PDA

View Full Version : Aikido Supplemented with Push-Hands?


Pages : 1 [2]

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


statisticool
09-02-2006, 05:39 AM
Well, there you go. Mike says the cosmic force of ki does not exist; David says its does. And never the twain shall meet.

If mechanical ki is a realization of etheral ki, they are both right.

But David's interpretation of ki is more correct, given what is written in historical sources and the majority of modern ones. The vast, vast majority simply do not talk about ki as ground strength or vectors.


Justin

Gernot Hassenpflug
09-02-2006, 05:48 AM
For most people, social stresses influence them to override the body's natural impulses in favor of trying to look "like" someone or something else, such as a certain actor or famous person, or like your martial arts teacher.

That can't be right.
Could this possibly be true? Most people?
Nah, I don't buy that.
David, you are wrong.

(Some pages back, right? Never mind, I just had to reply)

Excuse the familiarity, but dude, from a guy named "Michael Douglas", that is pretty f**king funny. :D

Michael Douglas
09-02-2006, 06:38 AM
Heh, I just realised. Gernot is right.
I tend to forget how my name looks to others,
funny.

Michael Douglas
09-02-2006, 06:45 AM
Anyway, back to the discussion.
I'm thinking the basic pushing-hands stuff (I'm only familiar with the basics) would be useful to Aikidoka who want to develop sensitivity and use of balanced directable forces and stuff,
but
the Taiji pushing-hands stance lends itself far better to Taiji applications rather than Aikido applications,
therefore I must conclude that it could be unproductive to Aikido excellence.
Could be.

A heavily modified version of pushing-hands would undoubtedly be excellent for Aikido training if the stances and movements could be worked out to benfit and not distract from correct form.

As a little aside here, how many Aikidoka practice relaxed fast forceful atemi on, for example, the heavy bag?

Mike Sigman
09-02-2006, 08:54 AM
If mechanical ki is a realization of etheral ki, they are both right.

But David's interpretation of ki is more correct, given what is written in historical sources and the majority of modern ones. The vast, vast majority simply do not talk about ki as ground strength or vectors.The "vast, vast majority" of historical sources write using the qi paradigm, not the western-science paradigm. David is trying to use the old qi paradigm, but he doesn't fully understand it except in a "Jedi-Knight" sense.

Are you positing that the actual phenomena discussed in the qi paradigm can't be translated to the western paradigm? If that's what you think, you haven't been reading any modern books where exactly that is attempted in various ways.

I ask again.... have you got any knowledge to contribute or are you going to continue with the negative snide questions, in the fashion of the Cheng Man Ching'er fruitcakes? Tell us something about jin, peng jin, etc., as used in the Cheng Man Ching style, Justin. You have your worshipful webpages up about the god, er man, but let's see some knowledge to back it up. I'll bet you don't know anything and that stalking and sniping is about the limit of your abilities.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
09-02-2006, 09:01 AM
Are you positing that the actual phenomena discussed in the qi paradigm can't be translated to the western paradigm?


I don't buy that there are two paradigms, but one reality. People simply discuss reality in many different ways.

Your included rant doesn't deserve any real reply, except to point out, again, that your claims of stalking are silly, given that you directly ask me questions and expect a reply.


Justin

HL1978
09-02-2006, 07:50 PM
If mechanical ki is a realization of etheral ki, they are both right.

But David's interpretation of ki is more correct, given what is written in historical sources and the majority of modern ones. The vast, vast majority simply do not talk about ki as ground strength or vectors.


Justin


I wonder if that has to do with the educational background of the historical sources, or if they were looking at things with a scientific mindset.

Having studied statics in college, the mechanical explanations make sense to me, and I can see how the same principles can be applied to any martial art, not taichi/aikido specific.

raul rodrigo
09-02-2006, 08:14 PM
"The vast vast majority of sources on ki." That's your argument? In the 16th century the vast vast majority of sources on astronomy said the sun moved around the earth. So what?

statisticool
09-02-2006, 08:50 PM
"The vast vast majority of sources on ki." That's your argument? In the 16th century the vast vast majority of sources on astronomy said the sun moved around the earth. So what?

We're not talking about astronomy.

We're talking about 'internal' arts, where the vast, vast majority or historical and modern sources simply do not talk about ki as ground strength or vectors.


Justin

Mike Sigman
09-02-2006, 09:39 PM
I don't buy that there are two paradigms, but one reality. People simply discuss reality in many different ways.I see. Then the humours theory, etc., all were just valid ways of "discussing reality in many different ways" and they were all valid??? Ever heard of the Scientific Method? You should look it up sometime and get some idea why some of us are not silly enough to accept all theories as equal ways of discussing reality.

Mike Sigman

raul rodrigo
09-03-2006, 12:53 AM
Well some paradigms are different and equally valid ways of talking about the same thing, eg, light as a particle and light as a wave. There is a complementarity between the two views and a lot of empirical evidence to back each view. In the vast majority of cases, however, one paradigm completely supplants the other: Copernicus supplants Ptolemy, Darwin supplants the Book of Genesis, and Einstein overtakes Newton and makes his laws only a subset within a larger theory.

In a discussion of "paradigms" in the sense first set by Thomas Kuhn, an appeal to tradition, authority and the "vast vast majority of sources" has absolutely no weight. A paradigm either fits or doesn't fit our experience.

statisticool
09-03-2006, 07:55 AM
I see. Then the humours theory, etc., all were just valid ways of "discussing reality in many different ways" and they were all valid??? Ever heard of the Scientific Method? You should look it up sometime and get some idea why some of us are not silly enough to accept all theories as equal ways of discussing reality.

Mike Sigman

Talking about qi as energy is surely staying within science. But anyway, my post was not an endorsement of any mythological thinking, nor was it equating ways of describing reality as equally valid in the light of science.

I simply pointed out that very few people, historical or modern, even in times where science is around, talk about taijiquan, aikido, etc., in terms of qi = ground strength or vectors. Probably because when they fight they have no luxury time to think of mathematical concepts.

The ones that do, besides over-emphasizing ground strength as the only or main force, seem to wax romantic on normal strength, still claiming it is unusual even thought it is well known, standard dynamics.


Justin

HL1978
09-03-2006, 10:20 AM
Talking about qi as energy is surely staying within science. But anyway, my post was not an endorsement of any mythological thinking, nor was it equating ways of describing reality as equally valid in the light of science.

I simply pointed out that very few people, historical or modern, even in times where science is around, talk about taijiquan, aikido, etc., in terms of qi = ground strength or vectors. Probably because when they fight they have no luxury time to think of mathematical concepts.

The ones that do, besides over-emphasizing ground strength as the only or main force, seem to wax romantic on normal strength, still claiming it is unusual even thought it is well known, standard dynamics.


Justin

Could you please explain the similarities and differences between the two concepts of strength in your own words?

Also could you explain why one would only have time/not have time when fighting and not when practicing, or at some point after completing the exercise/match?

statisticool
09-03-2006, 10:38 AM
I'm wondering if any book, any where, translates qi as ground strength?

HL1978
09-03-2006, 11:02 AM
I'm wondering if any book, any where, translates qi as ground strength?


Why are you concerned about a book definition?

statisticool
09-03-2006, 11:36 AM
Books my martial artists, especially masters, would tell us what martial artists think of these words and concepts and how they use them.

Of course, some people desire to focus on non-published sources.


Justin

Moses
09-03-2006, 02:22 PM
Justin,
Beginning w/ premise that there is a separation in movement practices, i.e. those which have been deemed "external" & those of which are "internal". And assuming that the movement arts classified as being internal, e.g. Aikido, TaiJi, BaGua, XingYi, YiQuan, etc, have some form of additional or alternative method to their cultivation & practice of body mechanics & movement, then how would you explain this "difference" via your own personal experience, or through your own research?
Moses

statisticool
09-03-2006, 03:02 PM
I'm skeptical there is a difference.

Those that posit the difference are going to have to explain the difference, and convince others that they are not just waxing romanitic about normal old external strength.

grondahl
09-03-2006, 03:18 PM
Books my martial artists, especially masters, would tell us what martial artists think of these words and concepts and how they use them.

Of course, some people desire to focus on non-published sources.


Justin

And do you sincerely think that the "masters" will be totaly honest and open about everything in books directed towards the open market?

Moses
09-03-2006, 03:27 PM
Fair enough, if your opinion is that there is not a difference would you elaborate upon body mechanics used by these parties, please?

