that one telegraphs as they begin their assault attempt. The ability to recognize these factors is not “difficult”, only “unnoticed” by the student until it becomes a part of their “defensive repertoire”.
Learning, and applying these skills, very often allows the student to “strike” the aggressor “before” any attempt (on their part) can (even “begin”to) be initiated.
As our students are shown various defensive actions (ie.“combinations”), we explain to them that the majority of those combinations, are considered to be applicable to an aggression initiated from either side (ie. “Left/Right” without the need to “change” the motions of the combination). A large number of those same combinations can be utilized for several (different types of) aggressive actions.
Unlike the “idea” being proposed by the individual mentioned above, the concept “we” impart, is one of “action” (as opposed to “re-action”). The difference can be difficult to distinguish (until one understands the concept, LOL). “Action”, requires no further “thought”, “reaction” (conversely), requires that you determine an “appropriate” response. Where as the previously mentioned person, is proposing that you (or anyone) can (somehow) “predict/know” which (individual) form of defensive technique to implement, “and” be able to do so (before being struck). “We”, teach that there is no way (in hell) that you ever will know “what” (exactly) an aggressor will (specifically) “do” (much less be able to perform a specific response for “that” particular form of an aggression). The techniques that we teach, are designed to be “ambidextrous” (“Right or Left”, for lack of a better term) in response to what-ever may be utilized against them. It is our intention, for our students to (when “in” a situation) focus on doing “their own” technique (ignoring what the aggressor may be attempting). If the student is using a “proper” technique/combination, then the student should be protected (from any “standard” form of aggression) and/or will “minimize” the effectiveness of that attempted assault. Students are taught that the motion that they utilize, should be completed with force and should, “strike” the aggressor's arm, essentially with the intent of putting it “out of commission” (or at the very least causing the aggressor to hesitate before a repeated attempt). The most commonly encountered “problem” that students have, is that they (attempt) to only “block” the aggressor's attacking arm (and in doing so, neither “strike” the aggressing arm, nor follow-up with any continued “strike” to the aggressor). The manner which we do this, is designed to be continued (in one motion) . “This” ability (alone) requires a great deal of practice by the student.
Of course being able to accomplish this feat requires an understanding of “how” and “where” the tori needs to strike also. This skill, utilized in conjunction with other RyuTe principles/techniques(which makes it much easier to execute this concept) can/will make most (common) assault attempts difficult to complete against them. Students not familiar with these principles will have a difficult time (even executing them) without extensive practice. For this reason (and others), beginning student's can become quite “frustrated” when starting their training.
The biggest “hurdle”(for students), seems to be in “attacking”(the uke), when the they(the uke) “first” begin their assault (as when they pull their arm “back” to begin their “punch”). IMO, this comes from social “habits” acquired throughout their life, ie. The “mistaken” belief that they can't hit someone, unless/until “they” hit them “first”. Students are shown, that (the “average” individual) people have the tendency to “wait”(to evaluate, understand, then determine a course of responsive action). This is natural, and is the reason behind the need for the (amount of)“training” that we require and (attempt to) provide.
Because of, this “habit/tendency”, we spend a great deal of our time training a student, to overcome it. Students come to us, with the belief that they have to “see” (which form of) an assault that the aggressor is attempting to utilize “before” actually(deciding to?) enacting a response, hence, our emphasis (for them) to do “their” technique (and “some-what”, ignore the aggressor's specific “attack”).
Like many(if not “more than ”most) systems, we tend to “nit-pick” almost “every” action that the student makes when executing a defensive action. We train (or attempt to) our students to respond as if they are “fighting” an individual who knows “every” technique/action that “they” are doing. For a student to (believe) think that “they” have, or are doing something (technique wise) that is “special/secret” or unique, is miss-leading (at best), and dangerous (as far as being able to successfully complete it) to their ability to accomplish it.
Our training includes (initially) determining various factors at the “offset” of an assault attempt. Knowing whether the aggressor is “Left/Right” handed, recognizing various “weaknesses” that the aggressor is “providing”, and recognizing the “signals” that one telegraphs as they begin their assault attempt. The ability to recognize these factors is not “difficult”, only “unnoticed” by the student until it becomes a part of their “defensive repertoire”.
Learning, and applying these skills, very often allows the student to “strike” the aggressor “before” any attempt (on their part) can (even “begin”to) be initiated.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Regarding “Control” (of an Aggressor)
When we are teaching our students the implementation of the various technique's of RyuTe, the “end” positioning (of the uke) is most often taught as being a controlling (submission) hold/position. I've had numerous discussions regarding this topic (both with other instructors, and with students). It would appear that the majority (including my previous practiced system) of methodologies being taught, “lean” towards (if not exclusively teach) some method of “permanent” injury(to the presumed “assailant”), the “coup de grace”, as it were. I (personally) have never felt “comfortable” with this practice (as being the “only” ending to all assault scenarios). Quite possibly because of my own familiarity in dealing with “domestic” squabbles (of friends and family that I've “found” myself in).
For a student to “only” be trained to (terminate?) end a disturbance with “lethal” implications, I personally feel is irresponsible, if not “immoral” (and coming from “me”, that's saying a lot, LOL).
The majority of “assaults”, are from individual's “known” to the victim. These are often “friends”, “relatives”, “spouses” and/or acquaintances of any of those categories(so who needs “enemies, Right?”). For “most” individuals, “trashing” poor (drunk) uncle Creepy's arm for the next 6 months, may not cause much concern. But there are (often) those instances where “others” (if not the police) might carry a different opinion (if you decide that them putting their arm around your wife(even “gently”), “upsets” you).
Becoming the “family or neighborhood asshole” is not a title that most would care to have (I do agree, there are “exceptions” to this thought though, LOL).
In many schools, Tuite is taught (often only) with the end result being that the (presumed) “assailant” is “disabled/maimed/physically F*&d – Up” to the degree that a hospital trip is eminent. In many ways, it is/was how “I” was taught (most) of the technique's that I was (originally) shown. I tend to believe that this was done (possibly?) to reinforce the idea that what we were learning should be used only in those circumstances which justified their implementation. Now whether “that” was the case (or not), or it just “fed” the whole “macho male” ego thing, is (of course) debatable. Regardless, it is not now my method of instruction (in regards to RyuTe).
Quite possibly my exposure to Law Enforcement “tempered”(some of) my proclivity to violence (as being the “only” answer to ending a situation), but I tend to believe it was my own “laziness” that actually influenced me more. I simply found it “easier” to manipulate someone into/with a Tuite technique than it was to (at least attempt to) “man handle” them around with repeated “bludgeoning” motions, in the “hope” that I was (always) able to subdue them into unconsciousness(and I have been subject to many, MANY persons of the opinion that “this”{Bludgeoning} approach, “is” the most “practical”,ie. “best” approach). Which, for all those “young”, physically “fit”, “strong”(at the moment) individual's out there, and if you happen to really be into that sort of thing, “your good” (I guess). But, if you suffer from “any” sort of physical deficiency (be it “strength”, “eyesight”, “stamina” or even suffer from any general “health” issues) your “screwed”. Being one of those individual's myself, I can attest to the fact that if I were studying (virtually) “any” other system, I wouldn't be teaching anymore. It would be impossible (for “me”) to do any of the “old” stuff that I used to do regularly (when I was younger, and healthier)in that system.
As I work with students now, I am constantly explaining that they shouldn't be attempting to “muscle” the techniques. My (personal) “rule” (of much of anything in life, LOL) is, “If YOUR breaking a sweat(trying to do what-ever your trying to do), YOU'VE fucked up somewhere”( I already mentioned that I am “lazy”, LOL). In the same way that somebody “makes” a tool to do a particular job, a particular way, you should utilize a technique in a “particular” manner and way, for it to work in a given situation.
