Tuite (Personal training/teaching methodologies in RyuTe)

Focus of Study (minor vent)

2012-01-02T21:38:00.003-06:00

I was listening (OK, eavesdropping, LOL) to another individual “pimp” their MA school to a prospective student the other day, and the whole thing just struck me as being equivalent to a prostitute bargaining on the price for their “services to be rendered” (which IMO, amounted to the same thing happening to the client/John).

They had set rates for their regular MA classes, and optional prices for if you wanted something special. These could include personal (1 on 1) classes, or specialty courses (a weapon, a kata, sparring etc.). they even offered (separate?) self-defense classes (WTF?). If you felt that you were a slovenly out-of-shape couch potato, they even offered “kick-aerobics”, all of which were available (individually) for a nominal fee(s) Golly-Gee!

I have nothing against anyone running a store-front Dojo. I do have (more than a bit of) a problem with someone doing it as their only means of income though. Those whom I've known (who have done so) have inevitably turned into total douche-bags.

The situation I'm in now (where I additionally teach) is one of the only (feasible) situations that I can agree with. The school owner has a REAL job, and he runs the school as a “side-venture/interest”. He has mentioned to me on several occasions, that the school (and the kid-friendly system that's also taught there) helps pay for his RyuTe habit.

His school's survival is not based upon “selling” RyuTe to keep the door's open (good thing too, LOL). RyuTe is not the public friendly system that everyone flocks to for fun and family entertainment. When I began teaching there, we had approximately 14 student's, we're presently at 8 (which is actually closer to what I would consider a standard class to be for this market).

For all the Talk about how much everybody wants to learn this system, very few ever continue beyond a month or two's training. Is it too violent, or does it cause too much injury to the student's?

No, it doesn't. I honestly believe that if it did, it would have a greater following. Not that I would care for the individual's who would choose to follow that sort of instruction (or the instructor).

RyuTe requires that the student use their brain. It points out the obvious. It demonstrates what constitutes a natural motion. In it's simplicity, it's confusing as hell, LOL. With time, all of these become easier to deal with, and to understand how they are applied. But the majority of student's, don't think that they have the time.

They do (of course) have time to waste working on “sparring” (because it teaches them how to take a punch/kick, LOL) rather than learning how to negate that same strike to begin with. It teaches them how to maintain their breathing for 5-6 minutes (because that's how long a “sparring” match can be), rather than how to end a confrontation in 5-6 seconds, because that's how long you'll have in reality if your attacked by someone who wants to seriously hurt you. It will teach you how to win awards, because those are important when your laying in a hospital after your face has been maimed by someone who chose you to prove that they are a bad-ass to their buddies.

Sparring just has so much to offer. (drip, drip, drip, ...so goes the sarcasm)

When one studies RyuTe, they can expect to experience frustration, a general feeling of humility, and the occasional sense of stupidity. Along with these emotional responses, the probable physical reactions will include soreness experienced in the hands, wrists, arms, chest, thigh, legs and feet. The possibility of an occasional soreness in the neck region has also been reported.

Over-all, these final reasons are more than enough to dissuade the average student from even wanting to start (much less continue) a study of RyuTe. You would obviously be better served if you went to a school that offered all that other stuff separately (that way, you can pick and choose, since your already an expert, now get to your sparring class! LOL).

Is it Bunkai (or just BS)

2012-01-02T20:22:00.002-06:00

When I was in my early teens (and being shown techniques and Kata by friends), their interpretations were as obvious as the moon in the sky. There was no in-depth discussion's about any of it. It was just accepted that what you saw, was what you got.

When I began my studies in Shito-Ryu, that same message was delivered to us then. Everything we were shown related directly to “sparring” (of the sport variety). At that time, we made the (mistaken) assumption that what was shown would directly translate to (actual) application.

Granted, all these presumptions were based upon false premiss (what did we know at that time? The only conflicts we'd been in were schoolyard fights, not exactly deadly situations, LOL). Our concern for effectiveness was warped at best.

It was only after having attained a yudansha ranking, and teaching that system for 3 years that I met Taika. After that encounter, I found that I had been wasting my time with that system. Granted, it took time but I eventually abandoned everything that I had been taught (not that it was that difficult, after having learned how it should of been taught to me to begin with).

It was odd, but when Taika described confrontations, it was always in a matter-of-fact manner. The descriptions were simple, and direct. Rarely was there anything that was elaborate or confusing, it almost seemed too obvious (if not simple?). Once situations are viewed and understood (in this manner), the techniques needed for resolution seems obvious.

Bunkai was described similarly. Once you see how the motions should be viewed, the illustrated responses to techniques become more obvious. I watch various people attempting to present their interpretations (on U-tube and such) and beyond the simplistic one's, most are ridicules at best, and pathetic at worst.

I find it interesting that most, seem to believe that there is only one explanation for every motion. The general belief appears to be that once you have an explanation for a motion, then your research for that motion ends.

The (evidently) UN-obvious answer would be, that there's more than one answer/solution to every motions interpretation. I believe this is where these people that want to “create” their own kata, are “f”-in”-up. They're under the impression that they can/will (somehow?) create something beyond what has already been done. Every time I see one of these train wrecks, it makes that individual (and/or system) appear extremely petty and self-serving.

The only kata that I view with a reserved disdain, are the Pinan kata. Not so much because what they contain/represent are not of value, only that they are easily confused (OK, a personal problem, LOL). I would much prefer to spend my time working with the more traditional kata.

Seeing that the Pinan were (obviously and mostly) created from the traditional kata, it just seems to make more sense to expend my effort upon the original kata. To myself, the Pinan just seem contrived. They seem to only rehash what's being done in the original kata. The fact that Itosu arranged them for school children, just curbs any enthusiasm on my part for them.

Though RyuTe only entails (not including Shi Ho Happo no Te) twelve kata, I feel that's more than sufficient to keep one busy for a lifetimes worth of study/research. It's often said (including by me) if one actually knew all the technique from even one of the naihanchi kata, they would need to study no other to have a complete system.

IMO, the true value of kata, is in learning the principles of technique, rather than the individual technique. When those principles are understood, then individual technique (per the given situation) can more easily be derived.

Bunkai Blues

2012-01-02T16:48:00.001-06:00

As is usual, I've most likely managed to upset somebody, LOL. There's an individual on “U-Tube” that posts numerous video's about (“his”) bunkai of various kata. He also posts numerous copies of footage from seminar's put-on by Taika (back when he still let outsider's in, LOL). I've mentioned before that what was shown then, and what is taught now, has changed. That doesn't make what was shown then as (now) being invalid, but only incomplete.

My teaching associate and I occasionally watch these (older) videos and laugh at what Taika's doing. Very often he is misleading those who aren't paying attention to what he is saying (instead of what he is doing). This U-tuber attended these seminars (at least I presume he did, he has the video's at any rate, LOL) and evidently focused on the actions being made, and not the principle's being taught/conveyed.

I was very cordial, I didn't slam his interpretations (as I had nothing major against them), but I only pointed out an alternative approach to the one which was being taken (by him). His reply, gave the impression of an openness (to other interpretations), but he quickly returned to his restricting viewpoint mid-way through the reply (along with a self-justification for that viewpoint).

I attempted another clarification (of my statement), but was dismissed in the usual manner done by most of these individual's (“well, if you want to post a video of what you feel is a better bunkai, I'd love to take a look. I'm always trying to learn and improve”).

Fuck that, as for trying? Not very hard in my opinion. I'm sure you'd love me to post some stuff. You don't have anything else, and your not willing to consider that there may very well be other interpretations. I only attempted to suggest an alternative approach, and was (basically) told to “go piss-up a rope”. If you don't have the mental capacity to understand what was stated, then say so, and I will (usually) clarify it.

There's a number of these “internet” experts/student's who may or may-not have attended a few of Taika's seminars (kind of like the “dillmanite's”) and who now consider themselves experts since their doing something different than 90% of the rest of the world (and are hoping to make a buck off of it, whether it's right, or wrong).

Student's (whether they are also instructor's or not) who are attempting to expand their knowledge/understanding base, should learn to consider any alternatives to what they are presently utilizing. This doesn't mean accept what-ever is presented, but know enough about the approach to be able to (legitimately) dispute it and be able to explain why you do so (if/when asked). Only through intellectual debate, can illegitimate theories be neutralized.

As with the individual/situation I mentioned above, I wasn't disputing his interpretation (I couldn't care less), I was attempting to expand his view of the situation (because he is basing his conclusions upon an incorrect, or at least limited analysis of the presented motions). I don't really care if he figures out what I was talking about or not. It's his view of the situation that's limited, not the situation itself. If he requires a video to see that, then he needs far more practice than what he's claiming that he has already.

What's in a Name? (Personal Perspectives)

2011-12-26T17:18:00.004-06:00

I am continually reading about how prior student's of Taika's (and of RyuTe) are teaching the same thing (as RyuTe). I would have to disagree. Over the years, What Taika has taught has gone through numerous changes. Some of these were ideological, and many were technical (as to how technique's were being shown to be utilized).

I first met Taika, and began training in his system of Life Protection in the late 70's, early 80's. What was shown to me (by Taika), was completely different from anything that I had been shown prior.

Originally, Taika (Oyata) was using the name “Ryukyu Kempo” to describe the art that he was teaching. After moving to the U.S., the popularity of what he was teaching exploded upon the martial arts community.

The more recent (newer) student's of RyuTe (in the past 10 years) don't realize/appreciate the impact that he had upon the martial arts community (of almost every style) at that time. What he proposed, was that 90% of what that community was teaching, was (if not wrong) then being taught under totally misguided/false precepts.

There had been a few who made similar types of claims (naturally for what-ever they were promoting), but unlike Taika, they couldn't back-up what they were saying with examples and demonstrations of those beliefs, where as Taika could (and did so on a regular basis).

Taika was providing seminars that were open to all styles, and he would demonstrate the similarities between them all (instead of attempting to prove any superiority of one over another). He praised the value of kata, for which (at the time), it was in vogue to proclaim that your class/style didn't waste student's time with them (courtesy of the misguided fan's of Bruce Lee).

Taika's contention was that student's hadn't been shown (or figured out) the correct bunkai (for the practiced kata). Everything being shown (at that time), was incorrectly being shown for “sparring” types of situations.

Sparring became popularized (initially) by Funikoshi's son (in Japan). Though I am not a Fan of (the elder) Funikoshi, I will give him credit for initially NOT being in-favor of the practice of “Sparring”. He initially believed it to be distracting from learning true Life-Protection (and I agree).

Taika was actually a part of the group which organized the methods/manner of Bogu kumite (upon Okinawa) within the Ryukyu Kempo system. Though still limited in it's realism, it (at least) allows for full-power strikes to be made.

Though Bogu kumite was (and still is) considered to be different from the more commonly performed manner's of kumite, it wasn't the major difference between Taika's Ryukyu Kempo and what any other Okinawan, or for that matter any other system's were teaching.

Taika, was also teaching, and demonstrating, His method of Kyusho Jutsu (vital-point technique). Numerous instructor's (both then, and now) have claimed to teach similar technique's, but none have produced results equivalent to his (nor with as great of ease, if having any results at all).

Both the type, and the manner of strikes that he taught at those early seminars, are now (apparently) being copied and taught by nearly every martial art that's out there. Even when performed sloppily, those strikes can prove to be extremely effective.

Taika was also demonstrating (again) His, method of Tuite-Jutsu. What was more commonly being taught, was Torite-Jutsu (either of which, translates as Grab-Hand). Though often appearing similar, when placed on the receiving end of Taika's version, student's would immediately be aware of the difference.

Taika's version, was (of course) his own. He developed it from the guidance he received from his only two instructor's Uhugushigu, and Wakinaguri. Though Taika learned kata from other instructor's on Okinawa, his only (true) instructor's were these two men.

When Taika presented his seminars in those early years, he allowed student's from any and every style/system to attend. Many (and I mean many) people were in attendance at these seminars. Numerous attendee's would claim to want to study under Taika, and would often do so (for around a year, LOL). The majority would only attend seminars (and then boast about having “trained” under Taika, LOL). Many were even presented complementary/provisional certificates (usually of an equivalent or single level higher than what they had supposedly earned in their previously declared system). These were presented as being compensatory until (or if) they continued their study in Ryukyu Kempo.

