PDA

View Full Version : Baseline skillset


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


statisticool
05-07-2007, 09:19 PM
Just don't tell me that Kwai Chang Kaine is fake.

David Orange
06-20-2007, 09:23 AM
Jun,
Why don't you just create an "Internal Mechanics" Forum?

It's not about Aikido, or Chen style, Wu Style, Long Dong Style, Silat, Karate, Hakyokuken, Taikyokuken, Akitaken,Miyagiken, etc.

The way I see it, we only have two arms, two legs, a head, so there's only so many ways you can come up with efficient movement.

Rob, you and I agree exactly on this point.

Which is why it has especially bothered me that so many people are harping that the internal mechanics "ARE" aiki. They're common to all budo, supposedly, but they "ARE" aiki. That just erases the unique nature of aiki and blurs it to the point that it can be anything.

Then there's the matter of "technique". Dan likes to say that aikido is not a system of techniques, but if "ALL" the arts are expressions of people with arms, legs and a head, what distinguishes Aikido from Chen and Wu, Karate and Sumo? It's merely the techniques.

Having just spent a good bit of time reviewing some of the later posts in Baseline Skills, I don't think anyone would say that Chen was doing aikido or anything but Chen style. And how do we know it's Chen and not Sumo? Even though they have related body mechanics, they are definitely different arts because they take different technical approaches.

So, since a lot of the discussion in the new forum WILL be about aikido and aiki in general, it might be better to call it "Internal Mechanics" or something similar.

Best wishes to all.

David

ChrisMoses
06-20-2007, 10:12 AM
Which is why it has especially bothered me that so many people are harping that the internal mechanics "ARE" aiki. They're common to all budo, supposedly, but they "ARE" aiki. That just erases the unique nature of aiki and blurs it to the point that it can be anything.



David, I find it hugely amusing that you're willing to make this distinction wrt 'internal' principles but not with toddler movements. I could just have easily written, "Which is why it has especially bothered me that so many people are harping that the root movements "ARE" aiki. They're common to all budo, supposedly, but they "ARE" aiki. That just erases the unique nature of aiki and blurs it to the point that it can be anything." ;)

MM
06-20-2007, 10:38 AM
Which is why it has especially bothered me that so many people are harping that the internal mechanics "ARE" aiki. They're common to all budo, supposedly, but they "ARE" aiki. That just erases the unique nature of aiki and blurs it to the point that it can be anything.


Hi David.

I'm going to disagree with you on a few points here. :) First, coming from the outside, looking in on "aiki", yes, it seems that your point above would be true. But, once you actually experience "aiki", it creates a difference of sorts. Something that you can't explain in words, but definitely creates a unique nature to "aiki".

And from my limited experience, there are differences in "aiki". While Dan, Mike, and Rob (in order that I met them) all felt similar, there were differences, too.

I would encourage everyone to get out there and meet them or some of the people they have listed as other Internal artists. There were quite a few.


Then there's the matter of "technique". Dan likes to say that aikido is not a system of techniques, but if "ALL" the arts are expressions of people with arms, legs and a head, what distinguishes Aikido from Chen and Wu, Karate and Sumo? It's merely the techniques.


Well, think about that a minute. :) What differentiates judo and aikido right now? When you start learning judo, what do you do? You start learning how to fall a certain way, attack a certain way, etc. If you put an aikido person and a judo person together, how do you tell them apart? By the way they move and fall. These are learned abilities, right? It isn't natural or all of us would look the same moving and falling.

So, take a look at Mifune and Shioda. Granted, not an even match up, but worth an example. When Shioda does something, his ukes respond according to their training. When Mifune does something, his ukes respond according to their training. Thus you can see more judo like falls in a judo dojo and more aikido like falls/rolls in an aikido dojo. Put the judo uke in an aikido dojo and he doesn't magically fall/roll like an aikido uke.

Now, watching Mifune on google video, you can see that he's playing a Judo game. Each time he completes a technique, it's because he waited for one to appear. You can tell that at any time, should he choose to do something else, he could.

But it isn't about the techniques being the building block of the art. In any art worth its salt, the techniques do not matter. The principles of the art matter. The techniques are merely the outward physical appearance of how the founders chose to express their principles. Some students put together a syllabus of techniques to help them learn the principles. To each art, their own.


Having just spent a good bit of time reviewing some of the later posts in Baseline Skills, I don't think anyone would say that Chen was doing aikido or anything but Chen style. And how do we know it's Chen and not Sumo? Even though they have related body mechanics, they are definitely different arts because they take different technical approaches.


Nah, technical approaches don't matter. :) Well, except for logically arranging training so that students can work on principles. Why do you think Ueshiba said, after watching KSR practice, We do it this way with aiki (paraphrasing here). It wasn't because of the technical approach (otherwise he would have copied the KSR exactly), but because of how his principle of aiki worked through the sword. Others aggregated the technical approach to better help them learn and understand the principles.

This is why I believe Ledyard sensei when he says that we should follow Ueshiba's aikido as best as we can (paraphrasing again). If we don't, it isn't Ueshiba's aikido. That doesn't mean we have to exactly follow Ueshiba, but the aiki must be there, some similar spirituality must be there, and a similar outlook on martial applications must be there.


So, since a lot of the discussion in the new forum WILL be about aikido and aiki in general, it might be better to call it "Internal Mechanics" or something similar.

Best wishes to all.

David

That's up to Jun. :)

David Orange
06-20-2007, 10:52 AM
....I thought there was nothing to be gained in this line of discussion, Chris.

What did you find gainful about it to make this post?

David, I find it hugely amusing that you're willing to make this distinction wrt 'internal' principles but not with toddler movements. I could just have easily written, "Which is why it has especially bothered me that so many people are harping that the root movements "ARE" aiki. They're common to all budo, supposedly, but they "ARE" aiki. That just erases the unique nature of aiki and blurs it to the point that it can be anything." ;)

The fact is, "No root, no aiki". Ever see any kind of tree without a root? It has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?

And again, I have always specified that toddler movements are the raw material which is "cultivated" into higher expressions of aiki.

Further, Mochizuki Sensei clearly defined aiki as "the ura of kiai". We, adults and parents, have strength and plenty of kiai. Toddlers demonstrate amazing ability to access the "ura" of our strength and I still see no reason be believe anything but that ancient jujutsuka refined their approaches by observing the startling effectiveness of toddler responses to overwhelming strength.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
06-20-2007, 01:08 PM
First, coming from the outside, looking in on "aiki", yes, it seems that your point above would be true. But, once you actually experience "aiki", it creates a difference of sorts. Something that you can't explain in words, but definitely creates a unique nature to "aiki".

I did have a few experiences of aiki in Japan, with Mochizuki Sensei and his students and he discussed its nature with me at length. So I have felt it and I've had it technically explained to me by one of the earliest masters of aikido. And I've experienced the skills of high-level karateka, judoka and tai chi/kung fu men as well. And I have always said that there are marked differences in the nature of what each of them was doing. But I've also said that the root of all those different expressions is, as Rob said, that we are human beings with four limbs and a head connected to a central torso. The real surprise is how many widely different expressions can be produced from those limitations. Still, they are unique and I would be wrong to say that Chen tai chi is the same as aikido or vice versa.

And from my limited experience, there are differences in "aiki". While Dan, Mike, and Rob (in order that I met them) all felt similar, there were differences, too.

That's why I would prefer to call what they're doing "internal mechanics" instead of aiki. Dan and Rob do have some connections to aiki through aikijujutsu--especially Rob, through Akuzawa's training in Sagawa's dojo. But there has been a lot of talk about what aikido is and what Ueshiba did and would have done and didn't do from people who never met him and who never met anyone who did meet him. I think there's room for more than a little error there.

Every master at the yoseikan had a unique approach to aikido, largely based on body size and build. And Yoshio Sugino sometimes came to the dojo, or we would go to his dojo, so, while I never directly felt his technique, I did train with many people who had trained with him. Yet among them all, I didn't find that much difference in the basic experience of the aiki of what they were doing. What I hear from the internal mechanics side sounds far more like the feeling I've gotten from Chinese artists.

I would encourage everyone to get out there and meet them or some of the people they have listed as other Internal artists. There were quite a few.

I'm still waiting to hear back from Dan.

Tokyo remains a bit out of reach. I had hoped to be there this October, for my sister-in-law's wedding, but alas, it is scheduled for Hawaii! Ironic to be disappointed in going to Hawaii, but it will be my only flight in that direction for at least another year, I'm sure.

So I'll just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, I have no argument that the internal mechanics approach can produce greatly heightened effectiveness, but that's what qigong is. Read a thirty-year-old martial arts magazine and you will get the message that body alignment is necessary for proper energy flow, which is necessary for ultimate effectiveness in application (technique). So none of this is new. In fact, Aunkai harks (or 'Arks') back to really ancient modes of action. There was a lot of noise in the signal for the first several months it was being discussed, though.

...take a look at Mifune and Shioda. Granted, not an even match up, but worth an example.

Mochizuki Sensei said that Mifune was very close to Ueshiba in his ability to throw at will and wherever he wanted the uke to go. FWIW.

But it isn't about the techniques being the building block of the art. In any art worth its salt, the techniques do not matter.

Yes and no. Mifune, Shioda, Ueshiba, Mochizuki could all do whatever was effective for them at any moment. In fact, for my own use, I don't feel limited at all by "techniques" of aikido. But you recognize each person by his face and the techniques are the "face" of any art.

The principles of the art matter. The techniques are merely the outward physical appearance of how the founders chose to express their principles. Some students put together a syllabus of techniques to help them learn the principles. To each art, their own.

Yes, but, as you say above, Shioda did not do judo-style techniques even though he had a good level of skill in judo before joining Ueshiba. Mochizuki, on the other hand, really personified what you say. He would do virtually any technique and call it aikido because of the way he got to the technique. Many of the executions of his technique were technically "judo," but he entered it from an aiki approach and so it was aikido. But if he had started from a "ju" approach, it would have been judo.

Nah, technical approaches don't matter. :) Well, except for logically arranging training so that students can work on principles.

And that's the difference. Not every technique illustrates every principle and an art that heavily emphasizes one principle (as karate emphasizes kiai, for instance) cannot effectively teach another principle (such as aiki) through those techniques. That's why the arts and the techniques are integrated organisms. Aikido uses aiki techniques and karate uses kiai techniques. Sumo uses more a mixture, but it is for a specific purpose and that purpose is not the same as aikido's or karate's. So the techniques rely on universal principles, but not every art emphasizes the same principles. Which is where the relation to tai chi comes in: it takes a very different approach and uses principles that aikido does not, so it is a mistake to try to overlay aikido with tai chi principles and think that it gives you a better understanding of aikido.