My “other” (problem) disagreement (with the whole “terminate them” concept) was that it (obviously) left the student with no “other” alternatives for how to deal with those situations that one may “not” wish to inflict damage to the recipient (maybe their “Uncle Creepy's a billionaire, and they're in his will?) and they have “no choice” as to whether or not to “do” something.
It's also (my) our opinion, that (student's) working with the “controlled”manipulation of an uke, will learn more about “how” the body works/responds to applied techniques(thereby aiding the student in knowing “how” to make often necessary, situational “corrections”).
In conclusion, you can train a monkey to do all the “kicks and punches” that are taught in karate, but you can't teach them to reason and “choose” to only subdue an aggressor (without causing injury to them). We strive to make our students as knowledgeable as we can, thereby providing the them the ability to adapt techniques to their own individual circumstances.
For a student to “only” be trained to (terminate?) end a disturbance with “lethal” implications, I personally feel is irresponsible, if not “immoral” (and coming from “me”, that's saying a lot, LOL).
The majority of “assaults”, are from individual's “known” to the victim. These are often “friends”, “relatives”, “spouses” and/or acquaintances of any of those categories(so who needs “enemies, Right?”). For “most” individuals, “trashing” poor (drunk) uncle Creepy's arm for the next 6 months, may not cause much concern. But there are (often) those instances where “others” (if not the police) might carry a different opinion (if you decide that them putting their arm around your wife(even “gently”), “upsets” you).
Becoming the “family or neighborhood asshole” is not a title that most would care to have (I do agree, there are “exceptions” to this thought though, LOL).
In many schools, Tuite is taught (often only) with the end result being that the (presumed) “assailant” is “disabled/maimed/physically F*&d – Up” to the degree that a hospital trip is eminent. In many ways, it is/was how “I” was taught (most) of the technique's that I was (originally) shown. I tend to believe that this was done (possibly?) to reinforce the idea that what we were learning should be used only in those circumstances which justified their implementation. Now whether “that” was the case (or not), or it just “fed” the whole “macho male” ego thing, is (of course) debatable. Regardless, it is not now my method of instruction (in regards to RyuTe).
Quite possibly my exposure to Law Enforcement “tempered”(some of) my proclivity to violence (as being the “only” answer to ending a situation), but I tend to believe it was my own “laziness” that actually influenced me more. I simply found it “easier” to manipulate someone into/with a Tuite technique than it was to (at least attempt to) “man handle” them around with repeated “bludgeoning” motions, in the “hope” that I was (always) able to subdue them into unconsciousness(and I have been subject to many, MANY persons of the opinion that “this”{Bludgeoning} approach, “is” the most “practical”,ie. “best” approach). Which, for all those “young”, physically “fit”, “strong”(at the moment) individual's out there, and if you happen to really be into that sort of thing, “your good” (I guess). But, if you suffer from “any” sort of physical deficiency (be it “strength”, “eyesight”, “stamina” or even suffer from any general “health” issues) your “screwed”. Being one of those individual's myself, I can attest to the fact that if I were studying (virtually) “any” other system, I wouldn't be teaching anymore. It would be impossible (for “me”) to do any of the “old” stuff that I used to do regularly (when I was younger, and healthier)in that system.
As I work with students now, I am constantly explaining that they shouldn't be attempting to “muscle” the techniques. My (personal) “rule” (of much of anything in life, LOL) is, “If YOUR breaking a sweat(trying to do what-ever your trying to do), YOU'VE fucked up somewhere”( I already mentioned that I am “lazy”, LOL). In the same way that somebody “makes” a tool to do a particular job, a particular way, you should utilize a technique in a “particular” manner and way, for it to work in a given situation.
My “other” (problem) disagreement (with the whole “terminate them” concept) was that it (obviously) left the student with no “other” alternatives for how to deal with those situations that one may “not” wish to inflict damage to the recipient (maybe their “Uncle Creepy's a billionaire, and they're in his will?) and they have “no choice” as to whether or not to “do” something.
It's also (my) our opinion, that (student's) working with the “controlled”manipulation of an uke, will learn more about “how” the body works/responds to applied techniques(thereby aiding the student in knowing “how” to make often necessary, situational “corrections”).
In conclusion, you can train a monkey to do all the “kicks and punches” that are taught in karate, but you can't teach them to reason and “choose” to only subdue an aggressor (without causing injury to them). We strive to make our students as knowledgeable as we can, thereby providing the them the ability to adapt techniques to their own individual circumstances.
Regarding the implementation of Tuite
I've heard (and read) that various grappling (type) techniques (such as Tuite) are not practical (to implement). And depending on the situation I could agree. Tuite, is not an end all solution to every encounter. IMO, it could be (if the opportunity presents itself, and one has the ability to take advantage of it when it does). Now whether this opportunity naturally occurs, or if an individual creates it, is irrelevant, what's important is if the individual utilizes it if/when it does.
One of the common critiques of Tuite, is that it can't be utilized against muscular individuals. This one I can attest to as being false. I've had the (opportunity?) chance (both in a teaching situations, and in encounters) to implement it's use (and to see for myself the results). More often than not, (providing it's utilized correctly) the larger the target (individual), the greater the reaction (to the technique). There's numerous reasons for that(but regardless), if used correctly, it will work.
Now, can a situation be created for negative results?(that would cause a technique to fail, even though the technique is applied correctly) possibly (though “I” would have to really think about it, to be able to present it). But, do/would/could (many of ) those situations be (commonly) encountered? Doubtful. The most prevalent possibility being that the aggressor (completely) relaxes (ie. no force, with anything). At which point, the defender has to(or should) ask themselves “am I really being threatened here?” (and in case your not bright enough to figure it out, NO, your not)The only available choice, for the tori, is to then evaluate/modify their strategy.
One of the numerous fine points (of Tuite, and the implementation of it) is that the techniques are (often) working against (already) tightened tendons/muscles (which implies that nerves are firing before we even do a technique. The human body does a great many (minor, but important) actions on it's own(without any conscious guidance from our active thoughts). It is commonly the goal of the techniques that we use to (create and) take advantage of that fact.
Many of the (as Taika calls them) stupid people techniques (Grabs, and such) are not something that the average male students will (initially) encounter (in a confrontation). For this reason, it is common for (at least male) students to dismiss them (and therefor rarely practice them). We try to impart to them that although situations that we practice/learn them from/in, are rare occurrences, or that their being actually used(individually) was rare, the “opportunity” for their use could often be encountered during a confrontation (in a momentary grab, usually in an attempt to control/counter the tori). If one can not instinctively take advantage of this opportunity (when it presents itself) then one is giving away an opportunity to end a confrontation. The trouble (as I see it) with students being able to do this (in a real situation) is that sufficient practice time is not spent (by the student) on the techniques.
Of course the natural response (at least to myself, LOL) is that the instructor is to blame for this (lack of practicing them). Students often get the “mindset” that they know the technique, and therefor have no need to practice it/them. Yes, they may be “familiar” with the technique's, but not with recognizing their presence when they occur (because they're not occurring in the manner for which they were practiced in/from).
Random “grabs”, do occur (frequently) during confrontations. These usually come about from attempts to control (the tori), either to maintain (their own) “balance”, or as resistive attempts to prevent (what-ever) the tori is attempting to do. The fact that they (the student, usually) “learn” them from some “static” situation, often causes the student to believe that “that is” the (only) situation that one would implement them.