As people began to expect this rank awarding (from merely claiming that they were going to continue their study) the practice was discontinued. As a result, numerous individual's who received these ranks, began to make untrue claims as to their value. Some even went so far as to make claims of special instruction/training and abilities (resultant from these falsified events).

Some of those same individual's began teaching while using the Ryukyu Kempo title (for what they taught). Being that what they were teaching was not what Taika had taught, he was forced to change the name of what he was teaching. This was done to disassociate himself and what he taught from what these equivocator’s were promoting (which actually worked out quite well for him).

The name RyuTe, became the title of the art taught by Taika. This time, Taika had the name copy-written (to prevent others from using it falsely). Although now he was (legally) protected, the openness and sharing of information that was once enjoyed, had been stifled (by those few low-life's who sought to capitalize on what little had been shown to them).

Along with the name change, Taika utilized the opportunity to change the content/direction of what was being taught. Though the kyu level information had (mostly) remained the same, the information shown to yudansha has since been modified greatly.

It's popularly believed that despite the name change, RyuTe teaches the same curriculum as Ryukyu Kempo. This assumption would only be superficially true. Though many similar technique's are taught, the manner of their execution are often (very) different.

This is especially true for the tuite/torite technique's. This becomes particularly obvious on U-Tube video example's, LOL. Though the technique's may appear similar (visually). They are more often than not, performed differently (and result in different reactionary results).

The majority of RyuTe's application methods and technique's have been refined continually since Taika first began teaching them. What is being taught now, is often vastly different from what was taught only 10 years ago.

To assure that anyone who is offering instruction in Taika's form of RyuTe is legitimate, one need only contact the RyuTe Website and see/ask (all RyuTe association dojo/instructor's are listed).

There have been numerous association members who have been expelled or have departed on their own from Taika's association. Those who were expelled, hadn't usually trained with Taika for 5 or more years before they were removed (part of the reasoning for their expulsion).

None of those individual's point out that they were expunged from the association (much less why, LOL). All of which is fine, yet they all still (desperately) claim their association to/with Taika. The material that they teach is valid, It's just not what Taika teaches now, or since (usually before) these individual's left (most had not actually trained with Taika for several years before their leaving/removal).

The individual's who had trained with Taika in the early years, were shown technique's (specifically Tuite) at a moderate to fast rate of application. When demonstrated, the technique was released and discarded to provide the uke with an escape (for safety reasons). We have since modified that instruction method.

We now have student's perform all tuite slowly. This allows both parties to recognize any/all relevant details to a technique's application. Technique's are no longer thrown away for completion. We require each technique be applied upon the uke to a position of submission/control.

Some would believe this to be simpler to cause the techniques to work (they would be wrong). By going slowly, it is far more difficult to cause the technique to work as desired (the uke is being allowed time to react/resist). By going slowly, students are also able to more fully understand the finite details of the technique's application (as well as possible counter's when incorrectly being applied).

When those other individual's proclaim that “What they teach”(is the same), call them to task. Because it isn't. I'm not claiming better or worse (on either part), only that it isn't the same.

Straight Kick

2011-12-26T14:31:00.005-06:00

As I have claimed on numerous occasions, this is the most used foot/leg technique in the RyuTe repertoire. As with most RyuTe techniques, there are numerous way's of applying it. Regardless of which manner is used, the basic application remains the same.

We have our student's begin the motion by lifting their knee to the center of their body. This initially acts as protection for the groin, and as distraction for the aggressor (as they will commonly notice the rapidly rising knee, whether it is an intended strike or not).

The foot of that leg, then rotates it's toe's towards the outer side of the aggressor's leg. For the most common application of the kick, the foot is extended forward to contact the aggressor's leg (slightly above the knee, along the inner side of the thigh), striking with the heel of the foot. The strike should be performed as a push. Doing so will tend to rotate the aggressor's knee (as well as their body) to the side, while additionally causing the leg to collapse.

Once the aggressor's knee is pushed to the side, the tori's foot should be dropped (lowered to the ground) , as opposed to being retracted. Retraction would be a wasted motion (on the part of the tori). By the foot remaining forward, the tori is placed closer to the uke allowing for greater choices in retaliatory/defensive strikes to be made more effectively.

By the tori rotating their striking foot, they additionally rotate their knee (and of course the entire leg). This will change the angle of the strike being made upon the uke, and therefor the reaction made by the uke's leg/body.

We spend a great amount of time on the various applications and reactions of this technique. When performed at it's least efficient manor, the uke will still respond with body reaction that the student can easily utilize to their benefit.

This technique can alternatively be performed using the ball (or even the top) of the foot. When used in that manor, it is used in the more traditional manor of a Strike. The most common target is upon the higher third of the inner thigh. These strikes tend to create spasms which render that leg incapable of supporting weight (for a period of time), while additionally rotating the recipient away from the tori.

It's this manor of application that the majority of student's are accustom to. Because it is not (IMO) always necessary/required to achieve the desired results, we tend to prefer the pushing manner of this techniques application (which mechanically possesses greater odds of it's success).

Contrary to student's initial thoughts, the kicking method is actually a (safer?) less physically damaging application of this technique. Depending upon the tori's control abilities, the kicking application can be practiced at a higher speed (than the Pushing method) with less risk of (serious) injury.

Even when performed at a slow rate of application, if done correctly, the pushing method can easily dislocate/damage the ankle of the recipient. The kick, more often only causes a temporary discomfort. Either way, this technique is an important part of our student's study, and we are always mindful of the inherent risk factor associated with it's practice.

Double Forearm Strike

2011-12-20T10:37:00.001-06:00

This motion is represented in numerous kata (multiple times). It's motion is representative for a plurality of different technique applications. The motion as practiced in formation, is only the most basic of those. To the casual observer, this motion is the combining of the Outside Forearm Strike, and the Downward Forearm Strike.

When applied in several situations, that would prove to be an accurate assessment. But, the motion can be (and is) varied in several circumstances to modify the recipients response/reaction.

The motion as practiced, is the basic (most common) manner of utilization. It's from this manner of execution that the alternate application's are derived.

Practice of the motion begins with the hands at either side of the tori. Both arms/hands motion at the same time (throughout the application). I will describe each individually, beginning with the Left (for this example).

This hand raises straight up (in-line with the upper-arm and shoulder), bending at the elbow (palm-up). The hand continues up until nearly vertical, then rotates to palm-down and begins to sweep downward (covering the front of the body as it does so). The hand/arm continues downward (covering the abdomen/groin area) and motioning forward, until it is once again in-line with the shoulder (but should now be located to the front of the tori at a 45º angle. Depending upon the individual application, the hand could be open or semi-closed (for practice purposes, we have students perform the motion with the hand closed, and perform the milking-punch action at the arm's motion conclusion).

In conjunction with the Left hand's motion, the Right hand will also be raised. But it, will raise close to the body, sweeping upward (covering the front of the body while doing so). Both arm's should pass one another when they reach the waist-level (in the opening/first motion, this mandates a timing variance between the two, that should only exist during the first motion). The Right arm continues it's rise until being in-line with it's shoulder, then will motion straight forward (much as the Outside Forearm Strike has been described).

With both hand/arm's now in position, the individual hand positions should be at (opposite) 45º angles (as if they were clasping a Bo), with the upper-hand being palm-up, and the lower hand palm-down. After this first performance of the application, the hand which is raising, will always motion towards the tori's center-line (inward) when doing so.

Both hands will then alternate their positions. This is accomplished with both hands motioning inward (towards the bodies center-line), crossing one-another at the waist-level (both moving closer to the body while doing so), then motioning in their respective opposite directions (down/up) and then forward (to end). The arm which will then be raising, should always be on the inner-side (closest to the body). This mandates an alternation of arm positioning during the continuation of this exercise.

Though seeming to be a simple coordination exercise, this motion has numerous direct technique applications, and should be practiced by student's on a regular basis.

The Low and High Forearm Strike

2011-12-19T23:04:00.000-06:00

These two particular motions are (IMO) very problematic (in how they should be regarded). Neither are necessarily quite what they're popularly advertized as being. The Low Forearm Strike is often interpreted as a hand strike, but should also be considered a forearm strike. The High Forearm Strike is (generally) considered to be an upward parry of a strike (though how that could be considered beneficial is of questionable logic), but is more commonly recognized (at least in RyuTe) as being a tuite technique.
Neither are necessarily quite what they're popularly advertized as being. Either way,

The Low Forearm Strike is IMO, the more miss-applied of these two motions. When I see it being used against the foot (?) of a kicking leg (or for that matter the shin), I can only shake my head. First off, I have a hard time believing that anyone was kicking (high enough) to make these interpretations applicable when the kata was first created. These are the (unfortunate) result of the influence of sport-sparring.

When one returns to reality, representing “blocks” against kicks (despite how hard some people have gone out of their way to come up with an application that would kind of fit) is a silly notion. I've even got Taika (on a video, when asked this question) saying “what?, you stupid?”, foot too far away to strike, quicker to kick”. Pretty simple logic to me. (Additionally, it's much simpler to kick the aggressor's supporting leg when that aggressor is attempting to deliver a kick upon you).

Hand techniques used upon the legs, is where the difference in application between systems becomes more distinct. RyuTe does strike the legs, just not in the manner that most people seem to want to do so. Strikes performed upon the legs more commonly are done at the thigh level.

When examining the manner that we previously had students perform a Low Forearm Strike, though not as extensive, I again was encountering wasted motion. Previously, we had students begin this motion by raising the hand/arm performing the motion to the opposite shoulder. The arm then motioned downward across the user's body to extend in front of them at a 45º angle.

The manner we have them do the motion now, is not that much different. When they begin the motion, the hand only motions to the opposite side, then forward or to the side of the user to the desired position. When reaching the extent of it's range, the hand performs the same milking action that's made when executing the milking punch. This technique is ideally performed with body-motion when being utilized. Static practice of this motion can prove quite frustrating if the user is intending to simulate actual use of the motion.

The High Forearm Strike (Upward Block) is a totally different creature. The Upward Forearm motion seen in kata, is only rarely used as a Strike (much less as a block). The motion is performed by the arm crossing the user's groin area, and once reaching the other side starts to raise until positioning just above the user's head. When used in this manner, the motions usefulness is limited. When used as demonstrated in kata, the motion is representing a tuite technique. It's limited application as a strike is restricted to only a couple of situations.

Although seen as a staple of martial arts techniques, I have a very difficult time justifying a repeated practice of these motions. Their limited application (to a few tuite techniques, and a couple of strike deflections) is not IMO worth devoting any excessive time toward their practice. The associated tuite techniques only require the usual amount of practice to be understood, and the deflections are equally as simplistic.

If/when I focus upon deflections, these two motions are by no means the emphasis of that practice (as there exists too many preferable alternatives to them).

Outside (Outward) Forearm Strikes

2011-12-19T19:12:00.000-06:00

Previously, I described our manner of performing Inside Forearm Strikes. I described those first, because students are more comfortable with performing them, as opposed to Outside Forearm Strikes. I believe that is only because of how they were previously being taught.

In the prior manner, Outside Forearm Strikes (aka Outside Blocks) were considered to be far weaker than their Inward counter-parts (and they physically are weaker). Often being taught as a “windshield-wiper” sort of action, the motion doesn't lend itself to any application of force (much less power or applied body momentum).

Being performed in the old manner, the motion amounts to a weak parry. Not that this might not be what one could settle for, but it would make more sense to strike the arm with the performed action. The difficulty in doing so, comes from the manner which the action is being done (windshield-wiper).

Much of this misunderstanding comes from attempts to make a practicing method/motion, be the application method (and the practicing method is incorrect). The answer, is to fix the practicing method (and therefor, the application method).