Why do you think Ueshiba said, after watching KSR practice, We do it this way with aiki (paraphrasing here). It wasn't because of the technical approach (otherwise he would have copied the KSR exactly), but because of how his principle of aiki worked through the sword.

Yes. It's because what Ueshiba was doing was different from what KSR was doing. Mochizuki, on the other hand, did learn KSR to a high level before modifying the kata to what he felt was a more realistic form. And Sugino kept the kata exactly as he learned them. They used to get together and argue extensively over that.

This is why I believe Ledyard sensei when he says that we should follow Ueshiba's aikido as best as we can (paraphrasing again). If we don't, it isn't Ueshiba's aikido. That doesn't mean we have to exactly follow Ueshiba, but the aiki must be there, some similar spirituality must be there, and a similar outlook on martial applications must be there.

I don't see the disagreement there. But as I said above, some people who never knew anyone who ever knew Ueshiba have gone on at length about Ueshiba and I think many of their points are mistaken.


(on changing the forum name to "internal mechanics")
That's up to Jun. :)

It is his prerogative.

Best to all.

David

David Orange
06-20-2007, 01:11 PM
Hi folks,

Can you please take discussions not pertaining directly to the formation of the "Non-Aikido Martial Traditions" forum outside of this thread? Thanks.

-- Jun

Sorry.

I posted my last response before I saw your request.

I will go to the Baseline Skills thread with other comments along that line.

Thanks.

David

David Orange
06-20-2007, 02:09 PM
Hmmm.....My original reply just vanished. Now I will have to put together another that carries the gist of it.

Okay...

Having read back through some of the later posts of this thread, I have enjoyed learning a lot about the Chen family and their approach to tai chi as a martial art. However, I find nothing there to support the idea that it shares much in principle with aikido.

Here is a very interesting article from the Aikido Journal site:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=640

Robert Smith trained at the aikikai hombu when Morihei Ueshiba was active there. He saw Ueshiba perform and asked to have the technique done on him but was not permitted. He also trained in judo in Japan but eventually put his main effort in tai chi.

Smith recounts an encounter with two of Koichi Tohei's students which shows that there is a real difference between "internal" aikido and tai chi:

"Another time two of (Tohei's) 3rd-dans visited with me in Bethesda. Inevitably, these likable ones wanted to know of taiji. “It’s soft,” I said.

“But,” one responded, “our aikido is also soft.” He thrust his arm at me for a test. His arm was not stiff.

But neither was it soft and I was able to use “pull down” (t’sai) of taiji successfully several times. His colleague jumped into it, and though his arm was more supple than his friends’, it still “was against” my arm, permitting me to pull him around easily.""

Since so much has been made of Tohei's having "the real stuff," it should clearly show the difference between aikido and tai chi--not merely outward technical differences, but a difference in spirit, approach and underlying principles.

Next, while many people have touted Tohei as one of the best examples of "aiki immoveability", Smith recounts an episode in which Tohei was moved:

"Oblivious of the aikido students practicing, Canada braced Tohei. Could he see the “unbendable arm”? Tohei nodded and put the arm out. Canada tried the bend with medium strength but, that unavailing, he swerved full bore taking it in an arc downward leaning Tohei over in a precarious position. Then he released the hold and announced, “So much for the unbendable arm,” and strutted like a peacock out of the dojo. Tohei went back to his students, doubtless miffed, but not showing it."

This shows that demonstrations of "immoveability" are subject to "the conditions," even for someone like Tohei. Further it shows that "failure" in such a "skill" demonstration is no indication of one's real ability in aikido.

So what are we left with?

I say that there are some universal body mechanics which will enhance anyone's life, but they are expressed differently in each of the major martial arts and practicing any of those arts extensively will condition those mechanics in different ways.

So aikido does not use the same energy in the same way as tai chi. This does not make either one superior or inferior because each has its own purpose. As much as I respect aikido, there is a certain stiffness to it as Smith describes above. But as much as I respect Chen tai chi, I doubt that even a high level practitioner would have much hope against a samurai sword, while an excellent aikido man would take the sword away from the attacker.

It is important to recognize the similarities between things, but failure to respect their differences is a failure to know them at all.

Best to all.

David

David Orange
06-20-2007, 04:30 PM
David, I find it hugely amusing that you're willing to make this distinction...

Chris, I just had a look at your Shinto Ryu website and was really surprised to see that Robby Pellet is your teacher!

I had some good times training with Robby in Japan in 1986 and later. He was always a really nice guy. In fact, I have a little clip of him training at the yoseikan, being thrown in sutemi by Murai Sensei. Since Robby is about 6'5" and Murai was about 4'10 at that time, it's pretty neat to see. And there were some children in that class, too, so the heights went from about 4' to Robby's 6'5". It's pretty funny to watch, but Murai always was very neat to see.

By the way, I looked at the gallery shots of your sword group. Do you appear in any of those shots?

Best wishes.

David

ChrisMoses
06-20-2007, 07:55 PM
Chris, I just had a look at your Shinto Ryu website and was really surprised to see that Robby Pellet is your teacher!

I had some good times training with Robby in Japan in 1986 and later. He was always a really nice guy. In fact, I have a little clip of him training at the yoseikan, being thrown in sutemi by Murai Sensei. Since Robby is about 6'5" and Murai was about 4'10 at that time, it's pretty neat to see. And there were some children in that class, too, so the heights went from about 4' to Robby's 6'5". It's pretty funny to watch, but Murai always was very neat to see.

By the way, I looked at the gallery shots of your sword group. Do you appear in any of those shots?

Best wishes.

David

Shouldn't be surprising, since we've PM'd about it in 2005 over on e-budo. ;) I've been to Japan with Robbie and it's truly amusing to watch him duck and dodge through doorways, tower over everyone in the room and yet still project a dignified humble quality. I'd love to see the video in question. He's currently a godan and official renshi of Shinto Ryu with three yondan students (not bad considering that there's all of about 12 people in the nation who belong to the ryuha). The two of us did a demo of sutemi waza on hardwood about 7 years ago at a local tameshigiri/battodo taikai. Unfortunately due to his very busy schedule, I don't get to do much open hand stuff with him. I would mention (to try and drag this back on topic a bit) that he was very impressed by Rob's workshop (both wrt to quality of material and clarity of instruction) that he did for my aikibudo group and has encouraged me to integrate what I can of it into my Shinto Ryu waza. I'm in several pix on the site, if you click on "Gallery" I'm on the main page there seated in a black gi. If you look closely you'll also find a pic of me finishing a 6 mat unspiked makiwara (they were soft, I'm not THAT good), there's also a >>shakey<< video of me doing our first two kata on my youtube site. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369_A5VjXBI) :cool:

David Orange
06-20-2007, 08:08 PM
Shouldn't be surprising, since we've PM'd about it in 2005 over on e-budo. ;)

Yes, I didn't realize he was your teacher, though. It was a real surprise to see him on that page.

I've been to Japan with Robbie and it's truly amusing to watch him duck and dodge through doorways, tower over everyone in the room and yet still project a dignified humble quality.

I know what you mean. He was always very humble. Some of the people I was with when I met him were a bit dismissive of him because he didn't have his roots in yoseikan, but he didn't let it bother him at all. He was very sincere. Last I saw him was at Rin So In, the temple of the son of Shunryu Suzuki. I think I have a picture of me and him together, possibly with Hojo-san, the temple master. Robby was his student. I can never think of Robby without good, positive feelings.

I'd love to see the video in question.

It's just a few seconds out of a precious few minutes. You won't see much footage anywhere of Kyoichi Murai. Robby probably worked with him a good bit more than I did and he was fortunate to do so. And smart.

The two of us did a demo of sutemi waza on hardwood about 7 years ago at a local tameshigiri/battodo taikai.

Yeah, I love to do sutemi waza on hardwood...preferably with spikes in it....or concrete with barbed wire...live blades....

Really, though, hardwood sutemi is pretty extreme. The mats at the yoseikan were very stiff, not at all soft, and sometimes a corner would be sticking up....but hardwood is another thing entirely.

Unfortunately due to his very busy schedule, I don't get to do much open hand stuff with him. I would mention (to try and drag this back on topic a bit) that he was very impressed by Rob's workshop (both wrt to quality of material and clarity of instruction) that he did for my aikibudo group and has encouraged me to integrate what I can of it into my Shinto Ryu waza.

Rob seems to have aged well in a fairly short time. Akuzawa must really be a ball of fire.

I'm in several pix on the site, if you click on "Gallery" I'm on the main page there seated in a black gi. If you look closely you'll also find a pic of me finishing a 6 mat unspiked makiwara (they were soft, I'm not THAT good), there's also a >>shakey<< video of me doing our first two kata on my youtube site. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369_A5VjXBI) :cool:

I'll have another look. Give Robby my regards when you see him, please.

Best wishes.

David

David Orange
06-20-2007, 08:23 PM
I would encourage everyone to get out there and meet them or some of the people they have listed as other Internal artists. There were quite a few.

Just to say, I did hear back from Dan and we're trying to find a mutually acceptable time that I can get up to visit. I thought he was in MD, but he's in MA. Big difference and changes my thinking about everything....again.

Best wishes.

David

MM
06-21-2007, 07:41 AM
Just to say, I did hear back from Dan and we're trying to find a mutually acceptable time that I can get up to visit. I thought he was in MD, but he's in MA. Big difference and changes my thinking about everything....again.

Best wishes.

David

When we stop changing our thinking, that's the time to quit martial arts alltogether. :)

If you do make it to MD, let me know. I'll try to drive over and say hi.

Mark

David Orange
06-21-2007, 08:23 AM
When we stop changing our thinking, that's the time to quit martial arts alltogether. :)

I agree. I've been thinking backward for awhile, now, and I'm considering switching to sideward thinking. That or inside-out....

If you do make it to MD, let me know. I'll try to drive over and say hi.

Sounds cool. I will let you know!

David

Budd
06-21-2007, 10:17 AM
I also hope that those of you folks (Mark M., Ron T., I'm especially hoping you'll contribute, cause I've met you and have some context for your words, but I'd welcome any other perspectives) that are now working on the fundamentals from your meetings with Dan (yes, I'm jealous -- but that includes missing meeting Mike & Rob when they were in the DC area) will be able to provide some updates -- basically, whatever you feel comfortable sharing that you start to notice/feel happening within you as you continue working the solo drills, etc.

I continue to be quite interested in this stuff and think that, while the debate seems to have somewhat settled down regarding whether these skills are out there and are integral parts to budo training -- I know I'd personally love to hear more about the progress you guys are making as you start to work this stuff. Anything from how you see your posture changing, to how you start to apply/receive forces in training or in everyday interactions.