Anyone (who actually “thinks” about it) will quickly determine that it would be easier to just “strike” the one “grabbing” them(since at least one hand of the aggressor is “occupied”). Not necessarily a “bad” idea, only that IMO they are missing an opportunity to (more efficiently) control a situation (before it can escalate any further). They're also (IMO) “assuming” that they are (always) able to produce effective enough “strikes” to cause any damage. Granted, we “attempt” to strike the points that will cause (presumed) “damage”, but that doesn't mean that we (always) will/can, and, we are (in fact) amplifying the situation by inducing greater adrenalin production in the aggressor (a “natural” pain killer, giving the individual greater strength and resistance to any “pain” producing technique's).
Students often feel more “comfortable” with “impact” responses (when dealing with a life protection situation). There's a lot of reasons for this (at least amongst “males”), but the reality is, that we are (or should be) mainly concerned with “ending” the situation, and doing it in the most efficient manner available to us(which doesn't necessarily include “impact” responses).
As you read this, you (should) have noticed that I've “specified” (a couple of times) that these “common” beliefs (mostly) come from the “male” perspective. Having had numerous “female” students(and from discussions with them), these “grabs” are common occurrences (for the female). The fact is, “males” will more commonly “grab” a female (than to initially “hit” them), and will tend to “strike” a male (before they would initially “grab” them), at least in the manner that they are usually practiced. The “reasoning” (behind this) is multifold, and I'm certainly not going to (attempt to) get (deeply) into the male “psyche” (get off your ass and take a class or two, LOL), but I believe “most” people will agree that “males” display a different set of mannerisms than a “female” will (in similar situations). This should be studied and understood by the student.
Understanding these “differences” allows the student to incorporate them into their own defensive practices. By that, I mean that “how” one reacts to certain aggressive actions(“grabs” especially). If a “male” responds to those(certain) actions, in a (“subconsciously”, to the aggressor) “female” or “passive” manner, the aggressor will (often) react in the manner that they would if it were a “female” (that they were dealing with). This is (or should be) something that the tori should learn to “use” to their advantage.
Students can often “deescalate” a situation (on the aggressor's side) from the use of (so-called) “passive” responses (which is what many people initially “Miss-interpret” Tuite to be). I would defy anyone, to (be able to) “re-initiate” an aggressive assault AFTER, having a (correctly) utilized Tuite technique preformed upon them. I'm not saying it isn't possible, only that it will be greatly less effective (or even possible) afterwords.
We attempt to show (our students) how these “useless” grab defenses are commonly encountered, and how they should be utilized (even if they occur “during” the attempted implementation of another technique). Students can get a form of “tunnel-vision” (when performing a defensive action) and “miss” these opportunities when they occur. Once the student is familiar with the grab (supposedly. LOL), we will have the uke “grab” the tori during the practice of various “combination” technique's (these are/can be frequently encountered during “actual” confrontations, ie. “Aggressor's don't always respond in the same manner”, as during “practice”). If a student begins to believe that all people “always” respond in the (Practiced) “same manner”(every time), their perception of technique application becomes “warped”(and therefor “flawed”).
One of the common critiques of Tuite, is that it can't be utilized against muscular individuals. This one I can attest to as being false. I've had the (opportunity?) chance (both in a teaching situations, and in encounters) to implement it's use (and to see for myself the results). More often than not, (providing it's utilized correctly) the larger the target (individual), the greater the reaction (to the technique). There's numerous reasons for that(but regardless), if used correctly, it will work.
Now, can a situation be created for negative results?(that would cause a technique to fail, even though the technique is applied correctly) possibly (though “I” would have to really think about it, to be able to present it). But, do/would/could (many of ) those situations be (commonly) encountered? Doubtful. The most prevalent possibility being that the aggressor (completely) relaxes (ie. no force, with anything). At which point, the defender has to(or should) ask themselves “am I really being threatened here?” (and in case your not bright enough to figure it out, NO, your not)The only available choice, for the tori, is to then evaluate/modify their strategy.
One of the numerous fine points (of Tuite, and the implementation of it) is that the techniques are (often) working against (already) tightened tendons/muscles (which implies that nerves are firing before we even do a technique. The human body does a great many (minor, but important) actions on it's own(without any conscious guidance from our active thoughts). It is commonly the goal of the techniques that we use to (create and) take advantage of that fact.
Many of the (as Taika calls them) stupid people techniques (Grabs, and such) are not something that the average male students will (initially) encounter (in a confrontation). For this reason, it is common for (at least male) students to dismiss them (and therefor rarely practice them). We try to impart to them that although situations that we practice/learn them from/in, are rare occurrences, or that their being actually used(individually) was rare, the “opportunity” for their use could often be encountered during a confrontation (in a momentary grab, usually in an attempt to control/counter the tori). If one can not instinctively take advantage of this opportunity (when it presents itself) then one is giving away an opportunity to end a confrontation. The trouble (as I see it) with students being able to do this (in a real situation) is that sufficient practice time is not spent (by the student) on the techniques.
Of course the natural response (at least to myself, LOL) is that the instructor is to blame for this (lack of practicing them). Students often get the “mindset” that they know the technique, and therefor have no need to practice it/them. Yes, they may be “familiar” with the technique's, but not with recognizing their presence when they occur (because they're not occurring in the manner for which they were practiced in/from).
Random “grabs”, do occur (frequently) during confrontations. These usually come about from attempts to control (the tori), either to maintain (their own) “balance”, or as resistive attempts to prevent (what-ever) the tori is attempting to do. The fact that they (the student, usually) “learn” them from some “static” situation, often causes the student to believe that “that is” the (only) situation that one would implement them.
Anyone (who actually “thinks” about it) will quickly determine that it would be easier to just “strike” the one “grabbing” them(since at least one hand of the aggressor is “occupied”). Not necessarily a “bad” idea, only that IMO they are missing an opportunity to (more efficiently) control a situation (before it can escalate any further). They're also (IMO) “assuming” that they are (always) able to produce effective enough “strikes” to cause any damage. Granted, we “attempt” to strike the points that will cause (presumed) “damage”, but that doesn't mean that we (always) will/can, and, we are (in fact) amplifying the situation by inducing greater adrenalin production in the aggressor (a “natural” pain killer, giving the individual greater strength and resistance to any “pain” producing technique's).
Students often feel more “comfortable” with “impact” responses (when dealing with a life protection situation). There's a lot of reasons for this (at least amongst “males”), but the reality is, that we are (or should be) mainly concerned with “ending” the situation, and doing it in the most efficient manner available to us(which doesn't necessarily include “impact” responses).
As you read this, you (should) have noticed that I've “specified” (a couple of times) that these “common” beliefs (mostly) come from the “male” perspective. Having had numerous “female” students(and from discussions with them), these “grabs” are common occurrences (for the female). The fact is, “males” will more commonly “grab” a female (than to initially “hit” them), and will tend to “strike” a male (before they would initially “grab” them), at least in the manner that they are usually practiced. The “reasoning” (behind this) is multifold, and I'm certainly not going to (attempt to) get (deeply) into the male “psyche” (get off your ass and take a class or two, LOL), but I believe “most” people will agree that “males” display a different set of mannerisms than a “female” will (in similar situations). This should be studied and understood by the student.
Understanding these “differences” allows the student to incorporate them into their own defensive practices. By that, I mean that “how” one reacts to certain aggressive actions(“grabs” especially). If a “male” responds to those(certain) actions, in a (“subconsciously”, to the aggressor) “female” or “passive” manner, the aggressor will (often) react in the manner that they would if it were a “female” (that they were dealing with). This is (or should be) something that the tori should learn to “use” to their advantage.