The old manner of performing an Outside Forearm Strike (Outside Block) was to first, move the hand/fist of the arm being used to the opposite side of the waist (being that the hand was at the side of the tori's body, it literally, moved across the waist). The hand would then motion upward, crossing in front of the chest until vertical (hand in line with it's respective shoulder). It is commonly taught that there is no need to go beyond this position (the shoulder), as we don't care what happens outside of the body's space. As the hand was raised (during this), the elbow was extended outward (forward) until both the arm, and the forearm were at 45º angles. The emphasis being upon the sideways motion of the arm.

Doing this motion, in the aforementioned manner, depended deeply upon it's use with body-motion (to have any level of efficiency and/or effect). The direction being used, is the weakest of any directions that the arm can even move.

The manner which the Outside Forearm Strike is now being taught, begins with the tori's hands at their sides of their thighs. When the motion begins, the hand crosses in front of the groin area. It then raises past the opposite hip and continues crossing the body (remaining close to it) until it is vertical to it's beginning position.

The hand and forearm then extend forward (together) in a striking manner. The hand should be positioned at a 45º angle. Both will extend until they are positioned correctly (as needed). Emphasis of motion should be made upon the forward motion/direction.

When written, the difference between the two manners seems nil, but when exampled (in person) the results are exemplary. This manner of execution makes even more sense when combined with the trained body-motion/rotation (commonly taught with technique).

The main difference that I've found between how these types of motions being practiced, has been in what people expect out of them. By that, I mean that people too often expect the individual motion being practiced, to independently be able to perform it's function/purpose without any other assistance. This is unrealistic.

How many 1-handed tuite techniques are there? Would you expect to only throw a single punch and expect a confrontation to end because of it? (in your dreams, LOL). Each motion/technique must be used in conjunction with other motion. That motion may be something as simple as body rotation, or the other arm raising (something). Viewing an Outside Forearm Strike, as an independent (Lone) technique is silly. That doesn't mean that it still can't be effective.

The only real question (then), is what constitutes effective? I've stated before, that describing a technique (here) is a much less efficient way of explaining it's execution (than demonstrating it in person). My definition of effective, is attaining the desired results, with a minimum of effort.

With that in mind, I'll go over the Downward Forearm Strike (Low Block) next.

Inward (Inside) Forearm Strikes

2011-12-19T17:39:00.000-06:00

A few months back there was a (albeit, minor) debate over whether or not forearm strikes were (actually) strikes, or blocks, or parries? I read a number of opinions on the subject, but the majority tended to lean one way or another on the matter. I don't believe it's an either/or debate. Dependent upon the circumstances of the situation, I'm sure that any of those possibilities may prove to be more prudent than the others at the time, in a given situation.

That's not to say that one can't have a preference, I believe it all comes down to “what do you wish to occur, when you perform the selected action”? Ideally, I believe the popular reply would be “I don't want to get hit”. Having watched a number of actual fights in my time, I can safely say that the majority of individual's don't (really) even try to block strikes being delivered upon them.

So with a fair amount of confidence, the average brawler can feel assured that if they're able to get their strike headed that way, then it will most likely land. For the average (untrained) individual, when they enter into a confrontation, they're able to do only one, thing, at, a, time. Hence, the concept of the motion being a “block”, is a pretty simple one for them to understand.

For all the talk about having/using a “natural” flinch reaction, I can only say Bullshit. That form of reaction is after the fact. It also amounts to (only) being a weak form of blocking (and a back-handed way to get the individual to be assertive in their response). I do believe that parries have their place, but only as a last resort when your unable to apply an effective strike upon the aggressor's limb.

Recently I've been modifying the manner which our forearm strikes are being taught to students. I was observing a class going thru our “warm-up” routine, and made note of how the actions were being practiced. In hind-site, it was kind of a WTF?, but these motions had been taught in the same manner since I studied Shito-ryu 35yrs. ago (which should have been a clue to me, LOL). What I found interesting (when I began checking other systems texts), was that nearly everyone taught them the same (or some equivalent) way.

The only correct thing (IMO) that we were doing, was that students began with their hands at their sides (instead of tucked-up into their armpits looking like clucking hens). In the old-manner of instructing how to practice an Inside Forearm Strike (a.k.a. Inside Block), the student would raise the arm being utilized, up to the side of their head, palm-out (but with the hand in a fist configuration). The elbow of that raised hand, would extend rearward of the user.

This would be followed, by the elbow of that hand sweeping downward and in front of the user, with the forearm and elbow crossing in front of the user's chest/solar-plexus to (approx.) the vertical mid-line of the user's torso with the hand/forearm rotating to palm-up. This would be followed by the opposite side repeating the motion, in the other direction. Over-all, a lot of unnecessary (meaning without purpose) motion.

Now the (presumed) logic for this excess of motion, was based upon the idea that one was establishing momentum and “energy” (in order to deflect/counter-impact what-ever was heading their way). The truth, was that you would be struck, before you ever had the opportunity to utilize any of this supposed momentum and energy.

It's not that nobody realized it, in fact we told students that this was only being done for practice (2^nd obvious clue to the fact that we were doing something wrong). We were already telling students to shorten the motion in order to actually use it. So why did we continue to teach it in a non-realistic (or applicable) manner? Because it didn't feel as powerful. We were being victimized by the very thing we tell our students to be wary of when applying technique.

When performing this action now, the hand (at our side) raises to the front of the body (crossing in front of the groin) raising close to the chest until vertical, then extending outward, crossing the chest until the elbow is center-line of the torso. The hand of that arm will generally be in line with the opposite shoulder. The back of the forearm should be the primary striking portion of the arm (leaving the hand relaxed, palm in/up at a 45º angle).

I (suppose) it needs to be stated, that this manner of practice is only for practicing the arm's motion (usually being done in formation). If/when actually used in a Life-Protection situation, the motion is used in conjunction with body motion and/or the other arm's motion.

In retrospect, the prior manner of teaching this motion makes no sense at all. Additionally, we teach a Forearm strike that is utilized upon the forearm of an aggressor's punching arm. Essentially the same motion (as the Inside Forearm Strike), but targets specific locations upon the aggressor's arm. The only (possible) difference might be that it is directed downward, as opposed to sideways (as an Inside Forearm Strike is more commonly performed).

After student's have been shown, and allowed to practice this, we will commonly illustrate the Outside Forearm Strike.

Does your Rank-Level, mean anything?

2011-12-19T01:49:00.001-06:00

Reading over the various websites that offer training in Te, I find it amusing to see the rank level(s) that these people are claiming. Ranks (in general) tend to disgust me anyway, and seeing the blatant exaggeration of rank (if not out-right lying thru self-promotion) only solidifies those feelings.

When I first began my own study of the martial arts, there were (maybe) a hand-full of yudansha who even had, much less exceeded the rank of Godan (5^th Dan). Now, it seems that your nothing if you haven't received a Hatchidan before you do anything (like, hmmmm write a blog, LOL).

Rank (in general) hasn't (read NONE) much validity in the real world. Rank is supposed to (at least theoretically) represent a validation of experience, learning and knowledge. Unfortunately, it actually does none of those.

The supposed validation of those (claimed) ranks, is commonly confirmed by the possession of a certificate (usually brushed/written in Japanese/Chinese). Well, if that's all that's required, then send ME a hundred dollars and I'll brush one up with what-ever rank/system you want on it! LOL.

These days, rank (and even having a certificate that lists your name and that rank upon it), means nothing. Well, at least nothing to anyone beyond the person who has been presented with it.

For all their talk, organizations/associations/clubs, etc. (take your pick) have all been corrupted when it comes to awarding rank. The majority suffer the problem of becoming an inverted pyramid (Lot's of high-ranking members, and comparatively few lower ranked members).

Equally disgusting (IMO), is the fact that the majority of these supposed higher Dan rank individual's, are under the age of 40?. I suppose most of that goes back to when they earned their Shodan. Again, (IMO) if they received that rank before the age of 16 (minimum), it was a hokey Shodan ranking to begin with.

But, saying that one did receive their Shodan at a respectable age, ...20 year's old?, then that leaves 20 years to be promoted 4 more Dan grades (5 years apiece). That's not too bad (considering these ranks are only occasionally based upon any required actions done by the recipient before receiving them,....well, other than forking over the required monetary amount).

Unfortunately, the majority of these yudansha that are higher than Godan, are usually under 25! So, just how the fuck does one justify that kind of rank at the age of 25? IMO, you can't. Basically, your a fraud. You don't have the experience, it's doubtful that you have much of any knowledge, and I could care less what your claiming to have for ability. Your a fraud. The only thing those individual's appear to be interested in, is money.

And Frankly, therein lies the problem. Martial arts have become a financial career. I've always had a personal distaste for anyone who's sole financial income was based upon teaching a martial art. I have never found those individual's to be trustworthy (or for that matter honest) at all.

At one time, student's were examples of an instructor's (teaching) abilities, now, they are only examples of their marketing abilities. If my goal had been to be a salesman, I would have taken the appropriate classes in college to do so. That wasn't my goal though, and the career I chose paid very well (when I was doing it).

By not mandating that my martial art instruction was how I generated my main income, it allowed me to be choosier about who and what I taught. As a consequence, I have had very few yudansha student's (of my own). I also never felt obligated to include irrelevant subject matter in my class curriculum.

Though I am a firm believer that the student should dictate what they want to learn, that doesn't mean that I have to provide any subject matter that I disagree with (they can no doubt find it elsewhere). By teaching RyuTe, that whole requirement thing (for any higher grading) beyond Shodan, is out of my hands (thankfully, LOL).

That reinforces the understanding that I am responsible for what, and how the information that I pass on to my student's is done. My only responsibility to them, is that they be knowledgeable of what a beginning instructor/Shodan should know.

The martial arts consist of a wide range of subject matter. I make no claims to be able to fulfill all of those subjects. The one's that I concentrate upon are the ippon kumite, and the instruction of tuite and kyusho. Those subjects (additionally) include uke control and compliance.

RyuTe offers a wide range of subject instruction, through my affiliation with the RyuTe association, my students have access to those areas of study (just not from me, LOL). As my student's request those area's of instruction, I contact, and arrange for those individual's to meet and they work out the details of that instruction.

Until one has begun to instruct their own students, and has those student's dependent upon them for answers, their awareness of what an instructor should be knowledgeable about is usually skewed by their own misconceptions. It is at Shodan, that one actually has the time to devote to developing their own personal style of technique execution.

From my perspective, the only rank of consequence, or substance, is Shodan. It is the only rank that is almost certainly going to be (actually) earned, and it is subject to comparative review by both previous and future yudansha student's. The attainment of Shodan commonly allows one to begin instructing (in some capacity) to students. It's also where/when, that what one has been studying, actually begins to make sense. And if it doesn't, then it's time to make some changes.

Point of Study

2011-12-16T21:26:00.000-06:00

Te is an individual pursuit, unlike any team based instruction, it focuses solely upon the individual for it's correct application (and the results that come about from that application). As instructor's of that pursuit, it is our task to bestow the correct information to each student to be able to accomplish this goal. If we were fortunate enough to only have to contend with one type/gender/age-group of student throughout our teaching career, this would be a fairly simple task. But as we all know, this is, and has never been the case.

When I began pursuing my own martial endeavor's, my first yudansha ranking was in the Shito-Ryu system. At the time, I thought it contained all that I would ever need and/or require (as a student). For the most part, it did. But once I began teaching, the numerous inadequacies began to become (blatantly) apparent. I found myself skimming through several (supposedly) different systems/teacher's, seeking what I believed to be lacking, in what I taught and something that I would be more comfortable/confident about teaching to others.

When I was introduced to Taika Oyata, that pursuit ended (as far as finding a system that had everything that I needed). The thing was, it wasn't a lack of techniques that was my real problem. It was the knowledge of how (and why) the techniques that I already had, were being applied (at that time). Much of what and how techniques were taught (including by myself at the time) in my previous system, I would now consider embarrassing.

Since then (now, some 30+yrs. Later, LOL), I have continually trimmed my classes kyu-rank requirements. At one time, I believe that I had those student's perform somewhere in the ball-park of 8-12 different versions of “Hand” techniques/applications. I now have “5” (as there is only “5”sides of a hand that can be used to strike something with). All of those other variations, are nothing but individual choices of application. What is comfortable for one person, is not always (or is rarely) comfortable for another.