I guess I'd say just colour me mucho curiouso (pardon the Spanglish).

Adman
06-21-2007, 11:06 AM
I know I'd personally love to hear more about the progress you guys are making as you start to work this stuff.

I'll second that.

thanks,
Adam

kironin
06-21-2007, 11:56 AM
So what are we left with?



What I am left with is being puzzled by willful misreading of the article.

in addition, one incident between a very senior Tai Chi teacher catching two junior aikido students in mistakes says really nothing about your point. It's just a case in point for how cross-training can help you learn things about your own art that you may not have understood or just been completely missed off on or are not hearing until come at from a different direction.

MM
06-21-2007, 12:01 PM
I also hope that those of you folks (Mark M., Ron T., I'm especially hoping you'll contribute, cause I've met you and have some context for your words, but I'd welcome any other perspectives) that are now working on the fundamentals from your meetings with Dan (yes, I'm jealous -- but that includes missing meeting Mike & Rob when they were in the DC area) will be able to provide some updates -- basically, whatever you feel comfortable sharing that you start to notice/feel happening within you as you continue working the solo drills, etc.

I continue to be quite interested in this stuff and think that, while the debate seems to have somewhat settled down regarding whether these skills are out there and are integral parts to budo training -- I know I'd personally love to hear more about the progress you guys are making as you start to work this stuff. Anything from how you see your posture changing, to how you start to apply/receive forces in training or in everyday interactions.

I guess I'd say just colour me mucho curiouso (pardon the Spanglish).

Hi Budd,
I remember meeting you at the Amdur seminar, which is where I first met Ron and Sorrentino. That's one seminar that I'm glad I didn't miss. Although I hated missing the Sunday session.

As for the baseline skillset development. Let me put this in some perspective. I met Dan initially for about, oh, 2 hours or so? Man, I can't even remember the timeframe (We talked quite a bit afterwards at dinner, too.) I wouldn't call that meeting a teaching environment, per se. Although I did learn a lot. I've only met with Dan one more time and that was a training environment for half a day or so. Add in the day with Mike and Rob and I really can't say that I have a lot of hands-on time.

But I can say that I have a lot of training tools. Those tools are the solo exercises (and some paired ones) and not only were they explained/taught/shown to me by Dan, Mike, and Rob, but they were also explained by some of Dan's students. (A big thanks to them for that, too! I'd definitely spend time with them if Dan wasn't there, they were that helpful. If fact, if Dan wasn't available for a seminar, I'd be overjoyed if any of his students were. If some of you that are reading this haven't gotten the clue yet, let me say outright that I was greatly impressed by the group of people that train with Dan.)

The solo exercises. They are some of the most painful, hard, exerting, uplifting, tedious, mind-crushing, elating, numbing, exasperating set of exercises that I've ever done. The lazy side of me rebels every time I think of doing them. When I'm doing them right (as right as I can tell), I'm drenched in sweat within 5-10 minutes and they aren't aerobic at all. My mind typically gives out before my body does. And yet, there are moments when doing them that there's a certain elation kind of feeling. You're sinking but rising. The ground feels like it's in other parts of your body ... or rather there is nothing between that part and the ground ... or something like that. :)

Oh, and then I work on hanmi and everything bad I said about the exercises -- double it. :) Oh, do I hate hanmi. Especially on one side. And the lower back being flat thing -- ugh.

How often do I do the exercises? No lying here, especially to myself. Not enough. Not nearly enough. The time spent? I spend anywhere between 15 minutes and 45 minutes at a time doing the solo exercises. The days? Probably 3-4 days a week.

The differences. Ugh, but what a rough thing to try to explain. I'm finding that the nikkyo and sankyo locks aren't working on me. When they do, it's because I've lost the internal structure. I have a cousin who's mostly muscle, taller, and heavier than I am. I had him get stable with his arms straight out in front, fingers upwards, palms toward me. I stood in front of him with my arms out, our palms touching. I used muscle and pushed against him. He resisted with muscle. Then, I did the push again, but with internal structure. His reply was, I had to take a step back. But all I did was take a step forward. It was as if he didn't exist, it was just me stepping forward.

I get maybe one in ten or one in twenty when I try this stuff. Sometimes one in a hundred. It isn't easy. It isn't a shortcut. But I'm finding, so far, that it is a better way of training to have/keep structure in an "aikido" fashion. You know, relax, focus on center/hara/one point, kuzushi, extend ki, etc. All those seem to be effects from working on the baseline skillset. But there are even more that come from working on the baseline skillset which I haven't gotten to. And all of that makes this a very worthwhile endeavor.

Hope that helps with the curiousity. :)

Mark

Budd
06-21-2007, 12:22 PM
Mark, thank you very much for sharing that.

David Orange
06-21-2007, 12:30 PM
What I am left with is being puzzled by willful misreading of the article.

Smith was experienced in judo, aikido and tai chi. He pointed out that the "softness" of aikido is very different from the "softness" of tai chi, with which I agree.

...one incident between a very senior Tai Chi teacher catching two junior aikido students in mistakes says really nothing about your point.

Two sandans trained by Tohei (especially back in "those days") would have been pretty advanced. Advanced enough, at any rate, that if Tohei were "teaching the real stuff" that has since been omitted (and which can be learned in a matter of several weeks--certainly within a year), if it were actually related to tai chi, there wouldn't have been such an obvious difference in the use of the arms. The point is that the energy and use of energy in tai chi and aikido are different at a very fundamental level.

It's just a case in point for how cross-training can help you learn things about your own art that you may not have understood or just been completely missed off on or are not hearing until come at from a different direction.

I understand how cross training can help since I've done both Japanese and Chinese arts over many years. And my point is that, while cross-training can help you learn things about your own art, it can also help you learn that the various arts are different in more than just their names. They are fundamentally different arts.

Best wishes.

David

DH
06-21-2007, 10:46 PM
So what are we left with?

I say that there are some universal body mechanics which will enhance anyone's life, but they are expressed differently in each of the major martial arts and practicing any of those arts extensively will condition those mechanics in different ways.

So aikido does not use the same energy in the same way as tai chi. This does not make either one superior or inferior because each has its own purpose. As much as I respect aikido, there is a certain stiffness to it as Smith describes above. But as much as I respect Chen tai chi, I doubt that even a high level practitioner would have much hope against a samurai sword, while an excellent aikido man would take the sword away from the attacker.

Best to all.

David

I read that article and came away with a completely different take on things.
That notwithstanding your main point is captured in your closing statement:

It is important to recognize the similarities between things, but failure to respect their differences is a failure to know them at all.
This presupposes that the practitioners of these two arts -Aikido and Tai chi- have a clue as to what they were supposed to be getting from their art in the first place. And secondly that you have any qualifying skills to both identify and judge what is shared and just what IS different.

Odd that of the few men who actually have skills and ability to really judge-they seem to find similarities. Perhaps, they have the knowledge to see things you cannot see, David. Perhaps they can look past yet another technique and to discern what is really going on. A couple years ago I spent an afternoon with a Chinese master of tai chi who also had trained two of Sagawa Yukioshi's students. he found and even expounded on similarities he saw with his experiences in Japan.
Yet, I've met many men like you in Aikido and DR and Tai chi who categorically state their arts are "unique" and different from all the rest. I know who I'll listen to.
So as you said "What are we left with?" Pretty much listening to men expound on their own experiences- as limited or as expansive as they may be. An example right here is your fanciful idea that aikido people can take away "samurai swords" from swordsmen. First off, calling them "samurai swords" instead of Katana sounds amateurish and weird, and second taking a Katana out of the hands of someone who knows how to use it is going to be a whole different affair then a bokken wielding Aiki-ken person. I find the idea preposterous.
Coming from a point of view like yours-that toddler movement IS aiki and its all natural explains allot about where your coming from and why you "see" the things you see. In the end, It won't change the truth that these Asian arts share in their bodywork.

Upyu
06-22-2007, 02:14 AM
So aikido does not use the same energy in the same way as tai chi. This does not make either one superior or inferior because each has its own purpose. As much as I respect aikido, there is a certain stiffness to it as Smith describes above. But as much as I respect Chen tai chi, I doubt that even a high level practitioner would have much hope against a samurai sword, while an excellent aikido man would take the sword away from the attacker.


I'd have to agree with Dan on this one David.
I doubt very many aiki guys would be taking the sword away from someone like Otake or Kuroda.
I understand what you're saying, but in the end they're both "bujutsu," and bujutsu ends begins and ends in "setsuna" or the moment.
Whether or not xxx person takes away the other guys sword, or the other guy gets rammed with the sword is a measure of how deeply one or another has refined/developed his foundation.

DH
06-22-2007, 06:33 AM
Hi Rob
Kuroda? Otake Sensei?
I'd bet my money on mid level students of various Koryu bujutsu of my choosing against Aikido Shihan. I'm not disparaging Aikido but rather the "idea" that you can take the sword away from men who train to use it. I've had this discussion with top men in the field of Japanese Bujutsu. I don't think you'll find the idea taken seriously by many of them and you will get laughed at to your face by several I know. The idea is viewed with as much credibiltiy as the Aikido folks who punch the knuckles of a knife wielders hands as a defense, or tenkan. Its generally recognized that allot will change if you give the knife- or in this case the sword- to someone who knows how to use it.

A more interesting topic is the idea of internal training and sword. Which is better; speed or power?
Speed.
But with the proper connections built-in your power goes through the roof with no dedicated muscle in the movement. Everything you train for with the hands gets applied in the extension to the weapon. Then you have the idea of body displacement in order to cut-through central pivot. But you won't get there either without training to place your center-out there- in the sword or better yet, the spear point. I don't think you can body-train and then, of a sudden, be good with weapons. The extension I just wrote about is a hard won, many year, endevour. Eminating ground and manipulating center is a powerful tool in weapons work though as misunderstood, by as many, who misunderstand internal structure in budo in general. Its simply not trained or known. I've had folks tell me I'm flexing or using dedicated power when they make contact with my weapon when I am in fact relaxed and simply eminating. One guy even pulled his strike expecting I'd overextend. When he did I just stood there looking at him. If your body is using structure any resistence to the monouchi- even a touch- will result in them feeling ground or power, while you reamin relaxed . Since there is no dedication of power to be had it leaves you being light and mobile though feeling hard to the point of cutting the weapons right out of their hands. With spear, the idea of winding and weight transfer is just as valuable in the thrust, as it is in retraction of the point. Of course none of this will get you mastering Kata or the movements of a ryu. But outside of Kata -axis control and use of the central pivot is a huge advantage in relaxed movement while maintaining balance and non dedicated power in general weapons work.