Students can often “deescalate” a situation (on the aggressor's side) from the use of (so-called) “passive” responses (which is what many people initially “Miss-interpret” Tuite to be). I would defy anyone, to (be able to) “re-initiate” an aggressive assault AFTER, having a (correctly) utilized Tuite technique preformed upon them. I'm not saying it isn't possible, only that it will be greatly less effective (or even possible) afterwords.
We attempt to show (our students) how these “useless” grab defenses are commonly encountered, and how they should be utilized (even if they occur “during” the attempted implementation of another technique). Students can get a form of “tunnel-vision” (when performing a defensive action) and “miss” these opportunities when they occur. Once the student is familiar with the grab (supposedly. LOL), we will have the uke “grab” the tori during the practice of various “combination” technique's (these are/can be frequently encountered during “actual” confrontations, ie. “Aggressor's don't always respond in the same manner”, as during “practice”). If a student begins to believe that all people “always” respond in the (Practiced) “same manner”(every time), their perception of technique application becomes “warped”(and therefor “flawed”).
Monday, October 26, 2009
My Training History
I received an E-mail (from this “Blog”), from a “secret” reader (since they don't “list” themselves as being such). It started out pleasant enough(with the usual “blah, blah, blah”), then turned into (what read like) a “job” interview. At first, I took it (kind of) like a personal assault (it seemed awfully “nosy” about “my” Martial arts history). After letting it sit for a few days, I re-read it, and decided it was just worded poorly, and they wanted to know what kind of experience and/or claims of credentials that I had, which (I guess) is a justifiable question. Anybody, is free to write anything they want to (on “the web” LOL). Trying to decide that level of knowledge/experience, from just what I write could be difficult thing to determine (depending on the reader's experience level with the subject matter).
I know,er,.. OK, I thought(because it shows up on mine), my history was displayed on the page (that you read the blog on). But evidently, “that” history isn't/wasn't “good enough” for this person (although “they”, play the “stealth reader” game? LOL).
“My” (involvement) with Martial Arts is “as follows”,
The first exposure to any (physical) involvement with Martial arts was when I was in my “teens” (somewhere around 14-15). This was from some friends of mine whom studied at a local "martial arts School", which was a “chain school” in K.C.M.O. and Regionally (if not “nationally”). Essentially, they studied an eclectic mix of “Shotokan”, and Tea-kwon-do. Really, all that we did was practice throwing kicks (at each other, LOL), punches and blocks. We had a rotating group (of around 8 of us) that met on a regular (if not nightly) basis. We would “spar”, critique each others execution of techniques (what few we knew, LOL) and attempted to figure out new techniques. At that time “my” parents wouldn't allow me to attend “real” classes, they considered it too dangerous (ROTF,LMAO! If they had known the stupid sh#% that we did “attempting” to figure it out on our own......). Anyway,...when I turned 16, I was able to attend classes that had a “real” karate “Black Belt” instructor. This guy was teaching Shito-Ryu, he did an “alright” job of teaching (common) beginning techniques (punches, kicks, blocks) and (common) “sparring”. Our “kata” training was minimal (at best), “he” didn't feel they were “that” necessary, which at the time(mid-late 70's), was a very “common” idea ). I actually spent 3 years working with that guy (until he moved away). Although I had been “teaching” a small class (off and on) while I studied with my first instructor, I actually began a “regular” (ie. “weekly”) class with around 8-10 students (with one of my previous instructor's assistants, another “Black belt”). During this time, I was attending college courses (for some unknown reason, LOL) and I would attend various martial arts schools for several months at a time (just enough to get a “feel” for what they were like, not to become some “expert” at them). For the most part, I found this to be a waste (of my time). The differences between (most) systems was minimal (at best). Sometimes the techniques would be “a little” different, but mostly, were all very similar. I did enjoy (some) of the schools I attended (“Judo”, being the one I actually “learned” something from during my attendance). This continued for a couple of years and (we “thought”) we were content with our “knowledge base”. We (my “then” partner and I ) were contacted by another “Black Belt” (from our previous instructor). He invited us over to his class (which was being taught at one of his student's homes), he had someone he wanted us to meet, (some “meatball” named “Oyata”, LOL). We had both “heard” the name (knew he was supposed to be some sort of “Bad-ass”), and we agreed to come “check him out” (LOL).
That meeting with Oyata changed my whole perspective on Martial Arts. By the end of that first meeting, I felt that I had “Wasted” every minute that I had been working with any other instructor/system. Taika (although, he didn't go by that title then), showed me (us) actual “reasons” for all of the motions/actions that (all of my) other instructor's had said were (either) only “Traditional”, or “outdated” (thereby “no longer” applicable). Of all things, “Cat Stance” was what initially “sold” me (I had NO use for it), Oyata actually had a “use” for it (and it wasn't some stupid “sparring” stance, LOL).
My then partner and I, informed our class that “we” were changing systems, they were free to change with us, or find instruction elsewhere (and frankly, we didn't give a s&%* either way, “we” were changing). I spent the next 10, 12 months practicing the 12 Kata (in preparation for a Shodan test in front of Oyata). In the mean time, we were working on the method of combat that Oyata taught (and which was so “alien” to us at that time). Learning to stand “square” to an opponent, to stand “normal”(instead of “in” a stance), to strike with an “open” fist, utilizing the forearms in ways we'd never even considered before. We practiced this “Tuite” stuff (which though we found it really “neat”, it was also very painful). We may have had 6, or 7 classes where Oyata actually came to work with us over that time period (before we went before him to “test”) every time he came to instruct us, he taught us new methods and ways of doing things including with already known techniques, along with all of the stuff he was conveying upon us.
Our testing (though we didn't know it at the time) was “typical” (for Oyata). Applicants were called forward, told which kata to preform, and they did so. If Oyata wanted to see something else, he asked them to do so. Dojo Kun, and Dojo Principles (individually) were asked (to be recited back to him), then you were told to sit down, and the next applicant was called. I watched the (couple of) students before me go up, do two or three different kata, recite what was asked of them, and sit down. My name was called, I was asked to do Naihanchi Shodan (only once, everyone else did it at least twice, I began to “sweat”), I was asked for (some?) Dojo Kun, and (some other?) Dojo Principle, I answered all the questions,.....and was “told” to sit down. My heart sank, I was certain that I had completely F&)8^$d that test up! He only had me do Naihanchi Shodan! And only Once! God, how bad did I screw it up that He only allowed me do it once! (I think I was so depressed that you could have clubbed me with morning-star and I wouldn't have noticed). He then had everyone “break” and work out on their own. My fellow “testing” (“testee's”, LOL, I just find that funny) student's circulated around and everyone worked on various things (for about an hour and a half). Oyata then called for everyone to sit down, and he began calling out the names of those who “passed” their examination. My name was the 3rd one called, I was in total shock!, I had actually passed!
Of course attaining that Ranking didn't (really) Qualify us to be teaching (what Oyata was teaching us, at least in “Our opinion”). So for those first few years, we taught “our” students, the same thing that Oyata was teaching us, “as” he was teaching us. It was several years later that I actually became comfortable (and felt some-what competent) with what we were doing/teaching. My (previous) black belt “partner” wound up “quitting” (as far as learning/teaching karate) and I continued “solo” teaching/learning with/under the person who first introduced us to Oyata. I taught with/for him for (something like) 15yrs. During that time we did extensive training of officers at numerous police and law enforcement agency's and security companies. It was also during this time period that the whole “Dill-man” debacle occurred (and yes, I am familiar with what did/didn't go on). In the early 90's, Taika (as he was then addressed as) changed the name of what he was teaching (to more reflect what he envisioned the system to be, and to distance “himself”, and his system from the numerous imitators.