Understandably not everyone will agree, nor should they. Understanding, of any topic, is deepened by discourse, by alternative views, by challenges, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding.
Moses

statisticool
09-03-2006, 03:28 PM
Do I expect the majority of masters to be open and honest? Sure. The alternative is to assume the majority are secretive or liars or just don't want to be helpful, which I don't think is a valid assumption.

Take The Secrets of Judo for example. They not only revealed all the 'secrets', but said that there is nothing mysterious there, just physics. Whereas we see some proponents of internal strength want to say the strength is still unusual, that they are the only ones who really get it, it takes years and years of practice just to get the basics, etc., and even then we never see them use it in a fight.

If their thesis is that qi is best translated as ground strength, I'd expect to see at least one book that has this translation. Else, one has to take their word for it, which happens to not coincide with the vast majority of what is published.


Justin

statisticool
09-03-2006, 03:32 PM
Fair enough, if your opinion is that there is not a difference would you elaborate upon body mechanics used by these parties, please?


The body mechanics are standard physics; muscular force, gravity, momentum, friction, impulse power, etc.

Pelase check out the reference provided, The Secrets of Judo for a great discussion on them. It takes a whole book to provide the basics on them, so understandably one cannot write it all out in a post.


Justin

Mike Sigman
09-03-2006, 05:28 PM
The body mechanics are standard physics; muscular force, gravity, momentum, friction, impulse power, etc.
Could we get the name of someone respectable who will vouchsafe the idea that you are expert enough to make an assertion like this, Justin? So far you have dodged every direct question about how to's, etc. that has been put to you. Tell us, as an example, of why the dumb old Chinese were silly enough to make a big deal out of the "jin that starts in the feet, is controlled in the waist, and expressed in the hands"? Where can someone come to check out your expertise, Justin?

Mike Sigman

Alfonso
09-03-2006, 05:33 PM
I take it you are successfully in applying those secretes in your martial arts practice?

Of course if were only a matters of reading, and "understanding" concepts, I'd be an expert by now. I do know how to read.

I don't find any supernatural things in Aikido; and yet it's been HARD for me to get any where close to getting a practical understanding of things like "center", "entering" , "connecting". These words mean many things, and they made me think of many things but without the actual experience of them in the context of the Aikido practice, they meant absolutely nothing useful. Almost none of what I read before 4-5 years of training helped me at all..

Back to push hands / Aikido , we have played something like that at different times in my school . It's not considered a basic practice so most of the time we tend to focus on other things; but there's good things to be learned by relaxing the uke / nage role among people who are at a level where they are able to adapt, and change.

statisticool
09-04-2006, 03:58 AM
I did not claim to be an "expert". I do not go around calling others unknowledgable or hint they or their teachers are frauds, or teaching seminars, things which imply one is expert.

If ones believes the "assertion" that the body mechanics are standard physics; muscular force, gravity, momentum, friction, impulse power, etc., is in fact an "assertion", I'm afraid they are the ones with the extraordinary claim that needs to be backed up- to show how in 'internal' arts, standard physics suddenly don't tell the whole story.

Speaking of dodging questions, what about the title of the book that says the best translation of qi is ground strength? And how does one know that no real martial artists were allowed to challenge Zheng? Or how does one know that Chen Weiming was courting favors?

The fact is that I've directed people to the book that can best answer their question about the physics. This is also to not put emphasis on my credentials or lack of, which readers understand are not the point in this discussion.

Kick the ground, your body moves forward. Hold out your hand at the same time, your hand moves forward because it is connected to your body. Rotate your center, what is connected to it moves. Not to mention the effects of gravity, momentum, friction, and etc.

The same wording could be said about discus, mopping a floor, football, karate, chopping wood... in fact just about any physical thing where we have our feet on the ground.

I'm wondering, what is "unusual" about this, and just where is the disagreement?


Justin

Mike Sigman
09-04-2006, 08:19 AM
I did not claim to be an "expert".
Take it to another thread, Justin. Everyone is tired of you stalking me and disrupting threads, but it's pretty obvious you don't care 2 cents about other peope.... that is the standard self absorption of the Cheng Man Ching followers. Start something in "Open Discussions".

statisticool
09-04-2006, 10:35 AM
We see again, me being asked questions directly, then the claims of 'stalking' and 'disrupting'. I guess one shouldn't ask questions then?

As far as the stalking claim, I'll repeat again, since it was not understood the first time.

1) I'm asked questions directly, I respond

2) the search by username statisticool for his name turns up less posts than the search by his name for my name.

But back to the topic,

If ones believes the "assertion" that the body mechanics are standard physics; muscular force, gravity, momentum, friction, impulse power, etc., is in fact an "assertion", I'm afraid they are the ones with the extraordinary claim that needs to be backed up- to show how in 'internal' arts, standard physics suddenly don't tell the whole story.

Kick the ground, your body moves forward. Hold out your hand at the same time, your hand moves forward because it is connected to your body. Rotate your center, what is connected to it moves. Not to mention the effects of gravity, momentum, friction, and etc.

I'm wondering, what is "unusual" about this, and just where is the disagreement?


Justin

Mike Sigman
09-04-2006, 12:01 PM
We see again, me being asked questions directly, then the claims of 'stalking' and 'disrupting'. I guess one shouldn't ask questions then? What are you going to do... pretend that you weren't stalking all along, when it was so obvious that a number of people called you on it? Doesn't that in itself strike you as a bit bizarre, Justin? You want to pretend now that you're just an innocent poster and all those other people are just morons? Fine.... you're interesting to watch. Go back and look at your own obviously snipey posts and convince yourself... the first person a bullshit artist always convinces is himself.
If ones believes the "assertion" that the body mechanics are standard physics; muscular force, gravity, momentum, friction, impulse power, etc., is in fact an "assertion", I'm afraid they are the ones with the extraordinary claim that needs to be backed up- to show how in 'internal' arts, standard physics suddenly don't tell the whole story. No one here has said that internal strength doesn't obey the laws of physics, Justin. Setting up a strawman and then demolishing it is a little absurd.

Why don't you tell us how to lift your arm using the "from the dantien" mode? Something simple? You seem to want to opine, but you oddly don't have any real information. Just tell us very simply how to life your arm using that kind of power.

BTW.... just to remind you... Cheng Man Ching wrote a chapter discussing why the jin mode is so different from the normal mode, in his "Thirteen Treatises". I suppose he was a moron to make something out of nothing, eh? Can you even explain what he wrote in Chapter 7? I'll bet that you can't, so here's your chance to prove me wrong for once, using facts and not snipes. Care to make a little bet before you get started?

Mike Sigman

statisticool
09-04-2006, 01:06 PM
I wonder why one is so agitated if they agree that what is shown in The Secrets of Judo is also a valid explanation of so called internal strength.

It is also strange that these amazing and efficient ways of body movement exist but videos of actual sparring using them are so scarce.


Justin

Mike Sigman
09-04-2006, 01:16 PM
I wonder why one is so agitated if they agree that what is shown in The Secrets of Judo is also a valid explanation of so called internal strength.Justin, no one is replying to your "Secrets of Judo" stuff. I've seen that book. It's not what we're talking about. Judo doesn't use "internal strength".... it uses normal strength. You're simply showing how little you know everytime you opine out loud on a topic. Go look at the Judo lists and how some of them are beginning to worry out loud about the missing body mechanics and whether Kano knew them or not.

Guess what.... you don't know either. Which means your support of Cheng Man Ching is quite funny. He at least knew.

Let's see your breakdown of how the strength works in Chapter 7 of his book? Another question you don't want to answer?

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
09-04-2006, 01:52 PM
Justin, you just lost the race against time.

Mike Sigman

HL1978
09-04-2006, 08:50 PM
We see again, me being asked questions directly, then the claims of 'stalking' and 'disrupting'. I guess one shouldn't ask questions then?

As far as the stalking claim, I'll repeat again, since it was not understood the first time.

1) I'm asked questions directly, I respond

2) the search by username statisticool for his name turns up less posts than the search by his name for my name.

But back to the topic,

If ones believes the "assertion" that the body mechanics are standard physics; muscular force, gravity, momentum, friction, impulse power, etc., is in fact an "assertion", I'm afraid they are the ones with the extraordinary claim that needs to be backed up- to show how in 'internal' arts, standard physics suddenly don't tell the whole story.