The beginning technique's that I now teach, are taught as foundation motions. Each student will generally develop their own manner of that technique's application. Though an observer may not (initially) notice any distinction between the applications being utilized (between two students), each student will tend to have their own method/manner of utilization for any given technique. For some, this goes against the “My way, or the Highway” mentality of many instructor's. As I've stated before, I don't attempt to make my student's do motions that are (completely) UN-natural. They are designed to be executed in a manner similar to some normally performed action.

When I've examined (or attempted to) requirement sheets for other systems, I've found that instructor's will often limit access to anyone viewing those requirements (other than for their own student's current requirements). Allowing any “outsider's” to view them is (apparently) verboten. Being familiar with (probably) 80% of the available material out-there, I find this an odd attitude to have (no doubt for promoting the “eastern mystique” aspect). When I've gained access to these lists (usually through a simple inquiry) I've found them to be of no special import (at all).

Realizing that this situation has no-doubt always been the case (for instructors throughout time), when I see some of the bunkai that's being presented, I'm convinced that personal ego has motivated the vast majority of what these people have come up with, at least for what's being presented. I only have a few rules for bunkai interpretations.

#1, being that size/strength has no relevance to a technique's

application or completion.

#2, being that the motion performed in the kata, is only a small

portion of the technique (and usually is the relevant part to

it's execution).

#3, that the “set-up” is never a part of the motion being done in

the kata.

There are some others, but these are the main ones. We've found numerous technique's that utilize many of these specific motions (that are within the kata). The more difficult part is often how to combine the motions into viable technique applications. We've discovered numerous applications (contained within the kata) ourselves through reverse-engineering. For that reason I don't (usually) comment about another individual's bunkai (unless it doesn't fit the rules that we've established).

That being stated, I will additionally state that the bunkai that we present to our kyu-rank student's is done on the premiss that the shown interpretations are presented to guide the student's in understanding how to determine their own interpretations. It is our desire to inspire our student's to further develop what is been shown to them. We make no illusions to our being or having the final answers to all things “RyuTe”. Taika has spent the past 60+ years studying this system, and is still making discoveries (which he presents to us, his student's).

Learning individual techniques, has very little to do with understanding this system. Yet, that's what the majority of people wanting to learn it, focus upon. If one can learn the principles that it is based upon, the technique's become much more easily understood. It's based upon that idea, that I have reduced the (physical) number of technique's in our schools requirements (per kyu-rank). Though initially sounding as if there's less to learn, in truth there's more. I compare it to learning the ability to throw/hit a baseball (technique), and then learning the intricacies of the game (the application of moving that ball around the field to win the game).

I would prefer that my student's spend their time learning and understanding those principles that are being shown (through example), than on concerning themselves with learning the somewhat trivial matter of individual technique's. When I began this blog, there was some minor concern directed towards me (from what proved to be irrelevant sources) about some of the things I was describing.

Those were mostly technique descriptions. Upon review, those descriptions were proven to be too vague to be of concern (particularly by myself). My own argument being that if the individual were to come to one of our classes, I can show them anything I so choose (without concern of retribution). If I present that information here (in detail) then that (somehow) is a violation of association canon (whether that information is, or has ever been, disseminated throughout the association or not).

Regardless, nothing that I present here has ever been of any concern (to much of anybody, LOL). I use this blog as a reference source for my own student's that wish to reference subjects that I discuss in classes. Unless I reference something as having come directly from Taika, the information I present here, are my own interpretations of his (Taika's) teachings. Anything that I have presented as having come from Taika, has (additionally) been presented elsewhere.

Opinion...

2011-12-14T22:14:00.000-06:00

Although I often state my opinions about something that someone else does or says, I don't usually identify whom that person is. A few months back, I was given a “pod-cast” of a popular seminar instructor (Iain Abernathy). I'd previously seen a few of his opinions, and didn't really have one of my own about him (at least in regards to what he promoted) until I had gotten a chance to listened to it (which is only fair).

Compared to the majority of idiots out there, he's not that bad. I can agree with a lot of what he says, but I disagree with a lot of how that (at least what I've seen/heard) he's applying it. Going by his statements (not just my opinion), he states that he believes the jaw to be a primary target? From my own view, this is an odd choice (or at the very least, a distinctly male choice and perspective), with little in the way of subjective combative reasoning, or at least from an defensive/instructional point of view.

The jaw, though having several distinct weaknesses to it's construction, still has numerous strengths to it's defense. #1, it requires a precise strike be made upon it to accomplish the (generally) desired result (a “knock-out”). Though located upon the head (which has numerous inherent weaknesses to it), it also has the ability to absorb (through deflection) any applied force that is subjected upon it (by moving, or “rotating”).

Additionally, even when one attempts to strike a completely untrained individual (upon their head/jaw), even they will naturally motion it, and/or protect it, to avoid /dissipate that impact. Any action that is made towards an individual's face, will instantly be avoided, most commonly by simply turning their face away from the imminent impact (which in turn dissipates any applied force).

The striking of the jaw, is a distinctly western trait, most often going back to the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Those “Rules”, were developed to prevent 2 individual's from causing serious harm to one another. When one views fighting methods of most any other culture, face strikes, are being directed towards the nose or eyes. Preferred strikes then migrate downward towards the mid-(body) section & groin areas.

He states that he advocates neck strikes (which I wholeheartedly agree with). He also dismisses the whole meridian/acupuncture BS avenue of application (again with my agreement). In general, he talks a good-line. The problem (as I'm seeing it), is that what he shows (technique wise), is pretty hokey (if not, down-right amateurish).

This could very well be the result of teaching and/or focusing upon (lower) kyu-rank students, or possibly because that level of application is all that he is concerned with (for which there is nothing wrong with that effort).

The purpose of this blog, is to enhance my own instructional content. This information was presented to me in the (honest) effort to assist in that endeavor. Having never previously reviewed it, I felt it only fair to offer it attention and consideration. I have done so.

For many, I'm sure he offer's a new perspective on kata and/or application. For myself, not so much. Most everything that he promotes is old-hat (been there, done that, and moved-on to better things). Maybe if he ever decides to move on himself, to more involved levels of application (which actually means simplifying what he's attempting to do), I'll become interested in what he has to say.

Much of what he promotes, is based on what he considers to be obvious and simple interpretation (including application). For introductory study, I have no problem with that. But when one learns the (so-called) advanced methods, one finds that they are often more easily applied (though often requiring more precision in their execution).

I can recognize and appreciate the probability of a lowered application ability in a (real) situation (compared to when training in a class), but that doesn't mandate that one resign one's self to the inevitability that your skills will deteriorate to those of an untrained oaf when you are (actually) attacked.

I'm not sure why, but he (still) advocates “sparring”. If nothing else, this would be enough for me not to take what he has to say too seriously. For all his proclaimed research, he still hasn't figured out that sparring has nothing to do with what most people are being taught to do.

Despite all his claims of applicability, it still hasn't become obvious to him, that sparring bares no relationship to any of it. Until that realization is made, what he teaches/does will be mired in the disillusion of a false premiss and therefor, not worth my attention.

Overly Complicated

2011-11-30T22:26:00.001-06:00

Has it occurred to anyone else, that over the past 15-20 years, at least the promotion for the various defensive systems being offered, have at least attempted to appear having become increasingly complicated.

I find it difficult to believe, that systems of self-protection (that have existed for hundreds of years) have needed to be modified that greatly, within that short of a time frame. I stay fairly abreast of popular trends and tendency's (in the SD community), and I haven't seen much change (in regards to the situations that one generally may need to deal with).

1 on 1 confrontations are still the most common occurrence/threat. People still only have 2-arms, and 2-legs that they can hit you with. The directional ability of those limbs to strike someone (still) hasn't changed, and it's still the aggressor with the “I don't give a fuck about nothing” attitude, that one should be concerned about.

Concern about another system's method of technique application is (for the most part) a waste of time. The majority of individual's who would take the time (we're talking several years) to actually learn a martial art (it matter's not which one), will rarely become involved in a confrontation that would be considered unnecessary and/or unavoidable.

When one has put very much time in, even if they didn't become very skilled with what they were shown, they have (usually) at least gained an appreciation of recognizing if/when they should avoid a situation.

That's why I don't really worry about my opponent (actually) having any abilities (at least worth worrying about). If they're getting into a physically confrontational situation with me, then that's pathetic. I don't (directly, LOL) start any shit, with anyone. For the most part, I rarely even respond when someone attempts to start shit with me!

The vast majority of “Trouble-Maker's” will rarely (if ever) spend the time (and the money) to actually learn a defensive skill set. They might spend money on an MMA class/course (because it looks cool/tough/what-ever), but it's not like that will teach them anything useful anyhow, so who cares?

If/when I can manage to not embarrass/offend anyone, the odds of me becoming involved in a confrontation are minimal (at best). The Bad-Guy jumping out and attacking me (scenario) is so rare of an occurrence (as long as I'm not daydreaming, and don't frequent those neighborhoods, LOL), that I don't consider it worth my time to consider.

The majority of my training, is for those individual's that no matter what you say, they want to kick your ass. The majority of people that want to contest what/how I teach, usually want to present some (bizarre?) situation/scenario, that's (supposedly) just gonna mess-up everything that I do (as far as how I train). Well, it ain't happened yet (but I've only been training 30 years, so I keep my eye's open).

Despite all of these claims, I still haven't encountered anything that has required something beyond what is commonly being taught. I believe that regardless of which style of self-defense you choose to study/practice, the odds will be in your favor, should you become involved in a confrontation.

To myself, the only difference would/could/should be, can it be easily learned, and applied. And does it work when it is. I believe those are most often determined, by how the material has been taught.

Superficial Training

2011-11-28T17:24:00.001-06:00

When/if the average (sideline) observer of RyuTe is asked about what makes RyuTe distinct from other system's, the most popular response is (either) “Kyusho”, and/or “Tuite”. This isn't to say other systems don't also work on some manner/form of those subjects, only that RyuTe is most known for them.

Of the two, my own interests have always been slanted towards the study of Tuite. Though the two are interrelated, they are (none-the-less) two distinctly different subjects (despite what numerous blogs and wanna-be experts would attempt to lead you to believe). When I first began my study, it was the tuite that was easier to dissect and understand. And (obviously) with Taika's help/guidance this was made easier, but he certainly didn't “hand-out” anymore additional information than what he thought was necessary.

In general, Taika's instruction has always been a “here's an example, now (you) figure it out (and then tell me about it)” style of instruction. It seems to have been common for people to say (to Taika) “here's what I've determined it to be” (and yet didn't bothered to ask, whether it was correct or not). Very often, what they come up with, may very well be good for them, but can every one of their students also replicate it? (if/when performed in that manor). I believe that's where Taika's manor of technique execution/application becomes obviously, and demonstrably superior.

Many techniques and motions will often have several manor's of their application. That doesn't make one or another (necessarily) any better/worse than any other, but the applying principles must be consistent regardless of which manner of application is being utilized. I believe this is where many individual's (and system advocates) get into (unnecessary, if not irrelevant) pissing matches with individual's that may have opposing viewpoints.

These varied manor's of application, would appear to (each) having been taught as being the (sole) correct manor of a techniques application. What more often is the case, is that those method's were but an individual's manor of application, and had no direct relation to general student instruction. This should have been obvious to the instructor (who provided the initial instruction), and originally may well have been (but was then commandeered by the student in an attempt to illustrate personal knowledge/ability).

This common tendency, has turned into a generally superficial practice of Tuite techniques. When (or even if ) Tuite is being taught, it is often done in the manor that Taika originally showed it (meaning, one time, hard, fast, and with limited explanation). That's how I was originally taught/shown those beginning techniques. I don't teach them that way now though. I understand why Taika taught them that way, I simply don't agree with using that methodology for my own students.

If someone wishes to critique me in this regard, feel free. I am not Taika, so why would I attempt to teach in the same manor that he does? There have been numerous occasions, that concepts that he has presented could have (IMO) been presented much simpler and more quickly (for American students). But he teaches the way that he does, and I teach the way that I do. They are different.