One of “our” students (from that time period) that came “up through the ranks” (under “us”) became one of my best friends (poor “him”, LOL). When that dojo closed (mostly due to “time” constraints imposed by our various employment) we (my student/friend/now “black belt” and I) began teaching from his home (of which we converted the basement of this Large home into a dojo). We have since then taught there (at least) 2 times a week, for the past 11 yrs. (I “think”?, I'm sure he'll correct me when he reads this, LOL). He shares a similar desire in researching our knowledge of Tuite and (the now called) “RyuTe” system in general. Between the two of us, we (at least, LOL) believe that we have improved the manor and methods of teaching(and hopefully)/learning this system of “Life Protection”. We have geared our teaching method to stress that very principle. We don't do “sport” sparring, (or really any of the common types of “sparring”). My partner works for the Major metropolitan Police department of Kansas City Mo. (and for a couple of years at the academy as one of the defensive tactics instructors) and is certified for/as an instructor in various Law Enforcement subjects (I suppose he could provide me a list, if I asked, LOL).
I have put this “Blog” together to assist myself (and my instructing partner) in developing/improving our teaching methods to provide the most productive and efficient Teaching Methodology that we can for our students. I also use it for answering the numerous “questions” that I receive in regards to “RyuTe”. I make no claims of having all the answers (I wish, LOL) to/about RyuTe, but I do have a little experience with the system and the techniques it contains.
I know,er,.. OK, I thought(because it shows up on mine), my history was displayed on the page (that you read the blog on). But evidently, “that” history isn't/wasn't “good enough” for this person (although “they”, play the “stealth reader” game? LOL).
“My” (involvement) with Martial Arts is “as follows”,
The first exposure to any (physical) involvement with Martial arts was when I was in my “teens” (somewhere around 14-15). This was from some friends of mine whom studied at a local "martial arts School", which was a “chain school” in K.C.M.O. and Regionally (if not “nationally”). Essentially, they studied an eclectic mix of “Shotokan”, and Tea-kwon-do. Really, all that we did was practice throwing kicks (at each other, LOL), punches and blocks. We had a rotating group (of around 8 of us) that met on a regular (if not nightly) basis. We would “spar”, critique each others execution of techniques (what few we knew, LOL) and attempted to figure out new techniques. At that time “my” parents wouldn't allow me to attend “real” classes, they considered it too dangerous (ROTF,LMAO! If they had known the stupid sh#% that we did “attempting” to figure it out on our own......). Anyway,...when I turned 16, I was able to attend classes that had a “real” karate “Black Belt” instructor. This guy was teaching Shito-Ryu, he did an “alright” job of teaching (common) beginning techniques (punches, kicks, blocks) and (common) “sparring”. Our “kata” training was minimal (at best), “he” didn't feel they were “that” necessary, which at the time(mid-late 70's), was a very “common” idea ). I actually spent 3 years working with that guy (until he moved away). Although I had been “teaching” a small class (off and on) while I studied with my first instructor, I actually began a “regular” (ie. “weekly”) class with around 8-10 students (with one of my previous instructor's assistants, another “Black belt”). During this time, I was attending college courses (for some unknown reason, LOL) and I would attend various martial arts schools for several months at a time (just enough to get a “feel” for what they were like, not to become some “expert” at them). For the most part, I found this to be a waste (of my time). The differences between (most) systems was minimal (at best). Sometimes the techniques would be “a little” different, but mostly, were all very similar. I did enjoy (some) of the schools I attended (“Judo”, being the one I actually “learned” something from during my attendance). This continued for a couple of years and (we “thought”) we were content with our “knowledge base”. We (my “then” partner and I ) were contacted by another “Black Belt” (from our previous instructor). He invited us over to his class (which was being taught at one of his student's homes), he had someone he wanted us to meet, (some “meatball” named “Oyata”, LOL). We had both “heard” the name (knew he was supposed to be some sort of “Bad-ass”), and we agreed to come “check him out” (LOL).
That meeting with Oyata changed my whole perspective on Martial Arts. By the end of that first meeting, I felt that I had “Wasted” every minute that I had been working with any other instructor/system. Taika (although, he didn't go by that title then), showed me (us) actual “reasons” for all of the motions/actions that (all of my) other instructor's had said were (either) only “Traditional”, or “outdated” (thereby “no longer” applicable). Of all things, “Cat Stance” was what initially “sold” me (I had NO use for it), Oyata actually had a “use” for it (and it wasn't some stupid “sparring” stance, LOL).
My then partner and I, informed our class that “we” were changing systems, they were free to change with us, or find instruction elsewhere (and frankly, we didn't give a s&%* either way, “we” were changing). I spent the next 10, 12 months practicing the 12 Kata (in preparation for a Shodan test in front of Oyata). In the mean time, we were working on the method of combat that Oyata taught (and which was so “alien” to us at that time). Learning to stand “square” to an opponent, to stand “normal”(instead of “in” a stance), to strike with an “open” fist, utilizing the forearms in ways we'd never even considered before. We practiced this “Tuite” stuff (which though we found it really “neat”, it was also very painful). We may have had 6, or 7 classes where Oyata actually came to work with us over that time period (before we went before him to “test”) every time he came to instruct us, he taught us new methods and ways of doing things including with already known techniques, along with all of the stuff he was conveying upon us.
Our testing (though we didn't know it at the time) was “typical” (for Oyata). Applicants were called forward, told which kata to preform, and they did so. If Oyata wanted to see something else, he asked them to do so. Dojo Kun, and Dojo Principles (individually) were asked (to be recited back to him), then you were told to sit down, and the next applicant was called. I watched the (couple of) students before me go up, do two or three different kata, recite what was asked of them, and sit down. My name was called, I was asked to do Naihanchi Shodan (only once, everyone else did it at least twice, I began to “sweat”), I was asked for (some?) Dojo Kun, and (some other?) Dojo Principle, I answered all the questions,.....and was “told” to sit down. My heart sank, I was certain that I had completely F&)8^$d that test up! He only had me do Naihanchi Shodan! And only Once! God, how bad did I screw it up that He only allowed me do it once! (I think I was so depressed that you could have clubbed me with morning-star and I wouldn't have noticed). He then had everyone “break” and work out on their own. My fellow “testing” (“testee's”, LOL, I just find that funny) student's circulated around and everyone worked on various things (for about an hour and a half). Oyata then called for everyone to sit down, and he began calling out the names of those who “passed” their examination. My name was the 3rd one called, I was in total shock!, I had actually passed!
Of course attaining that Ranking didn't (really) Qualify us to be teaching (what Oyata was teaching us, at least in “Our opinion”). So for those first few years, we taught “our” students, the same thing that Oyata was teaching us, “as” he was teaching us. It was several years later that I actually became comfortable (and felt some-what competent) with what we were doing/teaching. My (previous) black belt “partner” wound up “quitting” (as far as learning/teaching karate) and I continued “solo” teaching/learning with/under the person who first introduced us to Oyata. I taught with/for him for (something like) 15yrs. During that time we did extensive training of officers at numerous police and law enforcement agency's and security companies. It was also during this time period that the whole “Dill-man” debacle occurred (and yes, I am familiar with what did/didn't go on). In the early 90's, Taika (as he was then addressed as) changed the name of what he was teaching (to more reflect what he envisioned the system to be, and to distance “himself”, and his system from the numerous imitators.