Kick the ground, your body moves forward. Hold out your hand at the same time, your hand moves forward because it is connected to your body. Rotate your center, what is connected to it moves. Not to mention the effects of gravity, momentum, friction, and etc.

I'm wondering, what is "unusual" about this, and just where is the disagreement?


Justin


I asked you questions directly, and you haven't answered all of them....

gdandscompserv
09-04-2006, 08:56 PM
Judo doesn't use "internal strength".... it uses normal strength.
Are you sure about that?

Mike Sigman
09-04-2006, 08:59 PM
Are you sure about that?Yes. Although I've posited at some high-levels in Japan that still retain some of the old methods; it's possible they keep it as a hidden tradition. There are a couple of fairly knowledgeabel western judoka that have recently been pointing at the five-kata and related direct-from-jujitsu kata that probably have the hidden training as a core for their existence.

Do you have anything to add besides questions? Remember, no one has seen you and "Justin" in the same room at the same time. ;)

Mike

gdandscompserv
09-04-2006, 09:06 PM
Do you have anything to add besides questions?
No Mike, I have nothing to add and everything to learn.
I believe asking questions is a good way to learn things.

Mike Sigman
09-04-2006, 09:13 PM
No Mike, I have nothing to add and everything to learn.
I believe asking questions is a good way to learn things.
My bad. Keep asking questions, then. I've simply gotten gun-shy about threads being wasted by questions that simply have poorly-disguised ulterior motives. ;)

Then again, maybe the push-hands idea for Aikido was due to die.

Mike

gdandscompserv
09-04-2006, 09:26 PM
Then again, maybe the push-hands idea for Aikido was due to die.
Probably. But don't let that stop you from enlightening us with your extensive knowledge.

Mike Sigman
09-04-2006, 09:37 PM
But don't let that stop you from enlightening us with your extensive knowledge.Ummmmm..... unfortunately, my knowledge is not what I would consider extensive. It's more like being a pony-league baseball player, not the minors, and not the majors. ;) If anything, I'm surprised that some factor or set of factors in the Aikido community has stymied progress in this area. Someone should grab what they can from Ushiro, me, Rob, whoever, and just run with it.... none of us can or will spend the time that a dedicated up-and-coming young Aikidoist will. We're all simply information sources with slightly different approaches to the basics. Nothing more.

FWIW

Mike

statisticool
09-04-2006, 10:40 PM
Someone who hasn't answered many questions directly put to them probably shouldn't go on about questions not answered.

As far as "Judo doesn't use "internal strength".... it uses normal strength.", one is welcome to explain, using standard physics, how internal strength is really different from normal strength.

Or is one really just waxing poetic about efficient use of normal strength, timing, and balance?


Justin

statisticool
09-04-2006, 10:52 PM
I asked you questions directly, and you haven't answered all of them....

Let's see... newbie to the forum, first post in this thread, all posts in this thread...Hmmm... you must be a nei.... Nah, this room isn't big enough for 2 conspiracy theorist wannabees.

The content of your questions were already addressed in the posts. If I find future questions valid I will respond directly to them.


Justin

HL1978
09-05-2006, 07:15 AM
Let's see... newbie to the forum, first post in this thread, all posts in this thread...Hmmm... you must be a nei.... Nah, this room isn't big enough for 2 conspiracy theorist wannabees.

The content of your questions were already addressed in the posts. If I find future questions valid I will respond directly to them.


Justin


Let's see... newbie to the forum, first post in this thread, all posts in this thread...Hmmm... you must be a nei.... Nah, this room isn't big enough for 2 conspiracy theorist wannabees.

The content of your questions were already addressed in the posts. If I find future questions valid I will respond directly to them.


Justin

Neither of my first questions were addressed. A later one which was addressed regarding the importance of finding what others have said in a book. A valid point, but in my own expereince a difficult task when attempting to replicate a physical skill.

The questions were:

Could you please explain the similarities and differences between the two concepts of strength in your own words?

Also could you explain why one would only have time/not have time when fighting and not when practicing, or at some point after completing the exercise/match? The second was in response to a statement saying that fighters would have no time to think of mathematical concepts during a fight.


I vigoriously disagree with the second point. While no one would have the time to concieveably have time to preform a summation of the forces, one would have the abiliy to recognize what in their body needs to be adjusted, a set of calculations preformed by the body. For example, I realize a guy is outside the range of my punch, I recognize that and close the distance. The same is true if you need to adjust your body to throw etc. Last weekend I did a track event and had to verbally analyize what I was doing as it happened. For example, when I began a turn, then verbalizing if I entered too soon, if I entered with too much speed etc. All this while going between 80-120mph.

further there is no reason why an anaylsis couldnt be preformed while in practice. More so, people record their performance in sporting events all the time (football films etc) and analyize it afterwards.

Let me posit a new question for you. If you stand infront of two metal hangers: a straight hanger, and a concave one (both of identical thickness and tensile strength) wherein the concave portion is above the ground and a straight portion is below, both stuck in the ground, each with a hydralic piston on top that pushes out parallel to the ground and is loaded with the same amount of force. If you stand infront of the piston and are struck, what is going to happen to the metal hangers? Which will hurt you more? Is the "spring" of the concave hanger going to provide additonal resistance versus the unloaded straight hanger? Which one can withstand the most force before sheering and why?

HL1978
09-05-2006, 07:34 AM
a further question: is the bending/relectuance to bend on the part of the wire hanger a representation of internal or external strength?

Do you consider that to be part of your definition of the "normal strength" waxed poetically by some people as you had advanced earlier?

statisticool
09-05-2006, 08:19 AM
If any of your example goes against standard normal external strength physics presented in the judo book, you're welcome to explain why you believe so.


Justin

Upyu
09-05-2006, 08:29 AM
Justin. You're just a retard.
Give it up.

lmao

statisticool
09-05-2006, 11:04 AM
Unforunately, a few people get emotional and irrational in a debate, instead of talking about the issues presented.


Justin

HL1978
09-05-2006, 11:12 AM
If any of your example goes against standard normal external strength physics presented in the judo book, you're welcome to explain why you believe so.


Justin

Let me refer to it this way. Are you familiar with the concepts of Applied Mechanics? Are you familiar with the term strength in an engineering context? I have yet to see any demonstration there so as if you did, you would recognize exactly what I am talking about.

The above problem need not require understanding of strength from an engineering perspective (in which the terms have mulitple meanings), but it certainly helps.

Perhaps an easier example to give is that of a truss. Does a truss exhibit external strength by the definition you are apparently putting forwards?

Is a loaded truss exhibiting external strength by the same definition?

Where is the "strength" of the truss coming from? Why is a truss stronger than just a simple I-beam placed between 2 blocks?

As you seem to be quite fond of book knowledge. Perhaps a read of something like Statics and Strength of Materials by John J. Jackson, Harold G. Wirtz (ISBN 0070321213), might better explain the basic concepts of statics. If you have any engineer friends, they should be able to explain the concepts as well without having to understand the math behind it. Basic statics and strength of materials (fluids/solids) is part of most engineering curriculiums, and are familiar to most engineers (I am an electrical engineer).

To give you an example, I recently preformed the push out drill described by Mr. Robert John with a friend who is a mechanical engineer, who is probably 280lbs (not all muscle) and an bench 2x as me, but has no prior martial arts expereince. He immediatly understood what I was demonstrating simply through basic engineering/physics principles.

Mike Sigman
09-05-2006, 11:21 AM
Basic statics and strength of materials (fluids/solids) is part of most engineering curriculiums, and are familiar to most engineers (I am an electrical engineer).

To give you an example, I recently preformed the push out drill described by Mr. Robert John with a friend who is a mechanical engineer, who is probably 280lbs (not all muscle) and an bench 2x as me, but has no prior martial arts expereince. He immediatly understood what I was demonstrating simply through basic engineering/physics principles.Good points, Hunter, and a good perspective. Generally, the idea of "internal strength" has to do with force manipulation (it's a fairly simple thing the mind can arrange, but it can get pretty sophisticated, with practice) and strengthening of areas of the body in an unusual way. I honestly don't think a genuinely productive discussion of the statics/mechanics will ever be held on a forum like AikiWeb because an open forum allows too many of the superficial/fruitcakes to dilute the discussion. If you want to get into a more involved discussion of the physics, etc., you can try the sanctuary of the QiJing list by PM'ing me. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

HL1978
09-05-2006, 11:28 AM
Good points, Hunter, and a good perspective. Generally, the idea of "internal strength" has to do with force manipulation (it's a fairly simple thing the mind can arrange, but it can get pretty sophisticated, with practice) and strengthening of areas of the body in an unusual way. I honestly don't think a genuinely productive discussion of the statics/mechanics will ever be held on a forum like AikiWeb because an open forum allows too many of the superficial/fruitcakes to dilute the discussion. If you want to get into a more involved discussion of the physics, etc., you can try the sanctuary of the QiJing list by PM'ing me. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman


Thanks Mike!