I would like to be able to confer with other RyuTe instructor's and discuss/compare the teaching methods that they utilize (for Tuite instruction). But distance, and a general hesitancy to confer (outside of an association seminar/event) tends to breed unfounded conspiratorial appearances. I do fear that unless/until we (as an association) get past these attitudes, the association as we know it, will fragment.

It is my own belief, that individual dojo/school's should be exchanging information (which was presented to each by Taika). It is the privileged few, who are able to spend their entire free time on the pursuance of a greater understanding of all of Taika's teachings. The vast majority of RyuTe student's have jobs, families (lives, LOL) and precious little time to spend pondering over often obscure instructions and/or techniques. No, I don't believe that techniques and/or information should just be haphazardly puked upon students, but neither do I believe that information should be restricted until or only if the correct codeword has been uttered either.

I believe the majority of RyuTe instructor's do a good job of transmitting the information that they (individually) have. Their weakness (IMO) is in admitting when they are lacking in any other individual areas of knowledge (which is probably true in any/every organization, LOL). My own weaknesses are in the weapons field, I have a working ability with a couple of them, but much of that is because of related training in the fields which I have taught over the years (security/Law Enforcement).

I (personally) have little need/concern for this particular field of interest, hence I refer my own students to known instructor's (within the association) of those abilities (thereby reinforcing the need for an association). With the recent passing of the association's/Taika's highest ranking student/instructor (Tashi Logue), there has been much voiced concern over how the association will continue when Taika passes (which knowing how his lineage tends to run, will most likely be in another 15-20 years). It is my own opinion, that if (or until) the association begins to perform as a single entity (sharing knowledge, and access between each individual dojo/instructor), only then will the association continue (San any individual leader/figurehead).

I believe it needs to be decided (at some unknown point, LOL) whether the association is/will be based upon the ideas/concepts/teaching methods of an individual, or if it is only based upon the individual, and/or that individual's ability? From what I have always observed from Taika, it is that he has attempted to teach idea's and/or concepts. He has used his techniques to convey those idea's/concepts. The question I ask, is whether we choose (as an association) to continue to pursue those ideals (and therefor grow in knowledge and ability). Or, do we fall into the likes of every other style/system, and let each dojo/school simply promote their own versions of commonly taught techniques, which then become (equally) commonplace, which is then followed by the system stagnating because everyone within the association has become a Judan, then the organization (mercifully) dying from a lack of interest by the general public, and all those Judan's acquiring broken spines from their congratulatory pounding of themselves on their backs).

What?, too cynical?......

What constitutes being a “martial” art

2011-11-14T21:20:00.001-06:00

With the multitude of defensive system's that are being taught to the general public, how many are justified in using the title of martial art? As it has been used over the prior 40 years, it has (IMO) mislead the general public and the majority of those student's who have been training in those various disciplines. I believe first, one has to define the term martial art, and how/why it's being used to define what's being taught.

Examining the first word (martial), definitions include being inclined or disposed to war; associated with war or the armed forces; characteristic of or befitting a warrior: of, relating to, or characteristic of war, soldiers, or the military life. Not exactly what any self-defense school or system that I'm aware of focuses upon.

The second word “art”, can be defined as any of the following,

1 the creation of works of beauty or other special significance

2 imaginative skill as applied to representations of the natural world

or figments of the imagination

3 the products of man's creative activities; works of art collectively,

esp of the visual arts, sometimes also music, drama, dance, and

literature

4 excellence or aesthetic merit of conception or execution as

exemplified by such works

5 any branch of the visual arts, esp painting

6 (modifier) intended to be artistic or decorative

7 any field using the techniques of art to display artistic qualities

8 journalism photographs or other illustrations in a newspaper, etc

9 artfulness; cunning

10 method, facility, or knack

11 the system of rules or principles governing a particular human

activity

12 the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature)

13 to become highly proficient at something through practice

It's only those few descriptions (towards the end) that would fit into an applicable category for what's being practiced in the majority of these (so-called) martial arts schools. When examined, the weakest word being utilized in relation to what's being taught (between the two) would appear to be martial.

Art (being more diverse), can represent numerous meanings, martial on the other hand, is pretty limited in it's definition. There have been various systems that have made claim to being practiced and taught by several armies throughout the world. But the truth still remains, that the military forces of the world, focuses their training upon defeating armies, not soldiers. The amount of time/effort spent on hand to hand combat, is extremely limited (when compared to more practical forms of combat). The various forms of self-defense being taught, are designed to defeat individual aggressors. One of the most exaggerated (at least beyond any practical value) is the MMA (manor) of self-defense.

These two totally different subjects (which they are) have nothing in common, nor of any benefit to either. MMA, is a Miss-Mash of Nonsense (MMN?) designed to be utilized in a sport environment. The rules which it is conducted under, are such that any relation to reality is eliminated (and thus make the techniques being utilized inapplicable/impractical in a real life-protection situation). MMA has nothing to do with, or even relate to either martial or art (thus, at the very least, making it the most inaccurately named sport being followed today). The Mixed-up part is the only accuracy contained in the name/description.

I believe that the art portion of any form of self-protection instruction is the more relevant part of one's training. The word/term of art, tends to make one think of beauty and/or perfection (which is what we all attempt to attain with our training). As with any art form, beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder. Every system/style has it's own look (to it's execution). When that execution is performed correctly, then the beauty (of that system) becomes more evident.

What is practiced in dojo's throughout the U.S. (or anywhere else for that manor) Is in only a very small way, any form of what might be considered to be a martial art. The average system/style teaches the student to escape and run away (which, I have no problem with). RyuTe teaches students to disable only after having first caused pain (when that would have been established to be applicable). Any methodology being studied, requires time to be spent practicing doing so. The vast majority of student's have real lives. Because of that fact, we can't spend the majority of our free time on training.

The nonsense that is MMA, amounts to it being neither a martial pursuit, or an art. The fact that it is a mixed up collection of nonsense is the only part of it's name that makes sense. As a sport, I can see how some may be drawn to it, but that's as far as it goes. When ever I see someone writing about it, I view it like I would anyone writing about any other sport (baseball, football, rugby). It consists of zero interest from myself.
On another note, I've received several inquiries about some of RyuTe's (version of) techniques. Over the next few month's I thought I'd attempt to put them into a (understandable) written format (to then be posted here). If there are any technique's that someone would like to have explained, just ask, I'll see what I can do.

Perspectives

2011-11-06T20:41:00.000-06:00

I was reading through a blog's recent “series” of postings (as they were theoretically related). The author does a good job of stating his position (and is a far better writer than I am, LOL), but I've decided that I disagree with damn near every position this guy takes. Not all, but almost all. Those few that I do agree with, I disagree with his reasoning and conclusions (as to their value).

In one of his blogs, he makes (passing) mention of reaction-time. He states that one's reactions decline after a certain age (early 20's I believe). According to him, after that you only get slower. On the surface, a true statement. In reality though, it's a misleading one. One's reactions can be improved (up to a limited point) from repeated practice of a specific motion. What can be improved, is one's perception of a given situation. Meaning that although you can't (necessarily) move faster, you may perceive an action/situation faster/sooner than when you were younger (thus, making you faster to respond to the situation).

Although I personally detest the commonly taught practice/manner of “sparring”, that doesn't mean that I don't have student's partake in (different) forms of technique exchange. We occasionally have student's do a form of technique application that we call “complementary” sparring.

This is a slow-speed standing exchange of aggressive and defensive motions between 2 individual's. It's done without “gear”(as there's no need), and it's done at ½ speed (or less). Participant's are allowed to punch, kick, and grab their opponent (anywhere upon the body/head/legs and/or arms). The practice is not so much to learn to use the technique, as it is to recognize the techniques potential and it's limitations. It's during this type of practice, that the stupid people techniques (arm grab's and such) become more obviously applicable.

This individual additionally bemoaned his displeasure with standing-start drills, in that they didn't ingrain an ability to develop a pattern recognition trait, well no shit Sherlock....they're not supposed to. Standing start exercises are to develop the aforementioned timing reflex/reaction. They also (when done correctly) train student's in perception/recognition of telegraphed actions.

His argument being, that in a standing start drill, the defender knows exactly what attack is coming. This is obviously true when the student is first learning the motion, after having done so, the uke should be able to use whatever attack method they choose to. If the technique is unable to respond to different attack types/manner's then it shouldn't be being practiced anyway (meaning it's a worthless technique if it's only good for one manner of attack). My contention being, that if the tori is (always) aware of the uke's intended attack, then the practice is less than productive (and could be argued as being pointless).

His (so-called) Test, was to have the uke perform one of three types of assaults (randomly) and see if the tori would be able to stop the attack. (His claim) was it couldn't be done, (my claim) is that if it wasn't able to work for all three, then his technique sucked, that doesn't discount the practice, only the (responsive) technique.

He further made the claim that since practiced attacks, most usually (only) consisted of singular attacks (by the uke), then they failed to emulate reality (meaning multiple strike attacks)? Uh, (is it just me?) but couldn't that be rectified by having the uke perform multiple strike attempts?

When presented with this query from student's, demonstration would usually illustrate the fact that “multiple” strikes were irrelevant, in that they were either impossible to perform, or that the initially thrown technique (the “first one”) was insufficient to cause/create enough damage to be relevant.

He further refuted their value, stating that one couldn't develop timing because there existed no “dynamic” to learn the subsequent patterns (WTF?). That the student (also) needed the “rhythm” developed from,... (wait for it)......sparring (?).

The general implication being that a student (for some reason) needed to be able to develop pattern recognition which would lead to a matching of situational reflex (a separate, but acceptable concept, that I'm not entirely sure has much relevancy to the presented situation). At the end of the articles (within the footnotes... yes, he had to include footnotes..LOL) he mentions including the 5 elements into training methods. As if I really needed to have a completely irrelevant subject interjected into any methodology of training. The mere fact that he even mentioned that nonsense, is enough to convince me that this guy has limited knowledge anyway.

This same blog had previously touted that deflections were superior to strikes (performed upon an aggressor”s striking limbs). Again, the bias being towards the deflections being the superior option. This subject was also biased by the writer's manner of practicing each, so it became obvious why they would believe this to be true (including the author's additional claim that “he” had never received a strike upon the arm that could incapacitate “Him”. Again, his lack of experience, is not an acceptable excuse for improper practice).

The author states that he has experience in law enforcement (though I believe he states that he is only a lawyer, which isn't exactly law enforcement), which I have to presume is where he is deriving this experience from. He states that he works with other martial artists (he obviously has the extra money to go to China to study with these guy's that he likes). It's with these other martial artists that he has these theories reinforced (at least to himself).

From what little I've read from him, his experience (with using what he teaches) would appear to be limited to the “sporting” and class-time arena, which is fine, but he could stand some “real” reality included in his application (theories).

I hadn't (actually) intended this to turn into a hammer this guy's blog (it just turned out that way, LOL). It's just that many of the theories he's putting forth, have been proven wrong, or are at least being misinterpreted (by him). It isn't my place to correct him, and having read some of the replies to individual's who have contested him, he seems unlikely to care what anyone has to say (“he's” right, and your not).

Oh well, maybe at some point “I'll” come up with something to write about, but for now I'm just seeing what's out there.

The Application of Kyusho and Atemi Locations for Defensive Tactics

2011-10-29T13:47:00.000-05:00

For the student of defensive tactics, acquiring usable knowledge about the location, and the manner of using the locations of weak points (commonly referred to as Kyusho and/or Atemi points) has historically been difficult. Though many claim to teach such locations, they often prove to be previously recognized and/or invalid locations (for numerous reasons).

This isn't to disparage (all of) those shown/taught locations, only that they aren't necessarily unknown by the student. Many of those shown are commonly realized by anyone who has ever banged their arm/leg and experienced the accompanying pain from doing so. The type of points that we are attempting to teach to student's, are those that are not generally known/realized and utilized in one's Life Protection methods. Aside from (only) causing/creating a pain reaction, these locations can/will often cause specific physical responses (that can then be utilized against an aggressor).