Timothy WK
06-22-2007, 08:39 AM
A more interesting topic is the idea of internal training and sword...

But with the proper connections built-in your power goes through the roof with no dedicated muscle in the movement... Since there is no dedication of power to be had it leaves you being light and mobile though feeling hard to the point of cutting the weapons right out of their hands. (emphasis added)

This topic is interesting in regard to the connection between Daito-ryu and Ono-ha Itto-ryu. It would seem that Itto-ryu, with the emphasis of overpowering your opponent (or at least, cutting through your opponent's strike), would benefit greatly from the type of internal work found in Daito-ryu.

Budd
06-22-2007, 08:54 AM
Question: There's been talk about the relaxed, coordinated structure emanating power, but Dan especially with your statement regarding speed being more important than power, I have to wonder if training the body mechanics you describe doesn't also give one a (at least perceived, possibly actual as well -- either way, I'm asking not trying to state from any point of authority) noticeable advantage in speed, purely from the standpoint of efficient movement (or not wasting movement by engaging unnecessary muscles/pathways, etc.)?

From my own experiences working out with boxers and grapplers, the better guys seem to move much faster and with greater relaxed power -- but they never give the impression that they're rushing anything, unstable or off-balanced in their movements. I'm not trying to say that this is the same thing as the "baseline skills" that are described in this thread, instead and in my own clumsy way, I'm trying to ask if the results of the training you describe don't also manifest in what I've described above?

Anyhow, I fully understand if the answer (or at least a good chunk of it) hinges on the "it has to be felt" variety. One of my goals for this year is to be able to get out more and work with those doing this "stuff". But since the discussion had sort of danced around this topic, I thought I'd ask . . .

David Orange
06-22-2007, 09:05 AM
This presupposes that the practitioners of these two arts -Aikido and Tai chi- have a clue as to what they were supposed to be getting from their art in the first place. And secondly that you have any qualifying skills to both identify and judge what is shared and just what IS different.

Well, we're looking at two old-time sandans from Koichi Tohei. That would be equivalent to sixth or seventh dan in modern American aikido. And again, they were trained by Tohei, who has been advanced as one of the ultimate expressors of "the real aikido", along with Ueshiba and Shioda. So I think we have to say that those two guys must have known at least the fundamentals.

Next, we have Smith, who was advanced enough in tai chi to be able to recognize the relative stiffness in their arms and to perform multiple pulldowns on both of them.

And while I'm not a master of either aikido or tai chi, I've seen enough of both to know that they are not fundamentally the same.

Odd that of the few men who actually have skills and ability to really judge-they seem to find similarities. Perhaps, they have the knowledge to see things you cannot see, David. Perhaps they can look past yet another technique and to discern what is really going on.

I've met many such people. And note that I didn't say the arts and even the techniques are not "similar." You can find similarities by the dozens. A long-trained martial artist of any style can usually begin to pick up elements of very "different" arts because, of course, they're based on the human body and its interaction with other human bodies that work with the same limitations. So it would be wrong to say that the arts are not similar at all, but I think it's also wrong to say that their differences are insignificant. If you and Mike Sigman, both living in the US, both with similar (generally similar) martial arts backgrounds, can both be doing similar things, yet differently, we would be wrong to say that you're both doing "the same" things. Now how much more so must we believe that the arts created in vastly different cultures, among people remote from one another, and in many cases, dire enemies, are doing 'the same things'?

A couple years ago I spent an afternoon with a Chinese master of tai chi who also had trained two of Sagawa Yukioshi's students. he found and even expounded on similarities he saw with his experiences in Japan.
Yet, I've met many men like you in Aikido and DR and Tai chi who categorically state their arts are "unique" and different from all the rest. I know who I'll listen to.

I'm not saying that "my" art is unique and different from all the rest. I'm saying that "ALL" the arts are unique and different from all the rest. Although they all use the four limbs and head attached to the trunk, each expresses something different from the others. Each takes a different approach from the others. Each emphasizes different principles and deemphasizes other principles. Ergo, each is unique.

So as you said "What are we left with?" Pretty much listening to men expound on their own experiences- as limited or as expansive as they may be.

And every one of them "unique".

An example right here is your fanciful idea that aikido people can take away "samurai swords" from swordsmen.

Ueshiba did it. I'm not of the opinion that I can do it with "anyone." I met some very serious swordsmen in Japan. I'm also acquainted with Toshishiro Obata, an expert in tameshigiri and once uchi deshi to Gozo Shioda, and I agree with him that very few people could take a sword from a professional swordsman. However, the way I got to know Obata Sensei was when I met one of his more advanced students, an Army Captain at the time (about 1985), who came to my dojo and demonstrated the fundamentals of Obata's teaching. We did discuss sword-taking methods (since he had no background in aikido). And while I wasn't silly enough to try to take his live katana from him during a serious attack, he did say that I was the only person he'd met (other than Obata Sensei) who could effectively apply the wrist-pressure-point manipulation we called "te kubi otoshi". But I'm with Obata that very few men could take a sword from a professional swordsman--including people like Obata, Kuroda, Otake, et al.

First off, calling them "samurai swords" instead of Katana sounds amateurish and weird,

Considering that I usually call them "samuree swards", it should sound relatively knowledgeable.

Actually, I think that reference was in regard to a tai chi man. The movement and technique of tai chi simply isn't designed to deal, unarmed, with the Japanese sword. If anything, it is oriented to the Chinese straight sword, with its unique usage. However, aikido's fundmental orientation is to the Japanese sword. The full range of aikido omote is the full range of the ura of kenjutsu. I know one man who I believe was fully a master of that, aside from Mochizuki. That was his top student, Kyoichi Murai, who was really a master swordsman and a master aikido man.

and second taking a Katana out of the hands of someone who knows how to use it is going to be a whole different affair then a bokken wielding Aiki-ken person. I find the idea preposterous.

It is preposterous for most people, but it was normal for Ueshiba, Shioda, Saito and Mochizuki. And it was a fascinating art for Kyoichi Murai (who, if he is still alive, God bless him, would be 91 this year, or 92, I think, so I don't know what he could do now).

Coming from a point of view like yours-that toddler movement IS aiki and its all natural explains allot about where your coming from and why you "see" the things you see. In the end, It won't change the truth that these Asian arts share in their bodywork.

You miss my point. I have never said that the Asian arts don't "share" in their bodywork. Just that they take the same fundamentals and express them differently. Just as Japan takes Chinese writing and adds its own characters, its own pronunciations, its own meanings, etc. Just as Japanese and Chinese architecture are clearly different, though similar. Just as you and Mike and Rob all do something undeniably different, though undeniably related....

And getting back to toddler movement, Lao Tzu taught that events begin as "seeds" that are so tiny as to be unnoticeable to most people, who recognize them only when they have achieved a good size. So no one recognizes an acorn as an oak tree. No one would recognize a little pencil-point-sized green thing poking out of the ground as a moso bamboo that will grow to 100 feet tall and five or six inches in diameter. Aiki is a way of confronting superior strength and even speed, to neutralize it. Children demonstrate the seeds of that in their clever and tireless evasions.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
06-22-2007, 09:18 AM
Whether or not xxx person takes away the other guys sword, or the other guy gets rammed with the sword is a measure of how deeply one or another has refined/developed his foundation.

I agree for the most part there, but the "technique" of avoiding the sword is precise. One of my favorite scenes in all the history of martial arts movies is where Bruce Lee goes into the Japanese martial arts dojo and cleans the floor with all of them. Then their master (who looks amazingly like Minoru Mochizuki) comes after Bruce with a sword.

What's hillarious is Bruce's "evasions" of the sword attacks. I think this is in "Fist of Fury." As I recall, they show the Japanese guy slashing away with the sword, but you don't really see what Bruce is doing. Then they switch to the swordsman's point of view and you see Bruce sort of twitching his head and shoulders a little bit, side-to-side, and it's so preposterous I laugh out loud every time I see it--every several years!!!

And this is not to say that "no" Chinese art or artist can deal with a Japanese sword. And DEFINITELY not to say that all aikidoists can. I've been to very few aikido dojos where I could make anything like a semi-realistic sword attack without scaring the crap out of the other people there. When I'm holding "WAY" back to make certain I don't hit them, they are quickly convinced that I'm doing my best TO hit them--that's how far off they're conditioned to having a "sword strike" made.

But while real aikido is made for the Japanese sword, tai chi is not and I think very few of even the top masters could deal with one.

However, of course, this is like discussing whether Einstein or Newton could calculate a square root faster. On the other hand, we could say that calculus is better equipped for that than is geometry, for instance.

Best wishes.

David

David Orange
06-22-2007, 09:23 AM
Hi Rob
Kuroda? Otake Sensei?
I'd bet my money on mid level students of various Koryu bujutsu of my choosing against Aikido Shihan.

But what if the aikido man were Ueshiba, Saito or Shioda?

Heck, the katana (how's that?) is so dangerous that almost anyone with a live sword should be avoided altogether.

I'm not disparaging Aikido but rather the "idea" that you can take the sword away from men who train to use it. I've had this discussion with top men in the field of Japanese Bujutsu. I don't think you'll find the idea taken seriously by many of them and you will get laughed at to your face by several I know.

And I would laugh at it for most aikido people I know. But there was a little dojo beside the Abe river in Shizuoka City....

The idea is viewed with as much credibiltiy as the Aikido folks who punch the knuckles of a knife wielders hands as a defense, or tenkan. Its generally recognized that allot will change if you give the knife- or in this case the sword- to someone who knows how to use it.

Just give a red marker to "ANYONE" and let them go at it without restraint. Very few "masters" will come away without slash marks all over them, including to their throats.

A more interesting topic is the idea of internal training and sword.

I won't argue against that.

Best wishes.

David

HL1978
06-22-2007, 10:13 AM
A more interesting topic is the idea of internal training and sword. Which is better; speed or power?
Speed.
But with the proper connections built-in your power goes through the roof with no dedicated muscle in the movement. Everything you train for with the hands gets applied in the extension to the weapon. Then you have the idea of body displacement in order to cut-through central pivot. But you won't get there either without training to place your center-out there- in the sword or better yet, the spear point. I don't think you can body-train and then, of a sudden, be good with weapons. The extension I just wrote about is a hard won, many year, endevour. Eminating ground and manipulating center is a powerful tool in weapons work though as misunderstood, by as many, who misunderstand internal structure in budo in general. Its simply not trained or known. I've had folks tell me I'm flexing or using dedicated power when they make contact with my weapon when I am in fact relaxed and simply eminating. One guy even pulled his strike expecting I'd overextend. When he did I just stood there looking at him. If your body is using structure any resistence to the monouchi- even a touch- will result in them feeling ground or power, while you reamin relaxed . Since there is no dedication of power to be had it leaves you being light and mobile though feeling hard to the point of cutting the weapons right out of their hands. With spear, the idea of winding and weight transfer is just as valuable in the thrust, as it is in retraction of the point. Of course none of this will get you mastering Kata or the movements of a ryu. But outside of Kata -axis control and use of the central pivot is a huge advantage in relaxed movement while maintaining balance and non dedicated power in general weapons work.