Also, let me give one more example which people can practice and perhaps understand my original example without understanding the math behind it, but perhaps can see the principle at least from a striking perspective.

Go find a bench press. Pick a weight 50-75% of your maximum (for safety). Try 5 repititions with an arched back. Rest for a few minutes and then try 5 repititions with a straight back. The number of repitions isn't important. Now, after trying that, which one feels stronger/easier to do and why? Are more muscles being recurited for one than the other and increasing strength? Is more leverage being applied though the barbell is traveling in an identical path?

statisticool
09-05-2006, 11:44 AM
Where is the "strength" of the truss coming from? Why is a truss stronger than just a simple I-beam placed between 2 blocks?


There's many reasons, probably too many to list. A simple answer is that a truss's triangular geometry and constructions distribute stress more efficiently when compared to an I-beam.

Although, motion is required in the martial arts, so focusing on static things isn't too helpful IMO.


He immediatly understood what I was demonstrating simply through basic engineering/physics principles.

I don't see how understanding of normal ol' strength and physics equates with 'internal strength'. Perhaps you could explain if you believe this to be the case.


Justin

Mike Sigman
09-05-2006, 11:52 AM
I don't see how understanding of normal ol' strength and physics equates with 'internal strength'. Perhaps you could explain if you believe this to be the case.Why don't you explain to us what it is that Cheng Man Ching is saying in chapter 7 or "Thirteen Treatises" about jin strength and pullies, Justin? After all, that's the cult-worship you're involved in... surely you understand what the word of "god" actually means, don't you? Or is it better for you guys to just think that the word of god (Cheng Man Ching's utterances) is beyond mortal men (boys) like you? What he says is pretty straightforward if you have any jin skills at all. Give us an explanation, Justin... it actually is related to the thread topic.

Mike Sigman

HL1978
09-05-2006, 11:58 AM
There's many reasons, probably too many to list. A simple answer is that a truss's triangular geometry and constructions distribute stress more efficiently when compared to an I-beam.

Although, motion is required in the martial arts, so focusing on static things isn't too helpful IMO.



I don't see how understanding of normal ol' strength and physics equates with 'internal strength'. Perhaps you could explain if you believe this to be the case.


Justin


Try the bench press exercise, just make sure you have a spotter with you.

I'll happily explain, my take on it after you give it the ol college try! :)

statisticool
09-05-2006, 06:08 PM
Why don't you explain to us what it is that Cheng Man Ching is saying in chapter 7 or "Thirteen Treatises" about jin strength and pullies, Justin?


It is a great book.You are welcome to explain what from it you believe to be relevant since you feel it is relevant to this discussion.

If you'd like to discuss your published work on 'internal strength', feel free.

Same ol' cult, god, etc., rant ignored.


Justin

statisticool
09-05-2006, 06:12 PM
Try the bench press exercise, just make sure you have a spotter with you.

I'll happily explain, my take on it after you give it the ol college try! :)

Sure, I'll do it, and might enjoy confirming that you are labelling better standard old physics as 'internal strength'.


Justin

Mike Sigman
09-05-2006, 06:18 PM
It is a great book.You are welcome to explain what from it you believe to be relevant since you feel it is relevant to this discussion.No... we are all waiting to see what you can do besides snipe, Justin. At least I made an attempt to answer some focused questions.... you evade.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
09-05-2006, 06:29 PM
If one feels parts of a book are relevant, they should probably talk about why the believe parts of it are relevant, instead of pretending that the person they are talking to should defend the book that they didn't even bring up.


Justin

HL1978
09-05-2006, 07:02 PM
Sure, I'll do it, and might enjoy confirming that you are labelling better standard old physics as 'internal strength'.


Justin

I'm certainly not inventing a new type of physics, just a portion of physics not routinely covered to a great extent in at least a high school environment, and an area you did not touch on in your replies, but one which is greatly modeled in CAD.

statisticool
09-07-2006, 06:20 PM
I ask again.... have you got any knowledge to contribute or are you going to continue with the negative snide questions, in the fashion of the Cheng Man Ching'er fruitcakes? Tell us something about jin, peng jin, etc., as used in the Cheng Man Ching style, Justin. You have your worshipful webpages up about the god, er man, but let's see some knowledge to back it up. I'll bet you don't know anything and that stalking and sniping is about the limit of your abilities.

Mike Sigman

One sees you didn't choose to actually put forth anything to "bet".

Ho hum.


Justin

statisticool
09-07-2006, 06:25 PM
HL, it was easier to do arching the lower back a little, though it did not feel natural to do.

Upyu
09-07-2006, 07:11 PM
Thanks Mike!

Also, let me give one more example which people can practice and perhaps understand my original example without understanding the math behind it, but perhaps can see the principle at least from a striking perspective.

Go find a bench press. Pick a weight 50-75% of your maximum (for safety). Try 5 repititions with an arched back. Rest for a few minutes and then try 5 repititions with a straight back. The number of repitions isn't important. Now, after trying that, which one feels stronger/easier to do and why? Are more muscles being recurited for one than the other and increasing strength? Is more leverage being applied though the barbell is traveling in an identical path?

Hunter you're probably going to have to qualify what you mean by a "straight" back. ^^;
You're referring to sticking the back to the bench press right?

Tim Fong
09-09-2006, 09:06 PM
Justin,

I've let this go for quite a while, but the consistently faulty logic of your posts finally motivated me to de-lurk. I write this post in the hope that you will consider the error of your ways. Failing that, I hope that others will not be misled by the appalling quality of your "arguments."

You are making the following types of errors in your thinking, in order of seriousness: rhetorical, heuristic and epistemic. I will define the terms which I use to prevent any misunderstanding.

Rhetorical:
For the purposes of this essay, I am defining rhetoric as the "art or technique of persuasion ... through the use of language," which is the Wikipedia definition. I am speaking specifically of your particular argumentative style which tends to assume that you are in a formal debate or a courtroom.

On numerous occasions you have used phrases such as "burden of proof." You have made regular allusions to "the currency of evidence. " These are procedural issues to an argument, by and large, and are, in the legal or Oxford debate arenas, resolved by a judge or panel of judges.

The fundamental error you are making is that we are not in a courtroom and there are no judges. We are not even at the Oxford Union. We are on an internet webforum which is different because it is generally a place where people come to share information about martial arts (spec. aikido) and perhaps learn something. This is, to some extent, an unwritten rule.

By choosing a rhetorical style consistent with formal debate, you miss the point entirely since this forum is not a formal debate. By using legalistic rhetoric, ironically, you reduce your credibility with the average poster. The rules of evidence in the courtroom are agreed upon by the participants and codified by law and practice. In contrast, on a web forum the rules are almost completely determined by practice. Attempting to import the conventions of one in to the other is like trying to ford a river in spats and a top hat. Without a judge, the rules of evidence are of questionable virtue.

Indeed, since there is no judge, it is not clear to me why you chose the legalistic rhetorical style, since there is no one who can rule in your favor. If the intent is to show your erudition, I can assure you that it does not. Rather, it shows your poor understanding of the role of the rules of evidence in the (common law) legal system. Additionally, your choice of rhetoric also has some unpleasant epistemic implications, which I will detail later on in this post.

Heuristic:
For the purposes of this post, I am defining a heuristic as a rule of thumb, ''common sense'' or a shortcut to analytic reasoning. Or, " Of or relating to a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem," which is the definition from the online "Free Dictionary."

I divide your heuristic errors into two further sub-categories, cultural and source evaluation.

Cultural:
Your biggest error with respect to culture is that you continually assume that Chinese cultural norms are the same as the "common sense" norms you have learned living in the United States. For example, you have frequently asked why a certain taiji teacher of Chinese origin would praise a student or other teacher, if in fact the teacher receiving the praise had poor skills. If you knew anything about Chinese culture you would understand that people say all kinds of nice things to be polite _in public_, while reserving their true thoughts for only their close friends or family. Since I am sure you will want a cite for this statement (beyond a simple "ask a good Chinese friend") you should take a look at the book "Culture Shock: China" which is usually available in the travel section of a large bookstore. As a sidenote, this characteristic is also common in Japanese culture as well, the idea of the public/private face. You, on the other hand, seem to be stuck with the cultural heuristic that teachers always speak honestly about their students or contemporaries. In dealing with East Asian cultures, that kind of assumption is an impediment to seeing the truth of the situation.