Simply stating locations and providing the direction of those points utilization would not provide student's with the ability to utilize what is being shown. To be able to fully incorporate these locations into one's defensive repertoire, there are additional factors that need to be understood by the student. Those factors begin with the following subjects:

Understanding the “Finger Pressure” Example

Cross-Crawl Theory

Limbs Range-of-Motion

Nerve paths/locations throughout the human body

Muscle Locations and functions

Recognition of the natural motions made in response to stimuli.

The “Finger Pressure” Example

The student's study begins with the “Finger Pressure” Example. This example has the student extend their arm with the hand formed into a fist, to the front of their body. Another person, then applies light pressure to one of the 5 available sides (top, bottom, front and either side). As this pressure is applied, the recipient should make note of the reactions created upon the rest of their body. In addition to the muscular responses created on the arm itself, there will be additional responses in the legs and body as well as upon the opposite arm.

Depending upon the side of the hand being pressured, those reactions will vary upon the positioning of the other limbs. By becoming aware of these additional reactions, the student can begin to understand the purpose of additional motions that are taught during the instruction of various applications, though they do not (directly) cause/create pain or any noticeable responses, they are an important piece of the applications (and become extremely relevant in regards to kyusho/atemi application).

The “Cross-Crawl” Theory

This theory is based upon the body's natural counter-balancing actions. The most obvious example of this is the motions made when someone is walking. The person's arms motion forward and back as their legs alternate forward and back. These motions are done in opposite alternating moves. As the person's right leg moves forward, their left arm moves forward, as their left leg moves forward, the right arm motions forward.

This alternation is done to maintain a balanced and erect posture. Maintaining an erect posture is one of the most prominent traits that people will naturally attempt to maintain. This alternating action is part of the contra-lateral controlling traits of the brain.

On the basic level, the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, and vise-verse. This interactive connection extends further, in that motions and reactions made by or upon the right arm are (indirectly) correlated to the left leg, as the left arm is similarly associated to the right leg. This essentially translates as when either arm/leg is struck, the contra-lateral limb will sustain an near-equivalent reaction as well. There is a corresponding lateral response as well, when a limb (arm or leg) is struck. That doesn't mean injury, only response.

Limbs Range-of-Motion

Knowledge of the bodies natural range-of-motion (ROM) assists the student in understanding the natural weaknesses of the limbs.

Nerve paths/locations throughout the human body

Knowing the locations of nerves that are susceptible to external manipulation will assist the student in exploiting those weaknesses, in either strikes and/or when manipulating associated limb motion.

Muscle Locations and functions

Having knowledge of the individual muscle's locations, points of attachment (tendons) and function will assist the student in knowing the weaknesses of those muscle's (and their associated limb function).

Recognition of the natural motions made in response to stimuli.

Recognizing and knowing the natural motions (including reflexes) made in response to occurring events, will assist the student in knowing what can generally be expected to result from their own applied action.

The described areas of study, are intended to assist the student in the utilization and discovery of known and (previously) unknown atemi/kyusho point locations. We provide a number of these locations for the student's initial knowledge. These introductory locations are intended to provide the student with applicable points to utilize, and become familiar with these types of striking/manipulation points and locations.

The greatest misconception about these points, is that it is commonly (and mistakenly) believed that ALL points cause/create pain. It needs to be understood, that Kyusho means vital point. There's no implication of Pain being made by this designation. Many of these points are only applicable in certain (often positional) situations.

Taika has stated that kyusho points, have the potential to cause serious injury with their use. Atemi points, include almost any physical action done to aid the user in protecting themselves, including distractions. This makes it difficult to specifically identify any point as being one or the other (or even both, depending upon the purpose for their being utilized).

That being stated, many of these points can cause serious injury when used in conjunction with certain motions/techniques. Knowledge of these points, is used in unison with the student's (already) practiced techniques. This could be Tuite (The grappling/manipulation), Atemi (strikes) and/or in combinations thereof.

The use of many of these points is additionally dependent upon the direction of the recipient’s (uke's) movement, supplemental to the direction of the tori's motion.

Simply listing these subjects (as done here) is hardly an instructional method. It's only an informational statement. Student's are required to familiarize themselves (through provided materials and class experience) with each of them for rank advancement.

For many, this would go against the "poke this spot" mentality of instruction (oh well). I suppose there are situations where that would be sufficient, but for our classes, we strive for a little more cerebral ability from our student's.

What are the main principles used for determining relevency of application

2011-10-27T14:14:00.000-05:00

I was recently “updating” my class kyu-rank Requirements, which is something I do on a semi-annual basis (and sometimes more often than that, LOL). I'm occasionally queried as to why I believe I should (or even would need to) do so, and I have to explain that I am still learning myself, so how could I not include modifying what I am teaching, as my own knowledge level changes?

It's always been my opinion, that when you reach the level that you believe that you have nothing left to learn in your martial art, it's time to quit (because you ain't going to learn anything else).

What spurred this most recent update, was an inquiry made to me, as to what was being taught in (one of my) classes (by a prospective student). Being one of the more honest inquiry's (they usually consist of loaded if not stupid questions, being made by individual's who've already decided what they're looking for), I explained the kyu ranking and what was involved with progressing in the teaching methodology that I utilize.

Unlike the majority of inquiries that I'm presented with and answer, this individual didn't care about (individual) technique's, they (actually) wanted to know about RyuTe (combatant) strategy (as opposed to the applied tactics). It's rare that I encounter prospective student's that have a (knowledgeable) awareness of technique application, yet don't have any (real) experience (without having learned any actual technique's).

The ensuing discussion centered around (philosophical) debates regarding the necessity of/for the amount of physical disability resulting from application of the technique's (which are taught in my classes). This may (initially) sound as if the individual was arguing with me, but they were actually posing legitimate questions (as well as concerns).

I spoke with this individual for about an hour, and I (still) have no idea whether they will show-up to observe a class, LOL. I only know that the discussion we had, spurred me to (re)evaluate my current syllabus of instruction (to new/inquiring student's).

What the discussion became, was a determination of what was actually required (from an instructional and/or student perspective) to effectively teach and learn a system of Self-Protection that is being presented in a graduated (“stepped”) requirement curriculum.

Disregarding individual technique as being the (most) relevant factor to effectiveness, changes the manner which the system will be judged (as the majority of systems often attempt to make this factor the main reason for a system's superiority).

The difference between individual system's technique's are rarely that great. How those technique's are being applied/utilized and presented though, is where the real difference lies. I've previously described the RyuTe milking Punch. Though not (necessarily) emphasizing impact force (as it's main goal) when used correctly, the strike will provide more than sufficient reactionary movement from the recipient.

Beyond the physical aspect, a movement has to also meet the legal aspect of it's use/utilization. The fact that some technique might work (in a given situation), doesn't mean that it is legal to use it in that situation. This aspect should be addressed during each and every technique's introduction (to the student). More often than not, those more injurious applications are situationally mandated.

Though not necessarily addressed in a classes curriculum, the moral aspect of a technique's application can often be a relevant factor to a technique's use (at least for the individual student). Each student will have to determine their own levels of morality to attach to any provided technique and/or to what level of application that technique may be utilized.

I personally don't feel that morality is something that should be taught in a martial art's class. Morality, is completely subjective, and therefore equates to an individual perspective (having more in common with an opinion, than with anything substantial or even legal).

What I've confirmed (if not reaffirmed) to be most relevant, is the situational application of the required motion (being used for defending from a presented set of circumstances). Though the previously mentioned factors all have some amount of bearing on the technique's application, the situation (being present) to actually perform the action will have the greatest relevance to it's over-all effectiveness. Not exactly rocket science, but none-the-less, an important (instructional) determination.

Rather than focusing on the student's ability to (only) physically reproduce an action, that student (instead) focuses on recognizing and/or creating the situation(s) that allow for that technique's application. This (in turn) makes the student's motions preemptive (rather than only being reactive) to an aggressor's hostile actions (which is a previously discussed/taught RyuTe tactic).

Over-all, this doesn't really mean that I have to retrain any of my present student's, LOL. Only that further instruction will take a slightly different perspective on technique's application/instruction. For many of my present student's, this shouldn't be a great variance from what's been previously shown. For new student's, they haven't seen any of this (yet) anyhow, LOL.

How Much Time Training Should Be Expected to Qualify for a Shodan Test?

2011-10-19T21:49:00.000-05:00

When asked this question, I (used to) initially just laugh it off, and reply with some generic reply. After giving it some thought though, it really is a legitimate question. Considering that the student is going to have to pay for the required training time (to achieve whatever goal it is they're seeking), it makes perfect sense to ask how much, and how long it will take to achieve that expectation. There's usually numerous caveat’s to any answer, but an instructor should be able to provide a generic/common expectation of the necessary training time required.

The largest factor in computing this time period, is what does the student hope to learn from the provided training? Though seemingly obvious, student's can have many reasons for beginning training (and an instructor shouldn't assume that they know what that student's reasons are, until they ask them). It's during this time that any unrealistic expectations can be nullified and replaced by realistic one's.

The second largest, but often time the more relevant factor, is how much will the student be practicing (be it in class, or at home)? Though usually beginning with great enthusiasm, the drudgery of continual practice wears on anyone. Every student will experience several periods of extreme burn-out. This can come from repetitively doing the same thing (and/or attempting to), or from a sudden lack of interest. In either case, the student has to evaluate what, and why they're doing the training. Does it meet their expectations? Is it what they were looking for? Is it what they really want to do?

For any of these questions, if the answer is no, then maybe they need to decide if this is the class for them. Not every martial arts class is alike, including other classes which teach the same system/style. A student should never be hesitant to leave one instructor for another (frankly, MA instructor's are nothing more than salesmen, and there's usually another one on damn near every corner). The real quest for the student, is finding an instructor that meets their needs (and not vise-verse).

If that comes across as a little bit belittling to instructor's, Good, it should. In a very generalized sense, I don't hold martial arts instructor's in very high regards. The vast majority of them are egotistical ass-wipes. Out of the whole, maybe 20% can even teach. Many of the remainder are ¼ trained wanna-Be’s, that have no basic knowledge of how to avoid a confrontation, much less survive one.

Each system/instructor will have their own standards that they will go by to evaluate a student's potential abilities. Before one even begins to study under an instructor, they should have (first) observed that instructor's student's. If those student's don't meet the prospective student's expectations, why should they then, believe that they can or will?

Given the many factors that could be put into play, (IMO) the average training time should be somewhere between 3-5 years. Some might argue whether that's too quick (or even too long), but for the teaching curriculum that I utilize, that time span is (usually) sufficient.

Additionally, unlike several system's I read about, I don't consider a Shodan test as being equivalent to a proclamation of sainthood (that so many others attempt to make it). It simply means that the recipient is knowledgeable of the beginning motions and kata (ie. they're now ready to learn).

Also, one point that RyuTe makes (that other system's may not), is that Shodan's don't have the ability to promote kyu rank student's to a Yudansha level. In fact, no Yudansha can promote anyone to any Yudansha level, only Taika has the authority to do so. Just as a reference, anyone who claims to be promoted to any Yudansha level by anyone other than Taika in the RyuTe system, is a fraud, a fake, and a liar. Additionally, any Yudansha member (and their rank) can be verified through contacting the RyuTe Renmei Association.

What's Natural?

2011-10-12T21:42:00.000-05:00

One of the main concepts that Taika emphasizes upon student's, Is that of Natural motion when they are studying/practicing RyuTe. The initial quest then becomes understanding what constitutes Natural.

The first thing that student's (generally) point out, is that none of this stuff is natural. To further clarify, being natural, implies that a motion (or even a reaction) follows the normal physical range of motion for any particular body part. Learning to control those body parts and their motion, is what training is really all about.

From the student's first class, they are learning to control their own body. This can be for executing a technique, or a stance or even how to breathe correctly. Student's are (generally) already aware of the physical requirements of how to walk, but we explain the individual motions that are involved with making it happen. The same is true with the majority of the technique motions as well.

If a student's training only consisted of learning a group of punches, kicks and stances, that training could be done in a matter of a few months. Even when including time to learn the kata that RyuTe utilizes (add another couple of months), the learning of motions involved with RyuTe could be done in a relatively short amount of time.

Depending on how much time the student's devotes to their training, the average time-span (for learning the kyu rank requirements) to reach Shodan level is 2½-3 years. This is presuming that the student is practicing what is shown to them, and that they are attending each and every class and lecture provided for them.