One of “our” students (from that time period) that came “up through the ranks” (under “us”) became one of my best friends (poor “him”, LOL). When that dojo closed (mostly due to “time” constraints imposed by our various employment) we (my student/friend/now “black belt” and I) began teaching from his home (of which we converted the basement of this Large home into a dojo). We have since then taught there (at least) 2 times a week, for the past 11 yrs. (I “think”?, I'm sure he'll correct me when he reads this, LOL). He shares a similar desire in researching our knowledge of Tuite and (the now called) “RyuTe” system in general. Between the two of us, we (at least, LOL) believe that we have improved the manor and methods of teaching(and hopefully)/learning this system of “Life Protection”. We have geared our teaching method to stress that very principle. We don't do “sport” sparring, (or really any of the common types of “sparring”). My partner works for the Major metropolitan Police department of Kansas City Mo. (and for a couple of years at the academy as one of the defensive tactics instructors) and is certified for/as an instructor in various Law Enforcement subjects (I suppose he could provide me a list, if I asked, LOL).
I have put this “Blog” together to assist myself (and my instructing partner) in developing/improving our teaching methods to provide the most productive and efficient Teaching Methodology that we can for our students. I also use it for answering the numerous “questions” that I receive in regards to “RyuTe”. I make no claims of having all the answers (I wish, LOL) to/about RyuTe, but I do have a little experience with the system and the techniques it contains.
Finger-Locks...as being Tuite?
I was recently “reading around” (on the web) about “Tuite”, and came across (several) person's commentary's about (their versions of) Tuite (or at least what their school considered to be Tuite). I (personally) have never been a fan of finger-locks, I find them to be both difficult to obtain, and difficult to maintain (and will tend to have limited effect anyhow). I know various instructor's (usually with a “Prof.” in their title) really love to push these minor joint manipulations, but I have yet to find a practical application for their use (OK, I do teach one (1) lapel grab that I utilize a thumb-joint). My (personal) experience has shown (me) that “finger-joint” manipulations are virtually pointless (in a hostile confrontation). Adrenalin levels virtually always negate any (presumed) reaction from their use (hence, their classification as a “pain-compliance” technique). Despite this (fact), I have seen whole videos attributed to “finger-locks”(? What the ?). In 29 years, I've only seen Taika utilize one, once (and it was a casual thing, done as a “jest”, rather than as a “technique”).
The term “Tuite”, could/should really be attributed (directly) to Taika. Before he began demonstrating his system (at the time called “Ryukyu Kempo”), nobody ever even used the term “Tuite” (the use of “Torite”, which is the Japanese form of the word and is some-what “common” amongst Japanese systems was the term always used). The word, (when broken down) is “Tui”(pronounced, “Tuu- eee”). Which is the Okinawan pronunciation of the Japanese word “Tori”, for “grab”. “Te”, is the Japanese word for “hand” (where as the Okinawan's use “Ti”(pronounced “Teee”, or “Dee”), from the local dialect. I've found no evidence of anyone using “this” pronunciation prior to Taika's use of it. It (the pronunciation) came about (according to Taika) from teaching American service men (on Okinawa). These (American) student's would hear Taika say “Tuite” (which would sound like “Twee- dee”, as in the cartoon bird) and “giggle” (which, as I understood him to say, he didn't care for being “laughed at”, LOL). Once it was explained to him (what caused the humor), he modified it (the pronunciation) to what he now uses (pronounced “Tuu ee-tay”), which is a “blending” of the Okinawan and Japanese pronunciations of the words. Now whether “he”, was actually the one to change (modify) it, is uncertain. But (as stated) I never saw (nor “heard”) of it's use anywhere, or at anytime (or by anybody) before he came to the States, and began teaching. Before that, it was always referred to as “Tori-te” (using the Japanese term/pronunciation) which was very common.
Getting back to “finger-locks”,... I've never seen a bunkai (of a kata motion) which included a finger-lock (not that there may not be one, just that I've never seen one, or had cause to believe that there even was one). The only time I've ever seen even an “application”, would (possibly) be in (some) “bear-hug” or ground (type of), grappling, types of situations (and even then several other options come to mind).
“I”, have little (to “NO”) motivation to even explore possible applications for them(as I can readily come up with wrist/arm manipulations, which are much more effective, and are more easily applied).
A “related”, technique is the “forward” wrist fold (ie. Bending the wrist and fingers “forward”, fingers toward the anterior side of the wrist). This is commonly seen in “Aikido”(type) applications. Although there are some instances where this is applicable(usually with the subject already on the ground), it (very often) proves to be slower (for reaction), and is limited in it's subject “applicability” (ie. It don't bother everybody, including “me”). There are also numerous ways to defeat it's application (“if”, it even works). Naturally, this would be dependent upon the situational application (and method), but even judging it by the “general” body responses(to it's application), it has “problems”.
From what I've seen (on the Web), it seems that everyone wants to “make sure” that “their” system (what-ever that may be) includes “Tuite” (whether it was ever called that, or even had that before). It would seen that (suddenly) most Korean styles “also” (?) have “Tuite”. I noticed the Ju-Jitsu schools have begun advertising that they have “Tuite” classes. Although several systems utilize “similar” techniques, I've never seen anyone doing (the majority of) the techniques in the same manner (that we utilize them). But, then again, I've even seen “hair-pulling” being called “Tuite” (come on now, Really??).
The term “Tuite”, could/should really be attributed (directly) to Taika. Before he began demonstrating his system (at the time called “Ryukyu Kempo”), nobody ever even used the term “Tuite” (the use of “Torite”, which is the Japanese form of the word and is some-what “common” amongst Japanese systems was the term always used). The word, (when broken down) is “Tui”(pronounced, “Tuu- eee”). Which is the Okinawan pronunciation of the Japanese word “Tori”, for “grab”. “Te”, is the Japanese word for “hand” (where as the Okinawan's use “Ti”(pronounced “Teee”, or “Dee”), from the local dialect. I've found no evidence of anyone using “this” pronunciation prior to Taika's use of it. It (the pronunciation) came about (according to Taika) from teaching American service men (on Okinawa). These (American) student's would hear Taika say “Tuite” (which would sound like “Twee- dee”, as in the cartoon bird) and “giggle” (which, as I understood him to say, he didn't care for being “laughed at”, LOL). Once it was explained to him (what caused the humor), he modified it (the pronunciation) to what he now uses (pronounced “Tuu ee-tay”), which is a “blending” of the Okinawan and Japanese pronunciations of the words. Now whether “he”, was actually the one to change (modify) it, is uncertain. But (as stated) I never saw (nor “heard”) of it's use anywhere, or at anytime (or by anybody) before he came to the States, and began teaching. Before that, it was always referred to as “Tori-te” (using the Japanese term/pronunciation) which was very common.
Getting back to “finger-locks”,... I've never seen a bunkai (of a kata motion) which included a finger-lock (not that there may not be one, just that I've never seen one, or had cause to believe that there even was one). The only time I've ever seen even an “application”, would (possibly) be in (some) “bear-hug” or ground (type of), grappling, types of situations (and even then several other options come to mind).
“I”, have little (to “NO”) motivation to even explore possible applications for them(as I can readily come up with wrist/arm manipulations, which are much more effective, and are more easily applied).
A “related”, technique is the “forward” wrist fold (ie. Bending the wrist and fingers “forward”, fingers toward the anterior side of the wrist). This is commonly seen in “Aikido”(type) applications. Although there are some instances where this is applicable(usually with the subject already on the ground), it (very often) proves to be slower (for reaction), and is limited in it's subject “applicability” (ie. It don't bother everybody, including “me”). There are also numerous ways to defeat it's application (“if”, it even works). Naturally, this would be dependent upon the situational application (and method), but even judging it by the “general” body responses(to it's application), it has “problems”.