You have also failed to understand the extent that the Chinese martial culture from which taiji originates distinguishes between students and outsiders. Since the traditional kung fu schools viewed itself as a family, students were those who had been initiated into the family. No initiation means not a student, and therefore, subject to lies and deception.

Since you are unable to grasp even these basic concepts about Chinese culture, I can know with certainty that your heuristic for understanding traditional (pre 1949) Chinese cultural practices is deeply flawed.

Source Evalution:
Your major error here is that you are evaluating your sources based on whether they use a style of writing which is well mannered and aims at an educated audience.

I took a look at your suggested reading page on taiji, and noticed that you included Wolf Lowenthal and Herman Kauz. I can agree that both of those book are written in a style which is likely consistent with a person of moderate , liberal education. I can also assure you that both of them are clueless when it comes to taiji. I have also noticed that you take great pride in your academic achievements (as well you should) and that you consider UFC fights to be a "highly marketed fad" which is unsophisticated compared to the street. This also ties to your epistemic errors, which I will discuss in the following section.

The biggest problem with your evaluative heuristic is that whether a martial arts book is useful has very little to do with the style of writing which it embraces. My counterpoint to the Lowenthal and Kauz books would be, insofar as martial arts books go, "Savage Strikes" by Mark Hatamaker. Lowenthal alleges that there are no secrets and that it's "just" good , conventionally understood bodymechanics. If you understood what decent conventional (dare I say external?) body mechanics were, you'd understand that a book like Hatamaker's is a lot more useful for mastering those mechanics than anything Lowenthal ever wrote or said. From your perspective perhaps Hatamaker's book is declasse, with grainy pictures and poor editing, but that does not mean that what he's saying isn't applicable to fighting.

I can theorize that your failure to develop a good heuristic for source evaluation in the martial arts is a result of your academic training and specialization in statistics. You likely expect that martial arts books should ape academic standards. Unfortunately, simply because a martial arts book apes the academic style does not mean it is useful. This is because there is no scholarly peer review system for martial arts books like you see in academia. There is something similar to a peer review system for martial arts, namely actual fighting.

Epistemic
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, epistemology is the "branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity." In short, it concerns how to find out the truth. Reading your webpage, I noticed that you enjoy using your calculator to explore statistical questions. Martial arts, on the other hand, require real world verification through practice, which is the martial arts equivalent of peer review. This means fighting in some form or another. You, on the other hand, regularly employ a misguided dialectical method in your forum posts. You have repeatedly attempted to drag the rhetoric of the court room or the debate floor in to forum posts. This does nothing to advance the cause of the knowledge, since it is, in fact, divorced from the objective reality of movement.

If you are interested in increasing your knowledge of martial arts, you would be well advised to dispense with your misplaced scholasticism and instead attempt to develop knowledge through your own experience. (My cite for that, since I know how much you love citation, is Wang Xiangzhai.) This would also aid you in developing an accurate heuristic with which to evaluate the taiji books you are reading. I am heartened by the fact that you have recently made comments to Mike Sigman that you would like to see video footage of people fighting or sparring with internal strength, and that you took up Hunter's challenge to test your bench press.
It seems that you are beginning to understand how to determine the truth of martial arts.

Hopefully this new development will also cause you to re-evaluate your assessment of MMA type events as unrealistic. This is is a groundless point-- you confuse broader strategies such as avoidance and de-escalation with actual fighting. True, those are part of "self defense" but that misses the larger point, which is that a practitioner can absorb those strategies in simple chalk-talk sessions. A person who trains in MMA can easily attend a seminar or class on avoidance and de-escalation, while a person who trains in a non-force on force style cannot easily learn to fight at the level of intensity and contact found in MMA. You might continue to claim that MMA type training is not useful for real combat found on "the street." However the American armed forces apparently disagree with you, since both the Marine Corps and Army Special Forces have adopted systems based on hard force on force contact. The Marine Corps has adopted a system based on koryu jujutsu, submission wrestling (taught by Ken Shamrock, no less) and jukendo, while the Army has adopted a system based on Gracie jujitsu and the Filipino weapon arts as taught by the Dog Brothers. Although I have not been there, it is my understanding that the streets of Baghdad, Iraq are tougher than any you will encounter in the USA.

If none of that convinces you, then perhaps you could carry out your own empirical experiments to determine how good you are on the street-- you could find employment as a police officer, or simply pick fights with the denizens of your local biker bar. Sparring in a competitive sports environment is probably an easier and safer bet that will still yield some useful data.

You have regularly complained about Mike's use of the concepts peng, as well as the phrase ground strength, and his inability to remember which books he read during his stint in the Corps several decades ago. Your complaints are based on the fact that ground strength is not found in any of the books you have seen. You have complained that peng is not found in certain taiji texts which you hold in high regard. All of this complaining is useless. Rather, you could resolve the situation empirically one of two ways. One way would be to attempt to follow a training protocol designed to develop peng, and periodically test your strength to see if it is developing. In this way you could determine if it was a type of bodyskill outside your current paradigm. Alternatively, you could search out a person who had the skillset, watch what they do, touch hands with them and directly experience it. This would show you the difference immediately.

You will only find knowledge about martial arts through the iterative process of testing, knowledge sharing (with other knowledgeable practitioners) and then more thinking and training, and testing again. Your reliance on empty dialectic is an epistemic error.

Conclusion
The ki/kokyu (or qi and jin) phenomena that Mike, Ron, Rob and others are discussing is very real. Mike was kind enough to meet with me to show me his training method and help me begin to understand what it is that he does. I freely admit that I have very meager skill at what Mike does, though I am working on elements of training which do involve qi and jin. I do know that there is a physical, scientific explanation, but I do not know what it is exactly. The ki/kokyu or qi/jin paradigm is simply a folkway that allowed people to train the skill without necessarily understanding the actual physiological (in the sense of cell biology, neuroscience etc) basis for what they were doing.

We are only beginning to understand how these things work in a Western scientific way. The discussions on Aikiweb and other fora are a part of this, as a community emerges that is interested in bringing the old ways out of the shadows. There is a wave of revolution sweeping through the martial arts community as we unlock the old secrets and leverage the power of the Internet and connectivity to share knowledge and develop training protocols. Many instructors and other people of stature in the martial arts community are discovering a large gap in their knowledge.

Justin, you have a very simple choice. Obviously you are an educated, intelligent individual. You can embrace empiricism and join the search for knowledge and scientific understanding of the ki/kokyu phenomena. It is very exciting to be part of an international effort to sweep aside the cobwebs of deception and cut to the truth of the matter. On the other hand, you can continue with your current thinking and be swept away by the wave when it crashes through your little section of the martial arts world. Understand that now that the knowledge is out in the open, there is no stopping the wave.

The choice is yours.

statisticool
09-09-2006, 11:58 PM
Tim's misconceptions were PMd to him as to not clutter up the thread.


Justin

Tim Fong
09-10-2006, 01:19 AM
I have not received any PM's from Justin.

Mashu
09-10-2006, 01:24 AM
I guess that means you had no misconceptions. :)

statisticool
09-10-2006, 01:44 AM
I had more important things to do right when I was going to press send.

But Tim has them now.

Tim Fong
09-10-2006, 01:49 AM
I received the PM(s). Justin, I have zero interest in responding to you any further. You were given a chance to engage intellectually, which you threw away in favor of what was frankly more of the same. You are now on my ignore list.

Mike Sigman
09-10-2006, 09:13 AM
I think Tim's points about the Asian cultural modes, which Justin was obviously totally unaware of, are the same one which I pointed out earlier, although not as well as Tim did. Douglas Wile, the Chinese historian, has pointed out the same thing in the past about some of the compliments which have been paid to Cheng.... a lot of them don't necessarily reflect the truth and no Chinese is going to take those vague complimentary remarks for anything more than what they are; westerners will put too much weight on them.

But not being aware of that and mentioning it in his arguments was one giveaway for Justin.