Having had extensive experience with teaching students, I know that this minimal amount of study/time requirement is rarely achieved. This of course, makes the average training time/period closer to 4 or 5 years.

The physical aspects of a student's practice are rarely (if ever) physically demanding. It's the comprehension of integrating those techniques with practical (and physically possible) motions that will work for an individual's self-protection, and the ability to do so legally, that create the greater challenge for most student's.

Simply learning all the taught motions will not make someone capable of defending themselves. It isn't the motions (alone) that protect the user, it's the user understanding how to implement those motions that will protect them.

That ability only comes with practice, and time. Neither of which can be rushed. Experience will only help the individual, if that experience is understood by the individual. It should also be remembered, that practice, is experience. It is during one's practice, that one is able to analyze how and why motion's do (or don't do) what they are doing.

It is through the understanding of natural body motion, that the majority of RyuTe instruction is realized by the student. By understanding how an arm can/can't motion, the student more easily realizes what motions are necessary to implement an arm-bar (or any manipulation technique).

It's this initial field of (body-motion) study, that student's begin to build their individual knowledge base upon. When combined with the other (taught) related subjects, that understanding of motion (in general) makes the application of the shown techniques more easily accomplished. One's understanding of each of those subjects need to be used in unison, in order to be able to effectively apply the shown techniques.

Mimic's Gone Bad

2011-10-06T17:35:00.000-05:00

I was looking at some photos of an individual (supposedly) performing a “tuite” (types) of techniques upon other individuals. They were the common (beginning) manners of applying those technique's, but they were doing so, with numerous mistakes being made (in the technique's application). To those less-knowledgeable about those techniques, it was less than note-worthy. Considering what that individual's (self-created/awarded) rank-level was being claimed as being, it should have been embarrassing.

'
It's individual's like this, that make any discussion about tuite, kyusho or even RyuTe (in general) more difficult. Having these Yahoo's self-promoting themselves as being competent in these subjects only makes anyone that (actually) is competent, work twice as hard to erase that negative image of what was done by these sorts of individuals.

This is akin to the numerous system's/school's/instructor's who claim to be teaching tuite, when they're (in fact) teaching some form of bastardized Aikido/jujitsu. I grant you, many technique's appear to be similar, But it's those minor differences that make all the difference in how those technique's will (or won't) work.

What I saw in the aforementioned individual's was an incompetent control (ability?) level of their own body positioning (much less the uke's). The fact that they were performing the technique's upon minor's (or at least teenager's) was hardly an excuse to be doing the technique's sloppily (unless that's how they always do them?).

I've seen similar attempts at replicating RyuTe's tuite technique's by individual's on the net (often after having initially been shown those technique's by RyuTe representatives). I have to presume that they were only shown the introductory motions, then extrapolated their own versions (which they then recorded and published for public viewing).

Every example that I viewed had numerous misapplications being made to the technique's. I believe that if those individual's had taken the time to review the manor that they were applying those technique's, they would have discovered their mistakes (on their own).

Unfortunately, I am also of the opinion, that for the majority of student's/instructor's, if any result is attained (from the execution of a technique) then that person will base all of any continued study upon only that result (good or bad).

What I found most interesting, was that the initially mentioned individual's, have never attempted to (usually) emphasize their instruction of tuite. They are usually pushing (some form of) weapon's training (which I personally have no real use and/or interest in). Though after having seen these examples of their instruction method for tuite types of techniques, I was rather (disappointed?) surprised. At any rate, I can see why they don't emphasize tuite as being their strong suit. It was enlightening (though granted, a little sad).

Having studied and practiced numerous forms of these other methods, I can (easily) see how RyuTe's technique's are mistaken for technique's practiced in those other system's. To be able to fairly judge those technique's though, one has to have experience in/with both methods of application.

As stand-alone technique's (or at least for some), I see only minor differences between them. But when utilized in combination with the other applications, the inherent weaknesses of those other methods becomes obvious.

It's these differences that make technique choice, more relevant. RyuTe's technique's work fluidly in conjunction with the taught and practiced motions. Technique's which are (at least attempted to be) forced to be used with other methodologies, rarely work they way they were intended.

RyuTe's technique's were all developed simultaneously (ie. together) and are therefor designed to work together with the combination technique's. These in turn, will work with the controlling technique's, and likewise with the submission and/or escort technique's. RyuTe is a complete and self-sustaining system.

Because of this, when questioned about how to make certain technique's work with other methodologies, I'm often at a loss as to how to explain it to person's not trained in RyuTe.

The fact that RyuTe shares many similar motions with other system's, doesn't mean that those motions are performed in the same way. This is what constitutes the majority of training for RyuTe students. The motions, only constitute 40% of a pupil's study, the remainder is situational application (of those motions).

It's usually at this level of application study, that the RyuTe mimic's begin to loose what little validity they may of had.

Break-Down Your Motions

2011-10-02T19:34:00.000-05:00

When studying/practicing technique's (whether new or known), those technique's should be reduced to their component pieces and procedure of application. Student's very often get transfixed (if not mesmerized) by the finishing position of a given technique.

If the initial and subsequent follow-up motions of a technique are done incorrectly (or even sloppily) that technique has a greater potential of failure. Each of the individually involved motions (of the technique) need to be understood by the user.

What I often encounter (when evaluating a student's performance of a technique), is that the student is (mainly) concerned with the motion's ending being in the desired position. How it gets to that position is (actually) the more important issue.

As an example, the performance of an “Outside Forearm Strike” (some refer to this as an “Outside Block”). To the casual observer, the arm's motion (beginning from the tori's side) crosses the tori's body (low) and raises, crossing (back) across the tori's (upper) body until it is vertical (and in-line with it's relative shoulder). For many beginning student's, that's the end of this motion's instruction. There may be some further clarification as to “hand position” (palm-in or palm-out), but generally, this is how student's are told that one “blocks” a strike (that's intending to plow through your head).

It isn't going to happen that way. But that's what they're told. And even after having experienced that it doesn't happen that way. Those same individual's will continue to tell other (if not their own) student's, to perform that motion exactly the same way that they were told to.

There's been a rash of posting's of late about Block's as Strikes and the individual opinion's thereof (both Pro and Con), including one by myself. For the most part, I could give a flying S*&T what anyone else is doing/teaching. I teach that striking an offending limb is more beneficial than simply batting it away. That's not to say that I have a problem with only performing a parry in response to that strike attempt. But, given a choice, I would much prefer to cause damage to that arm with how I execute that response.

The reason that I restate that position (because I've done so before), has to do with how I teach student's to perform an “Outside Forearm Strike/Block” (what-ever). Arm motions (in general) are always practiced as beginning at the tori's side. This isn't to say they should always begin there, only that this would be the most inconvenient position to have to begin from (any other position would have numerous advantages).

The first motion made, is moving the hands/forearm's forward. It should be obvious (because the hand can't cross the body until it does so, LOL), but it's these minor details that I'm referencing to.

When the arm begins to raise, it crosses the body as it does so. This is done mostly to generate a slight momentum advantage, as well as offering an additional amount of coverage from a strike. As the arm circle's upward, and achieves it's vertical positioning, it (then) motions forward (towards the uke). As long as the hand's finger/knuckle positioning has been maintained properly (at a 45º angle, straight wrist), then it won't matter whether the uke's strike is intercepted by the tori's forearm, or with the knuckle's of the hand (during the raising portion of the arm's motion). Even when the aggressor's arm is struck after the motioning hand moves forward (towards, and upon the uke's upper-arm), the uke should experience a loss of ability with that arm.

When done properly, one has the potential to cause damage to the uke's arm, and to divert or knock that attacking limb away (from the tori). The primary goal of the action, is to prevent the tori from being struck. Anything else, is bonus.

If the arm's motion is not practiced (as described), these particular results would be more difficult to reproduce. It isn't (simply) a matter of “raise and swing the arm sideways” to accomplish the motion. There are another dozen motions involved with that whole technique's execution. Merely perceiving it as being a forward motion, confuses many students. Until it's been exampled (and experienced) to a student, it can be difficult to understand the application.

Each of the taught technique's, need to be broken-down to their essential motions. This includes stances and punches, Reviewing kata motions can reveal many improperly performed actions (at least when one is certain of the kata's correct performance, LOL). If your thinking that a kata's motion is only a punch or a block, your probably wrong (or at least still thinking at the novice level). There's nothing wrong with either of those motions, but be aware that there's usually more possibilities.

Blabba-bullshitski

2011-09-29T21:13:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a while since I've done any ranting about some of the stupid stuff I read on the Internet. I had kind of (hoped really) thought that the “Kyusho-Point” craze was over (for a while), but I had someone write me about Patrick Mc-whoever's book regarding the Bubishi.

Strangely enough, I actually have this book, LOL. It had been a few year's since I thumbed through it, so I did so (yet again). It's still as un-informative as it was the last time I looked at it.

The majority of the book is personal opinion (of the author, and of interviewed individual's. All of which, have an agenda. “$$”). Whether I agreed with any of the author's opinions/conclusions or not, is really irrelevant. But I was asked my opinion, so here it is.

The Bubishi is about as relevant to anything that I do or teach, as a Betty Crocker Cook Book. The text is laced with irrelevant Acupuncture trivia, that has no correlation to anything that I do or teach. The included attempts at identifying “point” locations, are useless (and/or wrong). Basic Locations that I and/or my student's regularly utilize are not even shown/identified.

Being familiar with (actual) Acupuncture “texts”, the manner which that information was presented was confusing at best (if not misleading).

IMO, this text was published in the hope of profiting off of the “kyusho-craze”, and the lack of accurate information in regards to that subject (for which this text contributes nothing in adding to and/or correcting what is already available elsewhere).

Basically, the book is an opinion piece. Take it for what it's worth. I've never felt the Bubishi amounted to anything more than a propaganda tool of misdirection, misinformation and general distraction. The included writings are basically quotations of popular martial arts sayings. I've never seen anything revolutionary or (even) “special” about anything that's (ever) been translated from it.

I was curious as to “his” translations of the Chinese writings (in regards to the included sketches). They weren't exactly consistent throughout the text ? Considering that the original kanji wasn't included (throughout), it's difficult to determine how accurate his translations are (or if they were even complete).

There are several versions of this text available (beyond this author's). This one is neither better, nor worse than any of the others, and IMO, they're all useless if one's intention is to discover/confirm actual Kyusho point locations. From a historical perspective, your provided with the author's viewpoint (again, take it for what you think it's worth).

This text suffers from the standard western fallacy of “it must be true/accurate (just) because it's Chinese” How, or even Why that became a popular belief is beyond my own understanding. There's been plenty of Chinese teachings/beliefs that have been proven to be false and/or inaccurate before, so what makes this one any different?

Parry-Strike

2011-09-28T21:23:00.001-05:00

The first strike (attempt) made by an aggressor, is commonly the one which has the best chance of contacting, and causing damage (to the tori). It's also this strike, that is the most difficult (for the defender) to anticipate, much less prevent from achieving that (first/initial) impact. The majority of that difficulty comes from not knowing which arm the aggressor will choose to utilize to make that initial attempt.

For that reason, RyuTe has several ambidextrous defensive actions/motions that are taught to student's. I've previously described the 2-handed forearm strike (and it's ambidextrous application). Another of these motions (that can be further expanded upon) is the parry/strike combination.

This motion (though more involved) offer's greater ability to be modified and/or expanded to include a wider range of application (both defensively, and counter-offensively). Starting hand positions are at the tori's sides.

For simplicity, this description will be for a Right-handed/dominant Tori/individual (Right-side stronger, Left-side weaker).

The tori's defensive motion begins with the tori motioning both elbow's forward (to slightly in front of the tori). This allows the Tori's Right-arm to motion upward close and parallel to the tori's chest (pivoting at the elbow), until vertical.

The tori's Left hand/arm will raise straight upward (palm-up). As both arm's attain their vertical positioning, the Left (weak-side) hand will rotate (to palm-down), and motion downward & forward (towards the uke). The tori's Right-hand/arm will motion forward (again, towards the uke) Palm-up (and closed).