Hi Dan,

this is a subject I have wanted to engage in with other weapons based MA people, both Rob and I have attempted to do so, but there appears to be very little knowledge of it at all. As usual, no one seems to understand why people move the way they do, and seem to feel that cross training is inappropriate, and only doing the motions of that particualr art for 20 years will lead you don the path of developing it.

Walker
06-22-2007, 11:17 AM
This topic is interesting in regard to the connection between Daito-ryu and Ono-ha Itto-ryu. It would seem that Itto-ryu, with the emphasis of overpowering your opponent (or at least, cutting through your opponent's strike), would benefit greatly from the type of internal work found in Daito-ryu.
I would posit that it is the other way around. I'm not an Itto ryu guy, but I have talked with one who has some roots that go back to Itto and I train a version of hitotsu no tachi. What I hear Dan saying and I agree in my own limited experience is that his relaxed structure takes care of dominating the opponant -- he doesn't need to "overpower" the opponent or cut through their strike. If his structure is correct and he knows how to use it properly in whatever venue (sword or empty hand) then his opponent just doesn't have accesses to any valid line of attack. I think this is why any successful line of Daito ryu must have a weapon curriculum to effectively transmit itself. I might even go so far as to suggest that maybe the sword provides the internal structure and the dynamics for the Daito ryu stuff, but maybe that would be going too far...

Upyu
06-22-2007, 11:23 AM
Hi Rob
Kuroda? Otake Sensei?
I'd bet my money on mid level students of various Koryu bujutsu of my choosing against Aikido Shihan. I'm not disparaging Aikido but rather the "idea" that you can take the sword away from men who train to use it. I've had this discussion with top men in the field of Japanese Bujutsu. <snip>


Hehehe well you know, just had to post an example that would be easy to understand :)

And you know where I stand with the rest of your post :D

gdandscompserv
06-22-2007, 01:23 PM
An example right here is your fanciful idea that aikido people can take away "samurai swords" from swordsmen. First off, calling them "samurai swords" instead of Katana sounds amateurish and weird, and second taking a Katana out of the hands of someone who knows how to use it is going to be a whole different affair then a bokken wielding Aiki-ken person. I find the idea preposterous.
Capitalizing katana also seems a bit "amateurish and weird.";)

Jim Sorrentino
06-22-2007, 01:51 PM
The solo exercises. They are some of the most painful, hard, exerting, uplifting, tedious, mind-crushing, elating, numbing, exasperating set of exercises that I've ever done. The lazy side of me rebels every time I think of doing them. When I'm doing them right (as right as I can tell), I'm drenched in sweat within 5-10 minutes and they aren't aerobic at all. My mind typically gives out before my body does. And yet, there are moments when doing them that there's a certain elation kind of feeling. You're sinking but rising. The ground feels like it's in other parts of your body ... or rather there is nothing between that part and the ground ... or something like that. :)

Oh, and then I work on hanmi and everything bad I said about the exercises -- double it. :) Oh, do I hate hanmi. Especially on one side. And the lower back being flat thing -- ugh.Now that you've told us how the exercises feel, please tell us how they look. What are you doing? If words seem inadequate to the task, there is always digital photography and video.

Jim

gdandscompserv
06-22-2007, 01:56 PM
Now that you've told us how the exercises feel, please tell us how they look. What are you doing? If words seem inadequate to the task, there is always digital photography and video.

Jim
YES! PLEASE!

Jeremy Hulley
06-22-2007, 02:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDoLKfxPXy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrzLp0o0oGk&mode=related&search=

Aunkai stuff.......

MM
06-22-2007, 02:21 PM
Now that you've told us how the exercises feel, please tell us how they look. What are you doing? If words seem inadequate to the task, there is always digital photography and video.

Jim

Hi Jim,

How they look? Oh, man, horrible. :) Okay, maybe not horrible, but I look at Rob John's videos of him doing these exercises and I certainly don't feel like I'm as clean, crisp or fluid.

But if you want vids, ask Rob John about some of his. The exercises that he shows are what I'm doing. Shiko is one. There's another where you have your arms up over your head and then bring them down beside you (EDIT: tenchijin), the pushout exercise, body axis training (EDIT: shintai jiku), etc. But really, those are basically what I'm doing. Hunter showed me a good exercise for using a bo, but I've already forgotten how to do it. Going to have to see if I can get a refresher on that one.

But the most important part of all of that isn't the video or how they look. I saw Rob's vids before I met him. I can replicate what he's doing on the vid with not too much problem. However, I would never have been able to replicate what Dan, Mike, or Rob is doing internally from the vids. That takes hands on.

But, give me 6 months or so and maybe I can explain what's going on inside a little better. Right now, I really can't describe what I'm doing internally. I feel like I'm 10 years old, I've been given the keys to a McLaren F1, and I'm still bloody trying to get the door open. LOL!

I just have to work on it, wait, and see. You definitely get out of it what you put into it, though.

I know it isn't much in the way of info, but it's the best I can do right now.

Mark

EDIT: I noticed when I previewed this post that someone posted links to Aunkai vids. Hope they help.

ChrisMoses
06-22-2007, 02:24 PM
Now that you've told us how the exercises feel, please tell us how they look. What are you doing? If words seem inadequate to the task, there is always digital photography and video.

Jim

The internal exercises are based on how they feel, not how they look. You can look correct and be completely wrong. Probably the first thing they teach you, before you can even begin to do any woo woo, is how to propriocept. Once you know what you are feeling for, then you can approach what you see. Our group did a workshop with Andy Dale a few months back, to get his take on basic internal exercises. We built up to a section of the Chen taichi form. I've been working on the Aunkai stuff since I met Rob and Ark (last October). I have never done any taichi. So to keep things simple, Andy introduced the leg/hip work, then added one arm/hand and we just cycled that for a while. I was trying to keep the cross and all the other secret squirrel internal stuff and couldn't get it to feel right with just the right arm, so I just started pushing the cross out to the other arm, running counter tensions to try and generate a closed loop (kaeshi) so to speak. After a few rounds I found a pattern that felt about right. I looked around the room and about 1/2 of us were all doing the same thing. A few minutes later Andy introduced what to do with the other arm, and it was exactly what we had come up with (with no tai chi experience) just from feeling what needed to happen internally.

David Orange
06-22-2007, 02:45 PM
Now that you've told us how the exercises feel, please tell us how they look. What are you doing?

Jim, you might find this interesting:

http://www.aunkai.net/eng/bujyutu/kiban.html

It's part of the updated Aunkai website, giving more of the rationale and some illustrations. I thought it was informative.

And I looked at Jeremy's videos, which were also very informative.

But again, it seems that Aunkai, at least, is a form of qigong. Is there any reason it wouldn't be considered so?

And that is not a dismissal because I've found a lot of benefit from various forms of qigong in the past.

Best to all.

David

Mark Jakabcsin
06-22-2007, 02:50 PM
You also might want to check out Mike Sigman's videos that are available through Plum Flower (I think). He has a 3 dvd set available with a good deal of explaination.

MJ

DH
06-22-2007, 02:55 PM
But what if the aikido man were Ueshiba, Saito or Shioda?
Heck, the katana (how's that?) is so dangerous that almost anyone with a live sword should be avoided altogether.
And I would laugh at it for most aikido people I know. But there was a little dojo beside the Abe river in Shizuoka City....
Just give a red marker to "ANYONE" and let them go at it without restraint. Very few "masters" will come away without slash marks all over them, including to their throats.

I won't argue against that.

Best wishes.

David

Hi Dave

Your simply reciting my argument back to me then you knucklehead-whats up with that?. That's what I would have guessed your view point was in the first place..
1. The sword is a substantial weapon so is a knife and anyone versed in their use would not be having it "taken away"
2. I was talking about level to level. meaning a mid-level sword person, VS a shihan level Aikido person. You used Aikido as an example bud-not me. The sword or a knife is an equalizer. Its really no surprise to most people. I wast just-shocked to hear you state so flatly that an Aikido person could take a sword away.. Which is one of those stupid comments you hear every so often or hear they "practice." Now It appears that overall, you in fact agree with me.
We would have probably ironed this out in three sentences in person :D

David Orange
06-22-2007, 03:23 PM
Hi Dave

Your simply reciting my argument back to me then you knucklehead-whats up with that?

What I'm really saying is that arts are similar because they begin with the same basic raw material--the human body, bones, muscles and mind--but they're different because each art is designed for a different purpose. Look at something as simple as a hammer: there are ball-peens, sledges, claw hammers, framing hammers, and on and on!

And look at all the kinds of mathematics there are. Each for a different purpose.

The point being that aikido is engineered around Japanese culture, including the Japanese, curved sword with its own particular style of usage, while tai chi is oriented to the straight sword (not denying that the Chinese also use broadswords, halberds and spears, as well). But the footwork and body shifting of aikido is different from that of tai chi mainly because of aikido's attention to the Japanese sword, I believe.

1. The sword is a substantial weapon so is a knife and anyone versed in their use would not be having it "taken away"

Or "deflected" or anything else unless the defender is really exceptional.

2. I was talking about level to level. meaning a mid-level sword person, VS a shihan level Aikido person. You used Aikido as an example bud-not me.

I'd pretty much give you any raw, untrained person with a live sword vs almost anyone unarmed.

I remember a story about a sword master whose servant got into some trouble and was going to be arrested and condemned to death. The sword master supposedly convinced the authorities to let him put the servant to death, himself, which he planned to do in a sword duel because he had always wondered what it would be like to fight a totally untrained person with a sword.

It was said that when he came out of the fighting ground, the master was pale and badly shaken. He said "I will NEVER do that again!!!!"

The guy with no training also had no preconceptions or habits and so was completely unpredictable. And besides that, he was fighting desperately for his life and almost killed the master. So I don't take it lightly--the sword or the knife.

I wast just-shocked to hear you state so flatly that an Aikido person could take a sword away.

Obviously, most could not. And most training in aikido deludes them into thinking that they can.