The other giveaway was his focus on the "ground-path" idea while carefully avoiding any acknowledgement that the basic jin is indeed mentioned in the Taiji classics, albeit in slightly different terminology. The fact that Justin simply avoids any real discussion of his own points shows that he's on some sort of "mission" (he won't discuss that, either, although there has to be some small part of his conscious mind that admits he's not really looking for "facts" with any true interest).

The "public forum" nonsense, when everyone can see who he's focused on, is a waste of typing.

I'll ask again.... why don't you tell us what you're really after, Justin? And what does it have to do with Aikido, since it's interrupted a number of fairly good threads, surely you must have some reason for forcing yourself into these conversations with your snipery?

Mike Sigman

statisticool
09-10-2006, 10:22 AM
Tim,

I disagree with your points and point out your misconceptions, in detail, and won't change my mind without evidence. I can see how this frustrates you.

If anyone would like to see my response they are free to PM me for a copy. I won't spend further time on this very boring "issue" here, and then get accused of sniping, when Tim could have PMd me to begin with.

Re:


The other giveaway was his focus on the "ground-path" idea while carefully avoiding any acknowledgement that the basic jin is indeed mentioned in the Taiji classics, albeit in slightly different terminology.


Actually that's not my focus at all. I simply point out that what one calls "slightly different", others call 'the term one favors apparently isn't used at all in those sources'.


Justin

statisticool
09-10-2006, 10:32 AM
Let's move this discussion back on track somewhat:

HL, it was easier to do arching the lower back a little, though it did not feel natural to do.

Mike Sigman
09-10-2006, 10:36 AM
Slightly different, as in the term apparently isn't used at all in those sources. You still have some questions to answer. Won't you?But Justin.... the point was already made that the "Tai Chi Classics" are not very old and that they represent Yang loyalists (and a fabricated Wang Tsung Yueh) only. Why on earth are you disingenuously holding up the "Tai Chi Classics" as being anything important? Have you ever *read* the Tai Chi Classics"????? Do you understand that they contain only the simplest remarks about Taiji, qi, and jin? They are the equivalent of "Dick and Jane" books. So when you say "peng jin" is not mentioned there (while not conceding that it's mentioned in a number of other places), you look somewhat the fool... except perhaps to another obvious beginner.

Go argue about peng and peng jin on the TCC list.... there are a number of superficial role-players like you on the list, but you'll find a number of other people who'll tell you point blank what's going on and that everything comes from peng jin. It's an uncomfortable topic on the TCC list because the "founders" of that list represent a group of people who indignantly insisted (like Peter Lim) that "peng jin" was no big deal but who were completely embarrassed to find out that they had been quite wrong. And some of them were/are "teachers".

I often wonder how someone, even of the lowest ethics, goes to a class and introduces as a new topic something that is known as the basis of the internal arts. How can someone "teach" something that they are just learning themselves? It's an interesting philosophical and ethical question. Go ask. Mention my name, while you're at it, and ask if people on the list used to insist that peng jin as a basic jin didn't exist (they were thinking "wardoff energy", not core jin, and they thought it was "equally important" with lu-jin, an-jin, etc.; missing the point entirely).

In some ways, this is becoming a part of the same discussion that is germane in Aikido, incidentally. So maybe discussing it in a Taiji context is actually a desireable thing to do.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
09-10-2006, 10:39 AM
Tim,

I disagree with your points and point out your misconceptions,Justin, how about publicly explaining Tim's "misconceptions" about Chinese culture. Odd.... he's saying exactly the same thing Douglas Wile and other experts have pointed out. Is a "misconception" something to do with someone who disagrees with you and who knows more about a subject than you do? Why this nasty "attack" mentality all the time, Justin?

Mike Sigman

statisticool
09-10-2006, 10:55 AM
The taijiquan classics are held up by many others.

One should expect people to point out that overemphasis on what they call pengjin is more of a recent thing, and in small circles, and such interpretation and overemphasis is disputed.

I'm constantly on the lookout for a book devoted to it being the basis for taijiquan, so the taijiquan community can evaluate it, but I'm always disappointed such a book doesn't exist.


Justin

Mike Sigman
09-10-2006, 11:06 AM
The taijiquan classics are held up by many others. If you're trying to point out that most people doing Taiji are clueless, that's one way of stating it, Justin. They are the "Dick and Jane" of Taiji literature. There is nothing new or deep in the so-called "Classics". Go read Douglas Wile's very polite demolishing of Wang Tsung Yueh (who "wrote"-fabricated a lot of the "classics"). Besides, from a debate standpoint "held up by many others" is about as irrelevant a support as can be offered, even in high-school debate.One should expect people to point out that overemphasis on what they call pengjin is more of a recent thing, and in small circles, and such interpretation and overemphasis is disputed. What kind of vague comment is that? "One should expect" and "is disputed" (by whom?)?????
I'm constantly on the lookout for a book devoted to it being the basis for taijiquan, so the taijiquan community can evaluate it, but I'm always disappointed such a book doesn't exist.Why don't you look in Chen Xin's book, then???? Even the Yang family considers that book a heavy-duty source for the knowledge in Taiji. But first, you should learn what "peng jin" is, Justin..... no one who has even the vaguest clues about jin would be making the silly comments you are in questioning the general statements I've made.

Again..... why this silly jihad of yours, Justin? You're obviously just looking to pick a fight and "disprove" anything I say. What's the source of contention that is so important that you'd make the entire Cheng Man Ching style an object of mockery???? And as I said, you seem to represent a common part of the CMC faction.

Mike Sigman

statisticool
09-10-2006, 11:13 AM
These comments have already been addressed.


Justin

HL1978
09-10-2006, 06:50 PM
Hunter you're probably going to have to qualify what you mean by a "straight" back. ^^;
You're referring to sticking the back to the bench press right?

Correct.

Upyu
09-10-2006, 08:30 PM
try it justin ;)

Maybe you'll want to post a vid of yourself doing it?

statisticool
09-10-2006, 10:02 PM
try it justin ;)


This was already discussed.


Justin

roninroshi
09-11-2006, 06:19 PM
Here is a link to an interesting application of a "soft/internal"style punch from the Systema fighting
method...http://www.rmaxinternational.com/mambo/images/stories/Videos/structuralstriking.wmv

Mike Sigman
09-11-2006, 06:29 PM
Here is a link to an interesting application of a "soft/internal"style punch from the Systema fighting
method...http://www.rmaxinternational.com/mambo/images/stories/Videos/structuralstriking.wmv Hi Wayne:

I sort of disagree, if you don't mind my 2 cents. In a sense the demonstrator shows that you can put your mass into a reasonably soft arm by dropping the elbow and putting the body momentum forward... although that's of course going to be part of many good punches like that, it's not necessarily "soft/internal".

BTW, try this clip of push-hands and think of it as an Aikido exercise... there's a pretty obvious relationship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7H-cWlfVA0&NR

Regards,

Mike Sigman

roninroshi
09-11-2006, 07:24 PM
Hey Mike,
Thank's for the info...I see what you mean,appreciate the head's up...
Wayne G

Mike Sigman
09-12-2006, 08:28 AM
Here's some guys doing Bagua push-hands. The little guy is apparently a Bagua practitioner more than anything else, judging by the postures and techniques that he uses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-eM1-3ew28&mode=related&search

Mike Sigman
09-13-2006, 10:49 AM
By the way, not to lose sight of the original intent of the thread... the idea of using some form of push-hands-like practice in Aikido is to increase the number of exercises overtly focusing on Kokyu/jin development. Input about basic jin/kokyu usage from Ushiro Sensei's karate, from Bagua, from Taiji, etc., should, IMO, only be thought of in terms of *potential* ideas to increase the amount of kokyu/jin (most times, a lot of Aikido texts/sects refer to it as "ki power") being done in Aikido dojo's. Nothing more. No "replacement of Aikido with things from other arts", because I think that anyone who does that is missing the point of what complete Aikido has in its own right.

Shioda Kancho makes a telling comment about how Japanese arts have so easily lost some of these basic skills:

http://www.shindokanbooks.com/samples/Aikido%20Shugyo%20Page%20Samples.pdf#search=%22%22aikido%20shugyo%22%22

Regards,

Mike Sigman

statisticool
09-13-2006, 11:20 AM
The article doesn't refer to it as "kokyu/jin", however.

But one point I'd like to ask the article writer is what is the evidence for saying that other martial arts stressed "kokyu power" in the first place? That way, one could begin to assess the truthfulness of the oft-heard claim that things are "lost".