If/when no contact is made with the tori's Left hand, it proceeds forward and down (often performing a downward strike upon the uke's solar-plexus region). If/when the Right-hand makes no contact, then it will usually perform a forward strike upon the uke (often at the neck level).

Initially, these motions are practiced without including the (tori's) body-motion. This (naturally) makes the motion more difficult, but it also forces the student to focus upon doing their hand/arm motions (more) correctly.

Assuming the uke initially attempts a Right-handed strike (against the tori), the tori's Left hand will be presented with several methods of neutralizing that attempt. If they (the uke) attempt a straight (from the waist) strike (with no “wind-up”), then the tori's Left-hand will have the more immediate opportunity to prevent it's achieving it's goal.

As the tori is raising their Left hand/arm, the hand need only motion across (in front of) the uke's punching arm. Though not always sufficient to “stop” a strike's progression, by continuing with it's originally intended motion/direction (towards the uke's center), the strike will be (both) delayed and diverted (from it's intended target).

If/when the uke should lift their fist/arm (to “cock” it), the tori's Left-hand should negate it's intended “arc”, and proceed forward with a strike (to either the brachial plexus, or the bicep tendon of the striking Right-arm of the uke).

If the the uke chooses to perform a “Right-Hook” (towards the tori), the tori can choose to strike the uke's bicep-tendon with (either) their Left or Right arm/hand (depending upon the tori's ability level).

Tori also has the choice of only parrying the uke's Right-hand strike attempt (to the opposite side of the uke, and/or to either the uke's waist, or the tori's waist, depending upon the desired “follow-up”).

Should the uke choose to strike with their Left-hand, the most common counter, is to strike the uke's arm using their forward motioning Right hand/arm. This strike is usually made slightly above the elbow (to the medial side). The tori's hand needs to be at the (practiced) 45º angle. If the hand is vertical, it will miss, if it is horizontal, it will also miss (ie. There is a reason we practice with the hand at a 45º angle! LOL).

Should the uke choose to throw a “hook” with the Left-hand/arm, the tori should still strike the uke's Left arm, but it should be noted that their own Left hand, will also be striking the uke's mid-section (and thus causing an additional reaction by the uke).

When/if the tori's Left-hand should complete a strike to the mid-section of the uke, the uke's most common reaction is to lean forward. This offer's the opportunity (for the tori) to strike the uke upon the (Right or Left) side of the neck, using their Right-hand).

The addition of the straight-kick, will change many of the uke's motions and reactions (often slowing their initial punching motion). For this reason, I prefer to delay the kick's inclusion in student practice (I feel learning to deal with not having the kick's added influence to the uke's strike, to be a greater challenge. It also emphasizes greater appreciation for the kick's influence upon the uke's reactions).

The addition of the tori's body-motion to the technique's application will change much of the uke's ability to impact the tori (as they initially intended). This body motion is accomplished by buckling the knee's and rotating both knee's towards the side that the tori will be kicking with. This motions the tori's head/body towards the opposite side (and repositions the tori's head from being struck).

This rotation is only of (approximately) 30-45º. Very often student's will rotate excessively (usually to 90º). By over rotating, they slow their response time, and actually place themselves out of position to (effectively) apply their own (defensive) kick/strike.

The inclusion of rotation with technique motions, will additionally include the rotation of the tori's technique application. This (at first) is a little confusing to the student, but once exampled and explained, it makes more sense. Instead of the technique's motions being directly towards the uke, they are being applied at the 45º angle that the tori has (now) rotated to.

There are numerous versions of this initial motion. We present the basic version for our student's to build off of (for their own personal defense). Our emphasis is upon the motion's basic execution. The individual limb's motions need to be practiced in their complete form/manner. “Short-cutting” any motions practice, can/will only lead to technique failure. Practice must include the full range of motion for the technique. The fact that (in use) it may end up being shortened, does not equate to it being permissible to allow condensing the motion's practice.

Prolog of a Self-Protection System

2011-09-27T19:02:00.000-05:00

I was looking over various Internet sites, who've (supposedly) developed their “own” system of (some form of) martial art. I found the vast majority lacking in numerous essential factors (IMO). Most of them being combined pieces of what-ever they believed to be effective for their view of learning/teaching a self-protection system.

What I saw, was a mishmash of techniques that were often unrelated to one another, and were being presented along with questionable concepts. Most appealed to a particular type of individual (usually young, athletic and male......oh, and very Macho).

My own experience, has lead me to consider the various factors involved with the presentation/instruction methods used by an instructor to teach a martial art.
My own prerequisites consist of the following:

Principles, Theory, Technique, Instruction

These are the beginning elements of developing any self-protection system. Only after the first 3 elements have been established, can one begin to develop an efficient method of conveying that information to one's students in the application of those elements.

For many instructor's of martial arts (in general), the transmission of that information is done in whatever manner it was imparted to them by their respective instructor(s). This is often done without ever considering these fundamental elements, or how they are integrated with one another.

Whenever I observe a class (regardless of the style/instructor), I attempt to ascertain the basis of these elements in what's being presented. Many tend to only contain (or at least transmit) one or two of them, without regard to the remaining elements.

1. Principles 2. Theory 3. Technique 4. Instruction

The first 3 elements all have to fit the requirements of each other (IE. No one item of an element can contradict another item, be it of that element, or another). The 4^th element (instruction) must guide the student in understanding why and how each of the listed elements are relevant to what, and how the instruction is being presented. Any of these elements should have the ability to be modified, or even corrected (should an obvious weakness or defect in the originally conceived concept occur).

Each of these elements are important to the ability of the system to function as desired. Until each is actually defined, I (personally) don't understand how one can make any kind of claim as to having “developed/created” a (new) system. Several of these definitions over-lap with others listed under different elements. Given the definitions for each element, I feel that this is justified.

How I would define these elements (in what I teach) I will attempt to convey in the following. I've made clear my criticism of numerous practices being made by others, and I have been more than willing to debate/discuss those critiques with any who chose to do so. I feel it only fair, that I present my own interpretations of what I have learned, and how I teach that knowledge to others.

Principles

Fundamental, primary, or general laws/rules or

truths from which others are derived or developed.

As defined above, Principles provide the initial guidelines for a systems techniques and methodology's. Though usually attributed to some form of “moral” standard establishment, in this context, Principles only refers to the what/how/why a system will present it's manor of instructing a martial art.

Principles are (usually) pretty general in their description. Whether done as a “CYA” measure or not, can be debated by others. The principles that I teach by/follow/recognize are as follows:

(Though appearing some-what vague, these principles can be validated with every technique taught. Though by no means the only principles contained within the system, it's from these that others are derived. Individually, these are explained as follows.)

Motions are practiced from a defensive perspective

Though seemingly obvious, this methodology reinforces the concept that what is studied, is designed to to be utilized for defensive purposes. Numerous techniques taught have the potential for use as/for aggressive purposes. Though having that potential, they are designed and taught from the defensive perspective.

Practice is always treated seriously

This doesn't mean that a class can't contain some humor, but the actual practice of technique and motions should be done with seriousness.

Kicks, are performed from the waist height and/or lower

This relates to the fact that the average distance between an aggressor and the defender is at arm's length (too close for any effectiveness of kicks performed higher than waist level).

A physical confrontation should only last 3-5 seconds or less

This is based on the reality that 95% of confrontations consist of 1-4 strikes being (usually) made by the aggressor alone. If the defender is unable to end a confrontation in that time period, they will often be the loser in that confrontation.

The open hand is the preferred methodology

Though not practical for every technique/motion, the open-hand is the preferred methodology. This is based upon the knowledge that an open-hand allows the muscles of the arm to be used for arm motion (as opposed to holding the finger's closed), thereby increasing arm strength, and speed.

Every motion utilized should be a natural motion

Any motion that feels excessively awkward, should be flagged as being done incorrectly. All motions and techniques taught are non-complicated. This doesn't mean necessarily easy or simple to perform, only not complicated.

Physical Strength is never a deciding factor for effectiveness

The utilization of any technique is not dependent on physical strength. Every technique taught, should be able to be performed by every student regardless of physical size/strength or gender (presuming the student is of adult age).

Technique is derived from kata

The techniques taught and practiced in the class, are derived from motions contained within the practiced kata.

Theory

A particular conception or view of something

to be done or of the method of doing it.

This element is what the majority of people consider to be the main emphasis of a systems methodology. To some extent, there's some validity to that perspective. But as stated previously, without the other elements, the individual one's are but hollow concepts.

The 1^st most recognized theory of application for RyuTe, is

The Utilization of “3-limbs”.

This states that a defender has 3 limbs at their disposal (at one time) for any defensive action taken (2 Arms and 1 Leg). As a (gross) over-generalization, most people tend to attempt 1 Physical motion (that includes serious intent) at a time. It's equally common to respond to only a single action. With familiarity of the motions involved, that can be expanded to 2 motions (2 arms, or 1 arm and 1 leg). Not as commonly utilized (though clearly possible),
The use of 3 limbs (2 Arms and 1 Leg) is the preferred manor of application.

Taika explains that dealing with 1 motion (defensively), is not a problem, dealing with 2 is more difficult, but can be done, dealing with 3 though, this is very difficult (hence, should be our goal when retaliating to an aggression).

The 2^nd most recognized theory of application for RyuTe is

The proximity ratio.

Student's of RyuTe are taught that being closer (to an opponent) is safer. Initially, this sounds contradictory to reason. But when one considers the defensive (mechanical) logic of the premiss, it makes more sense. By being closer, the aggressor is unable to generate as much momentum for a strike (the initial 1/3^rd of a strikes motion is the weakest of the strikes range of motion {ROM}). There are also (obvious) tactical reasons for this premiss also, and these are explained and practiced.

Direction of Defensive Motion

As with the Proximity ratio, the preferred direction of motion is towards the aggressor. Obviously, this is dependent upon the individual situation, but more often than not, this is the preferred direction.

Technique

Technical skill; ability to apply procedures

or methods so as to effect a desired result.

The general accepted method of technique application will be similar regardless of the manner of assault utilized (non-side dependency).

This implies that the defensive manner utilized will not (generally) be dependent upon whether the aggressor utilizes a Right or Left-sided assault method.

A techniques manner of application will be drawn from the motions demonstrated within the kata learned.

This reminds the instructor that techniques are based upon motions made within the various taught kata.

A defender's technique application, will be prioritized above an aggressor's.

This is based upon the fact that the majority of individual's will attempt to base their own responses, upon newly perceived actions. This is shown to be a futile effort, and will rarely, if ever work. Students are taught to focus on their own technique/application, regardless of an aggressor's actions. This is a difficult principle to explain in written context (but is easily demonstrated).

Instruction

The act of furnishing with authoritative directions.

The instruction of techniques will be done in a progressive manner.

This implies that techniques will be continuously modified in more refined manners as the student learns and demonstrates the ability to perform that motion/technique.

Instruction shall be delivered to the student, in a manner that is understood sufficiently for that student to recite the motions to others.

This is not to imply that the student can instruct another student, only that the student has sufficient knowledge of the technique to identify faults and/or discrepancy’s between execution methods.

An individual student, is the sole recipient of any individual instruction provided.

This refers to instructional variances between different student's. What is shown to one student, is intended for that student (alone).

Student questions will be answered in relation to that students understanding of the material of inquiry.

This means that any students question will be answered to that students level of understanding and/or relevancy to the context it was presented.

Many of the presented rules could (and do) fall under several of the listed category’s. I've attempted to restrict any repetition for reasons of simplicity. There are of course others (for any of the listed category’s) that I have missed and/or not included here. These are only the major points of my instructional method. Each can (obviously) be broken down and explained in further detail, but for a general listing, the provided statements are sufficient.

The RyuTe system also includes the Dojo Kun, and the Dojo Principles (which I've discussed elsewhere). These Principles are in no way contesting or contradicting those (and some listed here, are actually based upon those). What's presented here, is what I utilize as guidelines for instructing my own students in technique/theory/application. I'm (pretty) sure that I've covered each of these subjects individually elsewhere, if not (and anyone has a question/statement), then ask. I will do my best to answer.