From what I've seen (on the Web), it seems that everyone wants to “make sure” that “their” system (what-ever that may be) includes “Tuite” (whether it was ever called that, or even had that before). It would seen that (suddenly) most Korean styles “also” (?) have “Tuite”. I noticed the Ju-Jitsu schools have begun advertising that they have “Tuite” classes. Although several systems utilize “similar” techniques, I've never seen anyone doing (the majority of) the techniques in the same manner (that we utilize them). But, then again, I've even seen “hair-pulling” being called “Tuite” (come on now, Really??).
Sunday, October 25, 2009
General Perceptions of a (RyuTe) Class
After reviewing some of the comments left (on various Posts), It causes me to wonder what people's general opinion of what RyuTe “practice” really is like. I can always go to almost any “Bulletin Board” type Web page (and “ask”) but then I have to read comments from all the (self-proclaimed)“experts” (usually with some “Dil-do-man” reference slipping in there also). One of the recent comments “here”, mentioned concerns about the repeated striking of the nerves/points, etc. and/or “blasting” each other with strikes (OK, it wasn't “phrased” that way, I “read” that into it, LOL). Nothing could be further from the truth.
More often, I have student's complain, that it (the training) doesn't seem “real” enough (? what-ever the *#@ that's supposed to mean). For “those” individuals, I (usually) attempt to explain that many of the techniques we practice can/will cause injury/damage if done with more than mild/moderate force.
Usually, my explanations are sufficient to convince them that it would not be in their (or anyone's) best interest to practice (what we do) in the manner that they “believe” (or at least are under the impression) to be more “practical”.
We (at our school) tend to focus more on the “technical” application aspects of the individual techniques than on (viewing/experiencing) the “effects” from their application.
It's been expressed, that repeatedly striking points will cause (future) problems (aside from the immediate effects), which would (most likely) be very true, IF we did so, and we don't, in fact if I were in a class that did, I would be very skeptical of the instructor's teaching ability(or knowledge in general). One does not “build up an immunity” to/from the effects of the techniques we practice. It is also because of this fact, that we only practice the techniques slowly (which drives many individuals crazy). Of course the “critiques” (of RyuTe) love it (when they hear about it), but I would defy them to explain a more practical method of practice (and not experience multiple repeated injuries from students).
Some People also seem to believe that the only thing we do is kata (during classes). Again, a misconception, we do review kata often, but a substantial amount of time is spent doing Combinations and Tuite (both learning of “new”, and practice of previously shown). These again, are practiced slowly. More “experienced” students can/will practice at a higher rate of speed (as long as they can demonstrate acceptable levels of “control”).
Although I don't do so with the students I have Presently (at our “sister” school), we often do a “formation” practice routine (at the beginning of a class). This is helpful for us (as instructor's) to verify that students are executing “basic” motions correctly (though one could argue that the same thing could be accomplished from observing their practice of kata).
If/when training students whom have had “previous” training, we spent a great deal of time “re-training” those students on (what most people would consider) execution of basic motions/positions. This does tend to perturb “some” students, but it is often a necessary step in transitioning those students to what/how we execute those motions (and to their “use” in/with techniques).
Over all, “RyuTe” classes, are much like any other “martial art” class. I'm not exactly sure “why” (some) people seem to think that they're (supposedly) all “that” different (short of the specific techniques taught).
I've been approached to “write-out” various specific techniques, which doesn't “bother me, it's only that it becomes very difficult to convey many of the finer details involved with the techniques. I've done some (simplistic) “general” descriptions of motion/techniques, but a “complete” (and detailed) description of any “specific' technique hasn't happened. Mostly, because it would require “several” pages (of written description) for most any technique(that comes to mind). And (of course) there are those who believe that doing so would (somehow?) be “giving out “Secrets” (LOL). I've been involved with numerous “verbal” discussions over/about executing techniques. It (always) comes down to whether or not the other person is familiar (enough) with the technique, to even have a (productive) discussion. To discuss a technique which “both” are not familiar (enough) with, becomes a pointless discussion (if not simply becoming a pointless “debate”).
A “small” part (or “purpose”) of this “Blog”, is to inform, and answer questions that people have about “RyuTe” (from a practitioner/instructor's perspective). I am more interested in “teaching” methods (and seeing if they could be applicable to my own classes). I'm aware of some of the critiques (of “RyuTe”), and I can definitely offer a response to those (whether in confirming, or denying any of those critiques). The (supposed, LOL) “Main” purpose of this Blog, is to discuss “teaching” methodologies (which is a some-what “generic” subject). But (as “yet”) I've encountered no one who wishes to “share”, or even “debate”(at least in an intelligent manor) “that” subject. So, I guess I'm “stuck” writing about what-ever pop's into my head at the moment. IF,...anyone has a suggestion of “topic”, let me know (though I would appreciate their own viewpoint/idea to be put forward also, it makes it less of a “ditto-head” discussion, LOL).
More often, I have student's complain, that it (the training) doesn't seem “real” enough (? what-ever the *#@ that's supposed to mean). For “those” individuals, I (usually) attempt to explain that many of the techniques we practice can/will cause injury/damage if done with more than mild/moderate force.
Usually, my explanations are sufficient to convince them that it would not be in their (or anyone's) best interest to practice (what we do) in the manner that they “believe” (or at least are under the impression) to be more “practical”.
We (at our school) tend to focus more on the “technical” application aspects of the individual techniques than on (viewing/experiencing) the “effects” from their application.
It's been expressed, that repeatedly striking points will cause (future) problems (aside from the immediate effects), which would (most likely) be very true, IF we did so, and we don't, in fact if I were in a class that did, I would be very skeptical of the instructor's teaching ability(or knowledge in general). One does not “build up an immunity” to/from the effects of the techniques we practice. It is also because of this fact, that we only practice the techniques slowly (which drives many individuals crazy). Of course the “critiques” (of RyuTe) love it (when they hear about it), but I would defy them to explain a more practical method of practice (and not experience multiple repeated injuries from students).
Some People also seem to believe that the only thing we do is kata (during classes). Again, a misconception, we do review kata often, but a substantial amount of time is spent doing Combinations and Tuite (both learning of “new”, and practice of previously shown). These again, are practiced slowly. More “experienced” students can/will practice at a higher rate of speed (as long as they can demonstrate acceptable levels of “control”).
Although I don't do so with the students I have Presently (at our “sister” school), we often do a “formation” practice routine (at the beginning of a class). This is helpful for us (as instructor's) to verify that students are executing “basic” motions correctly (though one could argue that the same thing could be accomplished from observing their practice of kata).
If/when training students whom have had “previous” training, we spent a great deal of time “re-training” those students on (what most people would consider) execution of basic motions/positions. This does tend to perturb “some” students, but it is often a necessary step in transitioning those students to what/how we execute those motions (and to their “use” in/with techniques).
Over all, “RyuTe” classes, are much like any other “martial art” class. I'm not exactly sure “why” (some) people seem to think that they're (supposedly) all “that” different (short of the specific techniques taught).
I've been approached to “write-out” various specific techniques, which doesn't “bother me, it's only that it becomes very difficult to convey many of the finer details involved with the techniques. I've done some (simplistic) “general” descriptions of motion/techniques, but a “complete” (and detailed) description of any “specific' technique hasn't happened. Mostly, because it would require “several” pages (of written description) for most any technique(that comes to mind). And (of course) there are those who believe that doing so would (somehow?) be “giving out “Secrets” (LOL). I've been involved with numerous “verbal” discussions over/about executing techniques. It (always) comes down to whether or not the other person is familiar (enough) with the technique, to even have a (productive) discussion. To discuss a technique which “both” are not familiar (enough) with, becomes a pointless discussion (if not simply becoming a pointless “debate”).