And then if things are truly lost, we have to ask why, as a thing not present does not necessarily equate to bad. For example, another style could have evolved to be more effective without it.


Justin

Gary David
09-13-2006, 02:20 PM
Justin
The author of the extract you are referring to above is Gozo Shioda, founder of Yoshinkan Aikido, who passed away in the 1990s. You not knowing that leads me to ask your purpose in all the comments you have made in the treads here? I understand that you have issues with Mike Sigman and I get the sense that you feel that there is nothing beyond the mechanical and the refinement of the mechanical....so what is your purpose? I have not seen much in the way of substance in your comments, mostly the continual asking and re-asking of the same question or a rephrasing of the same contention that there is no internal...just the mechanical. I don't know what is beyond the continual refinement of the applicable mechanical principles, maybe it is just more levels of refinement until a point is reached that one can't explain it without experiencing it. I don't know as I have not gotten there yet. So it seems to me that unless you start adding substance to your arguments, substance based on experience and training, you are just shouting in a noisy room.......while no one can hear you I don't think anyone is listening either.

Please don't send me a PM, if you have something to say say it here
Gary

Michael Young
09-13-2006, 03:24 PM
I don't really want to get started on this, but maybe it will have some positive effect....it seems to me the best thing to do when "Justin addresses Sigman" is to just ignore the comments made by Justin. Every thread that Mike Sigman starts or participates in quickly degenerates into this business, much to the detriment of some really good topics. Justin has demonstrated time and again his comments are usually useless and are the same repetitive efforts to agitate Mike. There have been many replies to Justin's continual posting, aimed with the intent of getting him to stop, which haven't had any effect so far.
So, FWIW my advice will be to Mike: just stop replying to Justin so that we can focus on the topics at hand, and gain from your obvious valuable contributions to the site.
I have personally gained a lot to think about from Mike's comments and posts, and the generally intelligent (and often controversial) conversations they spark. I think we all have a lot to gain from the information he offers. I would prefer them to continue, and not have to be relegated to the "Open Discussions" forums every time this silliness starts.

Michael Young
09-13-2006, 03:34 PM
Going back to the Systema stuff,

I've had a little "hands on" opportunity with the Systema guys, and though I haven't felt your stuff Mike, I did view your video (great stuff BTW, I'll be PMing you some more soon with some questions)...The strikes in Systema seem "whip-like" in that they use ground force in a wavelike fashion traveling through the body's joints starting from the foot. Whereas what I saw in your video was that the arm stays straighter while the force comes from the foot (ground), to the knee, then hip, transfering and "storing" in the back, and then released through the outstretched arm. It seems like the Systema guys are doing it somewhat the same without the "storing" in the back.

Mike Sigman
09-13-2006, 04:04 PM
I was thinking about the sentences in Shioda Sensei's book:

Another important point is that kokyu power is not limited to Aikido alone. Originally, it was certainly a part of all Japanese martial arts. While it was referred to by different names, Judo, Karat or any of the various other martial arts all had ways of practising kokyu power.

It dawns on me that I'm actually adding to the problem of the "different names" because I deliberately (but with usually an explanation on any forum before I do so) split the whole "ki" thing ("kokyu" is technically just the physical manifestation of "ki", so technically "kokyu" is "ki power") into 2 parts, ki and kokyu.

As I've mentioned before, you can't really separate ki and kokyu because they are part of the same thing, however, I do it in order to try and clarify/simplify the topic. Could we switch completely to western terminology and have done with it? No, because "ki" is a name that encompasses a defined set of parameters (i.e., not everything is ki; there is indeed a logic that has to be maintained). If "ki" refers to, let's say for example, six separate phenomena that happen to work together to perform some functional whole, trying to find a single western term that already defines these phenomena's functional whole is currently impossible. So we're left talking in a very fragmented way.

Making things worse is the problem that Shioda Kancho mentions... different styles developed different idiomatic ways of describing the phenomena. And heck, since there are different levels of sophistication and skill-levels within the phenomena, it really gets confusing. On top of it all, these things are traditionally (even back to the Indian origins, apparently) kept secret because they give an edge against your opponents in battle. A wild, wild scenario.

So what do you do when the skills and how to develop them are not widely known? It becomes difficult. My advice is to go see people like Ushiro Sensei, Akuzawa Sensei (via Rob John), or Abe Sensei, or others (Inaba, Sunadomari, etc.) and ask (as Ellis Amdur recommended) and probe in order to get as much information as possible.

There are some instructors that are already doing some pretty good work on these topics (I saw a video-clip the other night of a California sensei that was pretty darned good in his approach and logic), but my personal opinion is that more data can be gathered and pooled and more focused effort (like a push-hands-like approach) can be added to various curricula. But hey, we all have opinions, don't we? ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
09-13-2006, 04:20 PM
The strikes in Systema seem "whip-like" in that they use ground force in a wavelike fashion traveling through the body's joints starting from the foot. Whereas what I saw in your video was that the arm stays straighter while the force comes from the foot (ground), to the knee, then hip, transfering and "storing" in the back, and then released through the outstretched arm. It seems like the Systema guys are doing it somewhat the same without the "storing" in the back. Well, bear in mind that those tapes are fairly old and at the time I was only concerned with people "getting" some sort of foot-in-the-door skill of just the jin; it wasn't any full exposition and I couldn't give a full exposition anyway, at my level. I was afraid to mention much about breathing skills because there are some risks to breathing practice when it's done wrong and to put things like that on a tape would increase legal exposure. Besides, in the intervening years I've learned a lot more, so I don't think of those tapes as being up-to-date.

In terms of the "whip-like" motion, I thought (I haven't seen any of those tapes for years) I ultimately showed a few examples of more whiplike usage (or at least a step in that direction).... HOWEVER, I tend to avoid the "whiplike" or "like a wave" discussions until I see what someone is talking about. I've seen a LOT of "whiplike" motions and hits that I think are fairly limited parodies of power strikes. Doing something like "Dragon-back" exercises is cool, but if you don't know how to keep the jin-path as the core along which the wave moves, it just becomes a "cool movement".

Another problem is that ideal movement goes from large to small. If you think about a rope being loosely stretched between you and a partner and you "shake a wave" toward your partner, the wave will move at a speed that is proportional to how loosely or tightly the rope is stretched. If you tighten the tension in the rope, the wave speeds up. What I'm getting at is that part of your training has to do with beginning to "tighten up" (but not in a muscular sense) the connection throughout your body. The exercises that Rob uses do that, too, BTW. Ultimately, the good/professional release of power is not with any whipping motion, but appears to be just a slight movement of the body. "Stillness in motion", as it were.

In terms of not using the back, if you don't start using the back, you never can really develop "movement from the hara" in its full sense. I remember reading Jay Gluck's "Zen Combat" many years ago and the description of how supple Tohei was, in his ability to move his middle, often has made me think that many modern Aikidoists have missed out on some very crucial training. The waist should "crawl like a snake", was the ancient saying. ;)

FWIW

Mike

statisticool
09-13-2006, 04:39 PM
Gary,


Please don't send me a PM, if you have something to say say it here
Gary

I simply responded to the contents of the article that was posted, and the commentary upon it, and will not respond to your personal comments here.. nor in a PM.

Back to the article, do you believe there is evidence for kokyu power having been in other martial arts?


Justin

statisticool
09-13-2006, 04:44 PM
Justin has demonstrated time and again his comments are usually useless and are the same repetitive efforts to agitate Mike.


Michael,

I understand what you are saying: asking for evidence genearlly agitates you and agitates the person making the claim.

However, one's response is beyond my control (and you pretend Mike's comments, which are of a more personal nature) simply don't exist), and I will still continue asking for evidence.

I'd personally hope someone making a claim would have some evidence so one can intelligently assess their claims. Sadly, I find that that isn't always the case.


Justin

Tim Fong
09-13-2006, 05:12 PM
Michael and Gary:
The simplest solution to Justin's situation is to simply add him to your ignore list. That's what a number of us have done.

Mike:
On the kokyu/ki qi/jing terminology: I have had a difficult time discussing this with people for two reasons:
1. Hippie type people who want to make it a mystical experience and substitute for hard work (instead of a result of hard work)
2. Science oriented folks who recoil from it and start insisting that "there's nothing to it but good mechanics."

I mean I think in the qi/ki paradigm when I'm playing with my own practice but perhaps we should try to find another word for it? Something that focuses people on the fact that these words exist to describe _feelings_ in the body, and are not necessarily an explanation of what his happening.