Now It appears that overall, you in fact agree with me.
We would have probably ironed this out in three sentences in person :D

Yes. In fact, overall, I think we are saying many similar things. I don't say that I can do everything you can, but our disagreements are probably more semantic than substantial.

Best to you.

David

DH
06-22-2007, 04:29 PM
Question: There's been talk about the relaxed, coordinated structure emanating power, but Dan especially with your statement regarding speed being more important than power, I have to wonder if training the body mechanics you describe doesn't also give one a (at least perceived, possibly actual as well -- either way, I'm asking not trying to state from any point of authority) noticeable advantage in speed, purely from the standpoint of efficient movement (or not wasting movement by engaging unnecessary muscles/pathways, etc.)?

From my own experiences working out with boxers and grapplers, the better guys seem to move much faster and with greater relaxed power -- but they never give the impression that they're rushing anything, unstable or off-balanced in their movements. I'm not trying to say that this is the same thing as the "baseline skills" that are described in this thread, instead and in my own clumsy way, I'm trying to ask if the results of the training you describe don't also manifest in what I've described above?

Anyhow, I fully understand if the answer (or at least a good chunk of it) hinges on the "it has to be felt" variety. One of my goals for this year is to be able to get out more and work with those doing this "stuff". But since the discussion had sort of danced around this topic, I thought I'd ask . . .

Speed as timing/ technique has been discussed and done to death. There are many arts that can get you there in varying degrees; from the Kata based arts with years of repetition of movements on to the more freestyle based forms of grappling.

Speed as a result of good bodywork is a different topic. It starts with learning to take slack out of the body. Once this is achieved any action is more immediate. Then you learn the various ways to move with it. Many arts instill a firing mechanism of muscle-chaining, which creates a reserve of tension to use. You can see this in many of the snap/jumping motions of fighters. That isn't what we should be doing and in fact is actually slower to move from.

Slack is very interesting to watch in people as they try to move and react. It not only accounts for slowness it also bleeds energy when we move and incrementally diminishes power transfer into a target and or how we receive power. It also accounts for why true aiki rarely happens in connecting with another person. An untrained person "adds" to support himself and has little or no idea of how to control his body so that his movements move others. For the most part "Aiki" in the hands of most of us is a game of timing and displacement and has little to do with the legendary power of the same name.
Anyway, once trained, movement becomes both faster and more importantly harder to read before it happens and power transfer is more efficient. More importantly when one encounters someone with this types of trained body their actions just sort of "run through" the trained persons body. They become "connected" to him and their movements are easier to read and far easier to manipulate and control.

Power and Aiki are connected in ways most folks are unaware of. There is a reason that "power" was named about a hundred times in so many interviews with all the old aiki guys. Read the responses to that idea in all of "our" readership forums and articles over the years in Aikido journal, Aikido today, and varous other places. Heck, I still remember the comments on the old Aikido list. Now follow them right up to last year. The readers and practitioners of Modern AIkido had no clue what the old guys were even talking about when they used the term- power.
All of these things come from faster solo training. Or you can try it the twenty year "Kata" way.

Michael Douglas
06-23-2007, 04:37 AM
I did have a few experiences of aiki in Japan, with Mochizuki Sensei ...
I really enjoyed David Orange's post starting here, post 1006.
It is filled with good points, logic and interest. I find myself agreeing with loads of it but I'll not quote it again, just encourage everyone to read the whole thing.

But this ; ... I doubt that even a high level practitioner would have much hope against a samurai sword, while an excellent aikido man would take the sword away from the attacker....
I disagree. Completely.

Edit : Oops, too late. Bandwagon already gone. Sorry all.

How can you write so intelligently about the essence of various arts, the practitioners, principles and techniques,
and yet claim that an excellent (unarmed I assume) aikido man could take a real sword away from an attacker. Or is this attacker drunk/slow/moronic?

Haowen Chan
06-23-2007, 06:33 AM
You also might want to check out Mike Sigman's videos that are available through Plum Flower (I think). He has a 3 dvd set available with a good deal of explaination.

MJ

I was thinking about getting those some time back.

Is there any hope of getting some good exercises out of them without having had prior seminars with Mike Sigman? i.e. without having someone experienced in the room telling you all the moronic things you're getting wrong? Mike himself has sometimes said that you can't explain these things when you're not live and physically present.

I was also considered doing zhan zhuang without an instructor but I'm wary about getting the feelings right without anyone correcting me.

DH
06-23-2007, 07:22 AM
I found many of David's comments in post #1006 erroneous and deliberately obtuse. He went on at length discussing the essence of Aikido karate, KSR and Judo while telling the internal mechanic crowd we had no right to talk about ueshiba and what he did since we don't know anyone who trained with him. Further that what I do is more chinese. Something which I find hilarious.
In short he doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't have time for a proper reply just yet.

stan baker
06-23-2007, 10:05 AM
Dave

do you have any experience in martial arts

stan

David Orange
06-23-2007, 10:41 AM
Dave

do you have any experience in martial arts

stan

I didn't see anything in the rules of this forum stating that one must have any particular experience to post here. In fact, I have read numerous books (in part, at least, with voluminous viewing of photographs, if any) and I have seen prodigious numbers of videos.

All the stuff on my profile is there because I thought it sounded cool.

How about you?

cheers.

David

David Orange
06-23-2007, 10:57 AM
...telling the internal mechanic crowd we had no right to talk about ueshiba and what he did since we don't know anyone who trained with him. Further that what I do is more chinese....

I did know someone who knew Ueshiba (one of his earliest uchi deshi) and I know what he and his students did. And I've seen aikido all over the US. I don't dispute that tanren is fundamental to all budo, just like numbers are fundamental to all mathematics. But each budo art diverges in a different direction for different purposes--aikido being closely related to the sword, sumo being a shinto ritual of testing strength and responsiveness, judo being for spiritual/intellectual education through physical effort, KSR being the real use of the sword and other weapons (though Mochizuki Sensei believed it was less than truly realistic), etc.

I didn't say that what you do is Chinese. You'll need to quote that. I just reread it and it says something general about a lot of the internal mechanics stuff sounding more Chinese than Japanese.

Give it another good read and pick it apart and I think a lot of your protests will ease.

Best to you.

David

Jim Sorrentino
06-23-2007, 03:14 PM
To Jeremy H. and Mark M:

You seem to be implying that Dan's exercises are very similar to the Aunkai exercises. That is fine as far as it goes --- but how do they differ?

To Dan:Power and Aiki are connected in ways most folks are unaware of. {snippage} The readers and practitioners of Modern AIkido had no clue what the old guys were even talking about when they used the term- power.
All of these things come from faster solo training. Or you can try it the twenty year "Kata" way.Is it correct to assume that your last statement also means that power with a weapon is acquired faster through solo training that is not based on paired kata practice, than through a kata-based practice, such as TSKSR? If that is what you mean, have you subjected this approach to peer review --- perhaps by senior people in TSKSR? If so, what were their conclusions?

Sincerely,

Jim

DH
06-23-2007, 04:46 PM
HI Dave
I just got in from training. I'll look at it again tonight. No sense quibbling over something I either misread or you didn't clarify well.
I take you at face value and for your good word. If you tell me you didn't mean me -in your comments about the Chinese arts- then that's good enough for me. I care more about your intended meaning aynway.
As far as training with people who have trained with Ueshiba? Why yes I have-many times..With the latest meeting offerring some extremely surprising comments about this very topic for both me and others in the room. Not that it really matters. Those who already know the truth ...already know. I think most others really don't want to know anymore.

Mike Sigman
06-23-2007, 05:17 PM
Is there any hope of getting some good exercises out of them without having had prior seminars with Mike Sigman?No. That's why I quit selling them... I didn't feel like people were getting adequate results (videos made good money, though... but that wasn't why I put them out). Basically it boils down to the fact that someone has to show you and sort of chaperone you through a bit of a learning period. Books and videos just don't work *unless* you already have some idea of how to do the skills already.

Besides, those videos are over a decade old (the last set I did) and they're pretty outdated. I suggest just get one of them (#2) if someone is curious.

Best.

Mike

Jeremy Hulley
06-23-2007, 06:54 PM
To Jeremy H. and Mark M:

You seem to be implying that Dan's exercises are very similar to the Aunkai exercises. That is fine as far as it goes --- but how do they differ?

To Dan:Is it correct to assume that your last statement also means that power with a weapon is acquired faster through solo training that is not based on paired kata practice, than through a kata-based practice, such as TSKSR? If that is what you mean, have you subjected this approach to peer review --- perhaps by senior people in TSKSR? If so, what were their conclusions?

Sincerely,

Jim

Jim,
I never meant to imply that I met Dan. I hope to at some point.. My best guess from reading Dan's written stuff is that it's close but not the same.

In terms of generating power. If you know how to move with a weapon then from my limited experience, two hours with Ark in Tokyo and four with Rob here and practicing the Aunkai stuff as best as can remember. I am generating considerably more power with less effort than I was six months ago.

FWIW
Jeremy

Thomas Campbell
06-23-2007, 09:11 PM
Thanks.

Budd
06-23-2007, 10:33 PM
Thank you very much for the detailed response.

Speed as timing/ technique has been discussed and done to death. There are many arts that can get you there in varying degrees; from the Kata based arts with years of repetition of movements on to the more freestyle based forms of grappling.

The reason I started into aikido was that at a wrestling camp, one of my coaches was a former Ukranian wrestling coach, sambo champion (his adult son and daughter-in-law were at the time sambo champs in the US) who would often punctuate especially tough workouts with the phrase "Good Vork!". When I locked up with him, I felt something much different than what I understood to be strength and speed, it was an inevitability of movement based on connection where he received everything I gave and I felt like a toddler trying to fight a grown man.

It was like nothing I'd ever felt and I've been manhandled by Division I wrestlers (coached by Olympic Gold medalist Bruce Baumgartner) who had freakish muscular strength and explosiveness. This was something different. I was a teenager then and seventeen years later, I've been chasing that feeling ever since (someone suggested I go try aikido in the 90s, which I then circled back to in 2003).

Speed as a result of good bodywork is a different topic. It starts with learning to take slack out of the body. Once this is achieved any action is more immediate. Then you learn the various ways to move with it. Many arts instill a firing mechanism of muscle-chaining, which creates a reserve of tension to use. You can see this in many of the snap/jumping motions of fighters. That isn't what we should be doing and in fact is actually slower to move from.