A “small” part (or “purpose”) of this “Blog”, is to inform, and answer questions that people have about “RyuTe” (from a practitioner/instructor's perspective). I am more interested in “teaching” methods (and seeing if they could be applicable to my own classes). I'm aware of some of the critiques (of “RyuTe”), and I can definitely offer a response to those (whether in confirming, or denying any of those critiques). The (supposed, LOL) “Main” purpose of this Blog, is to discuss “teaching” methodologies (which is a some-what “generic” subject). But (as “yet”) I've encountered no one who wishes to “share”, or even “debate”(at least in an intelligent manor) “that” subject. So, I guess I'm “stuck” writing about what-ever pop's into my head at the moment. IF,...anyone has a suggestion of “topic”, let me know (though I would appreciate their own viewpoint/idea to be put forward also, it makes it less of a “ditto-head” discussion, LOL).
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Exercises that have “purpose”
After re-reading my post (on exercises), it could appear (to the reader) that I have no use for any exercises. This could not be further from the truth (nor in any way accurate). I do teach the (commonly taught) exercises that can be found in “most” RyuTe schools. I will “justify” (my feelings on them) my statement by referencing the reader to the fact that I “mainly” am instructing “Black Belt” students (be it from this system, or another). I (generally) am not training the “beginners” (ie. “white belts). Although we do have them at our school, I personally don't “interact“ with the majority of their training (until “later”).
Beginner's very often require (a lot) of personal attention, explanation, and correction. This isn't to say that our “Black Belt” students don't also, only that those “explanations” can be done more generally (and still be understood).
Part of that initial learning process includes basic arm motions (as in exercise #1). Once these are understood (and executed properly) we introduce the student to “footwork” movement (through exercise #2). With further study the student is shown more combined arm motion (via exercise #3) and then more “fluid” and alternating arm motion (through exercise #4). There are of course, numerous “short” exercises that (may or may not) be shown to an“individual” student depending (of course) upon their “needs”.
Students often confuse “kata” practice, with the use/practice of “exercises”. Kata practice is an “on-going” study exercise for the RyuTe student. As basic (or more “obvious”) motions are shown to the student, it can become easy to interpret “all” kata motion as being only (those)“obvious” motions. This method would be a grave mistake (for the student). It needs to be remembered that kata motions can be “forward” or “backward” (for their “meaning”) and, that there are multiple interpretations for each motion. These should be coupled with the “letter” analogy (of kata “breakdown”). As a student learns more, they (should) will begin to “see” more technique motions in the kata. As Taika states, it is common to find “1”, “2” (or even several) “kata” that an individual is “most” comfortable with. As one learns the “break-down” (from those “favorite” kata) they will often find that they are partial to the techniques that are illustrated within them.
The “learning” of “karate” for (in general, and for “most”) students, is a “choice”. It is not a mandatory endeavor, it is a “chosen” field of study. Although this choice can often become a lifetime pursuit. It can also be a momentary “fad” (for the individual). Regardless of the degree of (commitment?) interest, by the student (which can vary throughout their “study”), “practice” is a constant that must be maintained. I often observe classes where it (the martial art) is treated as if it is a religion (absent the “supreme being”). Some schools emphasize the “discipline” aspects, some push the “spiritual” (ie. “moral”) pursuit of the training. A martial art, (regardless the “system”) is nothing more than a means to an end, and as “I” teach (and study it myself), that “end”, is a method of “life protection”. I've usually found that the instructor's that push the “atmosphere” (ie. Using “Japanese” only terminology, constant “bowing”, the “obnoxious” and constant “os!”, the strict Japanese “type” of everything, blah, blah, blah,...) are (often) just “milking” their students (to make a “buck”) just to maintain that (so-called) “traditional” training. Their students “may”, or may not be receiving “good” instruction, but it's (definitely, and unnecessarily) being “drawn out” (in order to maintain that income??). For those students that seek the "atmosphere", I personally, send them elsewhere (I'm a lousy choice for that type of class, LOL).
In relation to exercises, some systems (and schools) use “exercises” (in general) for “time fillers”. Considering the average “martial art” class is (only) 1 hour, exercises make a nice “time filler”. Which, though often necessary, can be (ab)used to take time away from any “useful” practice time. It is for “that” reason, that once a principle is learned from an “exercise”, I rarely will work with it again (beyond an occasional “refresher”).
Beginner's very often require (a lot) of personal attention, explanation, and correction. This isn't to say that our “Black Belt” students don't also, only that those “explanations” can be done more generally (and still be understood).
Part of that initial learning process includes basic arm motions (as in exercise #1). Once these are understood (and executed properly) we introduce the student to “footwork” movement (through exercise #2). With further study the student is shown more combined arm motion (via exercise #3) and then more “fluid” and alternating arm motion (through exercise #4). There are of course, numerous “short” exercises that (may or may not) be shown to an“individual” student depending (of course) upon their “needs”.
Students often confuse “kata” practice, with the use/practice of “exercises”. Kata practice is an “on-going” study exercise for the RyuTe student. As basic (or more “obvious”) motions are shown to the student, it can become easy to interpret “all” kata motion as being only (those)“obvious” motions. This method would be a grave mistake (for the student). It needs to be remembered that kata motions can be “forward” or “backward” (for their “meaning”) and, that there are multiple interpretations for each motion. These should be coupled with the “letter” analogy (of kata “breakdown”). As a student learns more, they (should) will begin to “see” more technique motions in the kata. As Taika states, it is common to find “1”, “2” (or even several) “kata” that an individual is “most” comfortable with. As one learns the “break-down” (from those “favorite” kata) they will often find that they are partial to the techniques that are illustrated within them.
The “learning” of “karate” for (in general, and for “most”) students, is a “choice”. It is not a mandatory endeavor, it is a “chosen” field of study. Although this choice can often become a lifetime pursuit. It can also be a momentary “fad” (for the individual). Regardless of the degree of (commitment?) interest, by the student (which can vary throughout their “study”), “practice” is a constant that must be maintained. I often observe classes where it (the martial art) is treated as if it is a religion (absent the “supreme being”). Some schools emphasize the “discipline” aspects, some push the “spiritual” (ie. “moral”) pursuit of the training. A martial art, (regardless the “system”) is nothing more than a means to an end, and as “I” teach (and study it myself), that “end”, is a method of “life protection”. I've usually found that the instructor's that push the “atmosphere” (ie. Using “Japanese” only terminology, constant “bowing”, the “obnoxious” and constant “os!”, the strict Japanese “type” of everything, blah, blah, blah,...) are (often) just “milking” their students (to make a “buck”) just to maintain that (so-called) “traditional” training. Their students “may”, or may not be receiving “good” instruction, but it's (definitely, and unnecessarily) being “drawn out” (in order to maintain that income??). For those students that seek the "atmosphere", I personally, send them elsewhere (I'm a lousy choice for that type of class, LOL).
In relation to exercises, some systems (and schools) use “exercises” (in general) for “time fillers”. Considering the average “martial art” class is (only) 1 hour, exercises make a nice “time filler”. Which, though often necessary, can be (ab)used to take time away from any “useful” practice time. It is for “that” reason, that once a principle is learned from an “exercise”, I rarely will work with it again (beyond an occasional “refresher”).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