The only downside to this is that if we do that it will effectively cut off new practitioners from being able to read/understand some of the older literature (re: Buddhist/Neo-Confucian etc) or even Wang Xiangzhai's stuff. I don't know the answer here...maybe we need to have a dictionary somewhere online?

Mike Sigman
09-13-2006, 05:25 PM
On the kokyu/ki qi/jing terminology: I have had a difficult time discussing this with people for two reasons:
1. Hippie type people who want to make it a mystical experience and substitute for hard work (instead of a result of hard work)
2. Science oriented folks who recoil from it and start insisting that "there's nothing to it but good mechanics."

I mean I think in the qi/ki paradigm when I'm playing with my own practice but perhaps we should try to find another word for it? That's a good point, Tim. As I said, there is no western word that encompasses the gestalt whole of what is meant by the body attributes/skills of "ki". If I had to come up with a term that would satisfy my own personal view, perhaps "Body Ki" would work, because that separates the skills and physical attributes from the "mysterious force within all things in the Universe" stuff.

And as I mentioned in a few other posts, the "ki" skills/attributes of the human body are reasonably finite and defined, so attaching a qualifier and saying "body ki" might work and still keep the original connotations somewhat intact. Just a stab at it. ;)

Mike

Michael Young
09-13-2006, 05:39 PM
Well, bear in mind that those tapes are fairly old and at the time I was only concerned with people "getting" some sort of foot-in-the-door skill of just the jin; it wasn't any full exposition and I couldn't give a full exposition anyway, at my level. I was afraid to mention much about breathing skills because there are some risks to breathing practice when it's done wrong and to put things like that on a tape would increase legal exposure. Besides, in the intervening years I've learned a lot more, so I don't think of those tapes as being up-to-date.

In terms of the "whip-like" motion, I thought (I haven't seen any of those tapes for years) I ultimately showed a few examples of more whiplike usage (or at least a step in that direction).... HOWEVER, I tend to avoid the "whiplike" or "like a wave" discussions until I see what someone is talking about. I've seen a LOT of "whiplike" motions and hits that I think are fairly limited parodies of power strikes. Doing something like "Dragon-back" exercises is cool, but if you don't know how to keep the jin-path as the core along which the wave moves, it just becomes a "cool movement".

Another problem is that ideal movement goes from large to small. If you think about a rope being loosely stretched between you and a partner and you "shake a wave" toward your partner, the wave will move at a speed that is proportional to how loosely or tightly the rope is stretched. If you tighten the tension in the rope, the wave speeds up. What I'm getting at is that part of your training has to do with beginning to "tighten up" (but not in a muscular sense) the connection throughout your body. The exercises that Rob uses do that, too, BTW. Ultimately, the good/professional release of power is not with any whipping motion, but appears to be just a slight movement of the body. "Stillness in motion", as it were.

In terms of not using the back, if you don't start using the back, you never can really develop "movement from the hara" in its full sense. I remember reading Jay Gluck's "Zen Combat" many years ago and the description of how supple Tohei was, in his ability to move his middle, often has made me think that many modern Aikidoists have missed out on some very crucial training. The waist should "crawl like a snake", was the ancient saying. ;)

FWIW

Mike

Yes, in your video, you do show an example of a "whip-like" action out to the fingers (or perhaps "wave-like" action is a more apt description). You used a ball attached to your fingers (with a piece of velcro I think) that flew off at the end of the motion to demonstrate the power transfer.
The concept of using the back, or spine, to store and transfer power from the ground/hips is something new to me...so I really should qualify that my basis of comparison is pretty limited. I wasn't making a value judgement, just more of a general observation from the limited stuff I've scene/felt...of course my ulterior motive was to get more observations from you :)

Tim, I have already done as you suggest.

-Mike (the other Mike)

Gary David
09-13-2006, 10:48 PM
Tim
As suggested....on the list
Gary

Mike Sigman
09-14-2006, 10:18 AM
Yes, in your video, you do show an example of a "whip-like" action out to the fingers (or perhaps "wave-like" action is a more apt description). You used a ball attached to your fingers (with a piece of velcro I think) that flew off at the end of the motion to demonstrate the power transfer.
The concept of using the back, or spine, to store and transfer power from the ground/hips is something new to me...so I really should qualify that my basis of comparison is pretty limited. I wasn't making a value judgement, just more of a general observation from the limited stuff I've scene/felt...of course my ulterior motive was to get more observations from you :) Hi Mike:

Heck, it's been so long since I even thought about those tapes, I'm not sure what's in them. That's a pretty valid demonstration and it cuts to the core of the matter. There is a relaxed path to the ground and you "store" *exactly along the path* and you release *exactly along the path*.... i.e., it is like the ground-path expands like an un-telescoping radio antenna on a car. The other part is that you allow (this takes "feel" or someone to show you how) the momentum of the unstoring back-bow/torso to transfer to the hand (I could explain it, but it's too cumbersome to do it succinctly; easy to show). There's a third critical factor and a fourth critical factor that I didn't discuss in the video since it was just a "basics" video, but those too would involve showing and even then until certain parts of the body are built up, it doesn't mean much in the explanation. Not being coy, just acknowledging the limits of communication via the internet. ;)

Regards,

Mike

roninroshi
09-17-2006, 05:06 PM
Check this out...http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=f2hRJdUpJ8w

David Orange
09-18-2006, 04:48 PM
Check this out...http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=f2hRJdUpJ8w

Wayne, I can't get that thing to play. I sign in and confirm that I want to see that kind of content. The screen comes up with the title and it says "Loading" but it never does anything else. The clips in the column to the right of the screen all play--the ones I've tried--but not the 2-person Shanxi Set. I've tried on both PC and Mac. Got any idea what's the deal with that?

Thanks,

David

Mike Sigman
09-18-2006, 04:57 PM
Wayne, I can't get that thing to play. I had some problems with it a few times. I *think* it's something to do with their "violence" restrictions, but I don't know for sure. It's not really push-hands, more some 2-man drills from Xingyi doing attack and defend in turns. Not bad at all, just not anything that would add to the focus on jin/kokyu development in Aikido, IMO. YMMV.


Mike

David Orange
09-18-2006, 04:59 PM
Mike, thanks. I would like to see that clip. Those were some interesting clips you posted earlier, also.

David

roninroshi
09-18-2006, 06:42 PM
David I just got it to play...didn't have any trouble.I have a Mac as well...I sent you a PM concerning
the file...
Regard's,
Wayne

Michael Young
09-18-2006, 08:32 PM
hmmm, I too am having problems with it playing. Maybe its because I use Firefox browser instead of I.E.?

statisticool
10-04-2006, 05:09 AM
The bench press exercise was already tried, and results reported. Now what?

HL1978
10-04-2006, 02:44 PM
The bench press exercise was already tried, and results reported. Now what?


I'll take care of that soon, I was training in japan for a couple weeks and just recently got back.

statisticool
12-11-2006, 09:00 AM
Bump.

Luc X Saroufim
12-11-2006, 09:19 AM
By the way, not to lose sight of the original intent of the thread... the idea of using some form of push-hands-like practice in Aikido is to increase the number of exercises overtly focusing on Kokyu/jin development.

i understand in concept, although much easier said than done. very very cool stuff. looks like magic.

statisticool
08-19-2007, 01:39 PM
Bump for Hunter.

HL1978
08-19-2007, 05:25 PM
Bump for Hunter.

meet up with me and I'll be happy to show you :)

There is less of a chance of misinterpretation or misunderstanding in person.

statisticool
08-19-2007, 07:28 PM
meet up with me and I'll be happy to show you :)

There is less of a chance of misinterpretation or misunderstanding in person.

Yeah, but I've been to enough of these 'meet me and it will be clear' things with random people to know that the majority of them are a waste of time.

Could what you're showing be different? Maybe. But that's not a chance I'm willing to take.

I mean, you were just talking about a simple bench press things which you were able to tell me without being in person. Why you couldn't explain yourself further is beyond me.

HL1978
08-19-2007, 08:16 PM
Yeah, but I've been to enough of these 'meet me and it will be clear' things with random people to know that the majority of them are a waste of time.

Could what you're showing be different? Maybe. But that's not a chance I'm willing to take.

I mean, you were just talking about a simple bench press things which you were able to tell me without being in person. Why you couldn't explain yourself further is beyond me.

Sure I can write out an explanation if you would like, but it would be easier to show you.

The "simple" bench press isn't quite so simple.