When you take the slack out, does it also create a reserve of tension? Or is it more a state of readiness to either generate power or release it from your structure as needed? Just trying to see if I'm following what you're saying, because I definitely don't want to make any assumptions or give the impression that I'm trying to sound knowledgeable, rather hoping to see if I'm properly understanding what you're saying via this limited communication channel. If a reserve of tension is created, then I could see how an additional snap/jump motion could reduce the efficiency of movement, which is what I think you explain more of in the following. Another question would be is rather than the snap/jump motion, is a form of body release the more appropriate type of movement (to both receive external force or generate force externally), or is it something else?

Slack is very interesting to watch in people as they try to move and react. It not only accounts for slowness it also bleeds energy when we move and incrementally diminishes power transfer into a target and or how we receive power. It also accounts for why true aiki rarely happens in connecting with another person. An untrained person "adds" to support himself and has little or no idea of how to control his body so that his movements move others. For the most part "Aiki" in the hands of most of us is a game of timing and displacement and has little to do with the legendary power of the same name.
Anyway, once trained, movement becomes both faster and more importantly harder to read before it happens and power transfer is more efficient. More importantly when one encounters someone with this types of trained body their actions just sort of "run through" the trained persons body. They become "connected" to him and their movements are easier to read and far easier to manipulate and control.

Would this phenomenon of "run through" be the type of ukemi where you're 'receiving' what the other guy is doing via being "connected", rather than 'falling' as a result of it?

Power and Aiki are connected in ways most folks are unaware of.

Sort of circling back to power and speed (and their relative importance), does (at least the perception of) speed have the same connection to Aiki as power in that the connected body moves most efficiently with relaxed power? Again not trying to sound like I know any of this (probably coming off as obtuse), but I'm just trying to take advantage of the resource of being able to ask questions until I get the chance to go feel this stuff in person.

Thanks again.

David Orange
06-23-2007, 11:42 PM
...If you tell me you didn't mean me -in your comments about the Chinese arts- then that's good enough for me. I care more about your intended meaning aynway.

I understand that you have a daito-ryu and kenjutsu background, though you have talked a good bit about training with some Chinese-style masters. What I meant to say (and I think if you look back at the post you referenced, it will be clear) is that a lot of the feats and skills described in the internal mechanics discussions sound more like Chinese performances than like Japanese performances.

It is true that Ueshiba did that thing where several people would push him and not move him. Also Tohei. But I pointed out one example of where Tohei was moved. And Mochizuki sensei never once demonstrated that kind of standing against attempts to move him. It might have been his time with Mifune, but he always moved--and dropped the guy who was pushing him. And speaking of Mifune, when someone once asked him, "I'm younger, stronger and, realistically, faster than you. Why is it you always beat me?" Mifune answered, "It's simple: you take two steps, I take one."

The fact that Tohei could be moved in certain demonstrations, under certain circumstances doesn't detract from his status as an aikido master. And therefore, I just don't think that those skills are really the essence of aikido. Not to say they're immaterial. I recently met a fellow whose wife is Japanese. Her uncle is an aikido teacher in Japan and my friend was very impressed that this uncle of his wife's could sit on his butt, raise both feet in the air and let you push him by the head--but you couldn't move him. So there's a definite stream of that within aikido, but Mochizuki, who goes back to way before it was ever called aikido, didn't see fit to include it in what he was doing, whatever that means.

As far as training with people who have trained with Ueshiba? Why yes I have-many times..With the latest meeting offerring some extremely surprising comments about this very topic for both me and others in the room. Not that it really matters. Those who already know the truth ...already know. I think most others really don't want to know anymore.

I'm aware that my experience is neither the baseline nor the outer border. I know that it has limits and those limits are not necessarily permanent. I have no rank or organizational standing to defend, so I have no reason not to learn whatever is true. I hope you will expound on those comments without restraint.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
06-23-2007, 11:57 PM
Speed as a result of good bodywork is a different topic. It starts with learning to take slack out of the body. Once this is achieved any action is more immediate....Slack is very interesting to watch in people as they try to move and react. It not only accounts for slowness it also bleeds energy when we move and incrementally diminishes power transfer into a target and or how we receive power.

This is why I thought you would find Feldenkrais interesting. It's all about accurate sensing of slackness--though most people would say (it's easier to say) excess tension.

The fact is, slack is usually caused when one is using the wrong muscles to perform a function and the muscle that should be performing that function is left out altogether.

Feldenkrais excercises put the body in unusual positions, then demand a relatively simple movement that can only be done if one is using the correct muscles in the correct ways. Almost anyone will find areas where they're not using the proper muscles and so, in those unusual positions, they will find that certain simple movements are very hard to make.

After several repetitions, they invariably recognize the small error and sense how to activate that formerly "slack" muscle.

At the same time, they have to recognize that they have been unnecessarily using other muscles, resulting in unnecessary tension, which they can release as soon as they recognize it and begin using the correct muscles.

So the experience leads to awareness, which leads to release of both improper slackness and unnecessary tension.

The result is both freer movement, more spontaneous and immediate movement and a sense of more energy and less burden.

This, of course, goes back to the idea of "intent". Does someone "intend" to use the wrong muscles to perform certain acts? Does he "intend" to leave inactive the very muscles he should be using?

Of course not. And when he becomes aware of what he is actually doing, he also tends to recognize "why" he has been doing it that way, which gets into the realm of psychology and personality.

So the change is deep-reaching and, once felt, easily maintained and expanded on.

So that's why I think you would find the Feldenkrais Method both interesting and useful. It's all about intent and the use of the total body organism.

Best wishes.

David

DH
06-24-2007, 08:29 AM
.....is that a lot of the feats and skills described in the internal mechanics discussions sound more like Chinese performances than like Japanese performances.

It is true that Ueshiba did that thing where several people would push him and not move him. Also Tohei. But I pointed out one example of where Tohei was moved. And Mochizuki sensei never once demonstrated that kind of standing against attempts to move him. It might have been his time with Mifune, but he always moved--and dropped the guy who was pushing him. And speaking of Mifune, when someone once asked him, "I'm younger, stronger and, realistically, faster than you. Why is it you always beat me?" Mifune answered, "It's simple: you take two steps, I take one."

The fact that Tohei could be moved in certain demonstrations, under certain circumstances doesn't detract from his status as an aikido master.
.... So there's a definite stream of that within aikido, but Mochizuki, who goes back to way before it was ever called aikido, didn't see fit to include it in what he was doing, whatever that means.

Best to you.
David
Dave
Being immovable is -not- a goal of mine nor anyone who trains with me so I don't know who or what you're talking about. Being all but unthrowable and having the opponent feel like he was hit by a hammer is. Particularly from a clinch or mount. It's about a hard rubber or rubber coated steel cable feel I'm interested in and have attained to a degree. I'm far frome satisfied with my training though. You greatly misunderstand the use of this type of training nad reveal your level of understanding at the same time. It is ALL about practical use. If you shoot for me I don't want to go down, if you try to throw me judo or jujutsu style- I'll want to break your ribs or face, or use your throw to throw you. All that is done specifically by being very relaxed, fluid and.......mobile. What do you think I just stand there like some dolt.

Were Aiki-do -to be your goal then this type of training will make Aikido come alive. There the increased sensitivity to capture their force and manipulate it, as well as the ability to walk through while entering is greatly enhanced. We can of course add what Mark Murray and others are discovery, and what I wrote about ten years ago and was told I was full of it. That is the abiltiy to be all but unlockable and unthrowable. In the limited environment of AIkido this type of training builds what Ueshiba wrote about and suggested was attainable. An undefeatable body and an atemi that can kill. Of course he didn't meant it literally. But the power level is very high.

What you fail to realize- is that there are ways to train your body to take care of itself. Ways to make connections so that incoming forces are nuetralized giving me...more options than you, in the same space and time. When you add to that increased sensitivity. heavy hands, and increased stength, it makes a potent fighter.

These things are known David. The fact that you don't know them doesn't change a thing. Feldenkras method I am not interested in. I've had two people try to convince me of it. I tossed them and moved them all over the place (not fighting just efficient movement and they could do nothing to me. I decided I'll stick with my own research and training.

David Orange
06-24-2007, 12:17 PM
Dave
Being immovable is -not- a goal of mine nor anyone who trains with me so I don't know who or what you're talking about. Being all but unthrowable and having the opponent feel like he was hit by a hammer is. Particularly from a clinch or mount. It's about a hard rubber or rubber coated steel cable feel I'm interested in and have attained to a degree. I'm far frome satisfied with my training though. You greatly misunderstand the use of this type of training nad reveal your level of understanding at the same time. It is ALL about practical use. If you shoot for me I don't want to go down, if you try to throw me judo or jujutsu style- I'll want to break your ribs or face, or use your throw to throw you. All that is done specifically by being very relaxed, fluid and.......mobile. What do you think I just stand there like some dolt.

Well, I've always figured if you can be immoveable when a huge guy is trying to push you, you can probably do pretty much anything you want with him. I don't mistake it as your goal in practice, but it's something that Mochizuki Sensei didn't even address. As I've said in other posts, I've been surprised to find myself unmoved on occasion when bigger people tried to affect me, which is why I've also said "under the right conditions" I might be able to do some of those things. It would be rather like rain or snow or lightning. It doesn't just happen on demand, but when the conditions are right, nothing else can happen.

No, I have never thought that standing unmoved was your goal. you've made it clear that you work for application--and not application of kata or form, but in the MMA setting, which I know is "demanding" to say the least. We just never trained for immoveability at all--though it has emerged at unexpected moments as an unexpected side-effect from the technical training.

And which does bring us back to technique because when the other guy is matched in strength and speed, technique will decide. It can even decide when the opponent is somewhat stronger, faster and larger, as Mifune proved.

Were Aiki-do -to be your goal then this type of training will make Aikido come alive.

That's why I've been interested in feeling what you do.

In the limited environment of AIkido this type of training builds what Ueshiba wrote about and suggested was attainable. An undefeatable body and an atemi that can kill. Of course he didn't meant it literally. But the power level is very high.

Actually, I think he did mean literally an atemi that can kill. That's why, when the emperor invited him to demonstrate, he said that "real" aikido kills the opponent at a single blow. Since he couldn't kill his training partner, he didn't want to demonstrate before the emperor. It was okay to "show the lie" to ordinary people, but not the emperor.

And that killing atemi is behind Takeda's statement that "The art of aiki is to overcome the opponent mentally, at a glance, and win without fighting."

It's not a "hard" look, as someone suggested, but it communicates subconsciously to the potential attacker that something very, very bad will happen to him if he attacks, and he chooses not to attack.

What you fail to realize- is that there are ways to train your body to take care of itself. Ways to make connections so that incoming forces are nuetralized giving me...more options than you, in the same space and time. When you add to that increased sensitivity. heavy hands, and increased stength, it makes a potent fighter.

Well, of course that's unquestioned. The question is whether it can be done with mere practice of technique. Which puts us back to the court of "Of what level of technically trained person has your method made you the equal?" In other words, do you have "more options in the same space and time" as a judo 6th dan? 7th dan? Mifune?" Not having met you, I can only compare you in my imagination to some of the people I met in Japan.

Feldenkras method I am not interested in. I've had two people try to convince me of it. I tossed them and moved them all over the place (not fighting just efficient movement and they could do nothing to me. I decided I'll stick with my own research and training.

Well, that's your prerogative, but like Mike, I think you're confusing the purpose of Feldenkrais. It isn't to make me a better fighter than you. It's to make me better at whatever I do. It's to help you find more efficient ways to do the same thing you're doing. I haven't met anyone whose level of sensitivity or perception could not be deepened by exploring the Feldenkrais movement series.

In one of my classes, I took a student and did some Feldenkrais-based things on the right side of his body, then had him stand up. Everyone in the room was startled because his right side was a good two inches taller than his left side. It was a bizarre thing. His right eye was larger than his left and the right side of his face was more open and younger-looking than his left. There are things in Feldenkrais that no one would imagne without direct experience--and you can't experience those by trying to fight the guy who's trying to show you.

Best to you.

David

DH
06-24-2007, 12:40 PM
I'm working so I can't write just now.
Fighting is fighting, Dave. Its why I -always- seperate it out from body work. I've met a few CMA guys with decent structure, even in practical use, but we both knew I could take them apart were we to go at it. And then there are guys without internal skills per se who can, I am quite sure take me apart. It doesn't deny the validity of the training method. But in the end fighting skill is just that. The real question is how to make me a better me. Wtether fighting, hiking, lifting or moving.
Now that said Internal skills will skew that to an internal artists advantage in a huge way depending on their skil level, thats all.

Actually I NEVER said you can't learn parts of internal skill through paired training. You just keep saying I did. I keep saying its the slow way. I just said it a few posts back. The problem is everyone goes through "Man, everything scame together for me" days in the dojo, when they could be defining and working specifics to make that" coming together a regular event. Better still, that there are methods to target train the body that you don't have to maybe or maybe not "Find" one day in the dojo. It makes rising to master class a much shorter road whatever your chosen art may be.

You also keep saying Rob, Mike, and I try to say this training is something new when all three of us say just the opposite. That it's old, its known, but not openly taught when it could be. Sometimes I worry you're not reading what I saying. Case in point, I said the feldenkras guy and I were NOT...NOT...fighting!! Your retort was I would have learned something if I stiopped fighting him. To be clear he was telling me he could show me a better way to move that ewould handle guys trying force on me-this after he watched me do so. His methods failed over and over against me. So Why would I use something I can stop. Add to that another fellow I met with the same results. Now I met two Chinese teachers who had a great deal of trouble moving me but who's methods were logical and very sound. And one of thme had power (at 70) unlike any I had felt before. So, I'd just rather keep doing what I am doing and then adding things from guys who got the stuff and are willing to share. Not from guys who think they do.

David Orange
06-24-2007, 02:09 PM
I'm working so I can't write just now.

I'm on the 12th draft of my novel these days...just taking a breather...

...And then there are guys without internal skills per se who can, I am quite sure take me apart. It doesn't deny the validity of the training method.

Exactly. And vice versa. There's nothing ultimately wrong with developing by technique practice--unless the techniques are of such a narrow range that they don't cover the whole map of human potential. Mifune is a perfect example of how judo technique does cover the full range of human potential. But modern judo competition has narrowed that, effectively, for most people. They will never experience and develop the full range of potential that Mifune did because competition forces them to work on a narrow range of the technical map.

But in the end fighting skill is just that. The real question is how to make me a better me. Wtether fighting, hiking, lifting or moving.

Absolutely agreed. And the Feldenkrais Method is far broader than any of the people you've met so far. Besides which, they have presented it to you in the wrong context, which is why I encourage you to have a look at it in its own terms.

Now that said Internal skills will skew that to an internal artists advantage in a huge way depending on their skil level, thats all.

And I agree, from all that I've heard. Of course, I believed that when the only internal training methods I knew of were tai chi and baguazhang.

Actually I NEVER said you can't learn parts of internal skill through paired training. You just keep saying I did.

Where did I say that? I know I've refered to technique practice, which tends to be paired, but don't forget, yoseikan also emphasized karate (and Hiroo Mochizuki emphasizes it much more than his father did). Like Ushiro Sensei, that "technique" practice is solo....through karate kata....

I keep saying its the slow way. I just said it a few posts back.

Slow and often injurious. I wouldn't mind finding specific ways to shorten that time. On the other hand, the Feldenkrais approach to slackness and excess tension did help me quite a lot. It helped me recover from injuries, get back with the black belts and reduce the effort I needed to make better technique. It also let me view in deep detail my motivations for training and reorient my life.

You also keep saying Rob, Mike, and I try to say this training is something new when all three of us say just the opposite. That it's old, its known, but not openly taught when it could be.

Well, Rob refers to the Aun statues at the temples, clearly stating that Akuzawa's method does go way, way back. And you have indicated that you learned yours through dait ryu. Mike seems most pointedly to have learned what he has partly from Chinese sources and transferring it onto the aikido framework. And I know it's old in China. But in early discussions, Rob said that the Aunkai method was not qigong and there was a lot of unclarity about exactly what it was--including whether it was new or old.

But I don't recall saying lately that the concepts are new...

I said the feldenkras guy and I were NOT...NOT...fighting!! Your retort was I would have learned something if I stiopped fighting him. To be clear he was telling me he could show me a better way to move that ewould handle guys trying force on me-this after he watched me do so. His methods failed over and over against me. So Why would I use something I can stop.

He was showing you Feldenkrais methods in a mistaken context. That's not the way to communicate the essence of it. It's true that Feldenkrais was trained in judo by Jigoro Kano and some of his top students, that Feldenkrais founded the Judo and JuJutsu Club of Paris and that he was a major influence on judo and some aikido people in Europe, but his Feldenkrais Method is not primarily about showing you a better way to move that would handle guys trying force on you. It's like taking a microscope to your nervous system. And if you've already developed the ability to look at your own system with a microscope, you'll find that the Feldenkrais approach will be like using and electron microscope.

So, I'd just rather keep doing what I am doing and then adding things from guys who got the stuff and are willing to share. Not from guys who think they do.

Well, Feldenkrais was not so widely influential because he couldn't do things. I know I flatly rejected learning about his method when I first heard of him--using very much the same words and reasoning you use. So I can say I know where you're coming from on that. But I will also say that no one has presented it to you as it's supposed to be.

Best to you.

David

DH
06-24-2007, 03:41 PM
Naw
I read about it enough and met two folks-one who supposedly teaches it. I'm just not interested. Looks like a dead end to me. I have an open mind, but judging from what I read it pretty much isn't any direction I'm interested in. It's easy enough to read someone's description of double-weightedness (double heavy) and see how it ties in with axis work and have a conversation with some people. But ten minutes into reading Feldenkras I left. Since you seem to know so much about it and can and have used it- we'll see how much it helps -you- when we meet. The proof is in the pudding.

There's nothing ultimately wrong with developing by technique practice...
Your kidding right. It is THEE, single, one stop source, for why most guys never did. The idea of "devoloping the body" through technique over twenty years is just plain sad.
You leanr fighting through technique and experience. You don't develope your body that way. Even good MMAers know that and they do cardio and lift and point specific drills. yet here we are talking about a much harder way to develope the body and you come on board and say technqoue is enough!
Never was, never will be. did ya read my sig line?

Ron Tisdale
06-24-2007, 05:37 PM
Hey Budd! Been busy working a hell of a lot. Hope you and all over there are doing well.

Basically, what I have learned is that I have a LOT of work to do (in regard to my visit with Dan). That's about it... ;)

Best,
Ron (nothing new here, move along please...) :D

I also hope that those of you folks (Mark M., Ron T., I'm especially hoping you'll contribute, cause I've met you and have some context for your words, but I'd welcome any other perspectives) that are now working on the fundamentals from your meetings with Dan (yes, I'm jealous -- but that includes missing meeting Mike & Rob when they were in the DC area) will be able to provide some updates -- basically, whatever you feel comfortable sharing that you start to notice/feel happening within you as you continue working the solo drills, etc.

I continue to be quite interested in this stuff and think that, while the debate seems to have somewhat settled down regarding whether these skills are out there and are integral parts to budo training -- I know I'd personally love to hear more about the progress you guys are making as you start to work this stuff. Anything from how you see your posture changing, to how you start to apply/receive forces in training or in everyday interactions.

I guess I'd say just colour me mucho curiouso (pardon the Spanglish).

David Orange
06-24-2007, 06:36 PM
Since you seem to know so much about it and can and have used it- we'll see how much it helps -you- when we meet. The proof is in the pudding.

Helps me...what? Proof of...what? What do you think I have said it will do? I think you will be surprised that I don't take the same approach as other people you have met--and I'm not a certified practitioner. For me, Feldenkrais is a way to explore...on a very subtle level.

There's nothing ultimately wrong with developing by technique practice...
Your kidding right. It is THEE, single, one stop source, for why most guys never did. The idea of "devoloping the body" through technique over twenty years is just plain sad.

I'm not just talking about developing the body. That's really one thing I think Americans have gotten wrong about martial arts. In the US (maybe the West), I've seen it promoted as 1) self defense; and 2) physical fitness; and 3) spiritual development; and 4) recreation; and 5) philosophy; and 6) social network; and several other things, all at once.

I guess it was about ten years ago that I realized that the technique really should be separated from the physical fitness aspects and strength development. The truth is, martial arts cannot and should not be "all things to all people" or the essence is lost and I think that has happened with aikido.

did ya read my sig line?

Yes, I have read that. Of course, technique alone is not enough. For most people, that idea should have been washed up about green belt. On the other hand, I don't really know what kind of solo training you're doing.

Best wishes.

David

Budd
06-24-2007, 07:34 PM
Hey Budd! Been busy working a hell of a lot. Hope you and all over there are doing well.

We're chugging along, doing what we do. Keep on pushing ourselves, trying to improve, the usual drill.

Don't work too hard, though, life's too short! The wife and I are looking to possibly do a weekend in Philly in the fall, if you're available, we should hook up (maybe for training or for social fun or both).

Basically, what I have learned is that I have a LOT of work to do (in regard to my visit with Dan). That's about it... ;).

Yeah, that's one of those lessons I keep getting hammered into me as well. I'm trying to make more efforts to get out into the big bad world to train with others though - I figure part of the improvement process thing is to try to get exposed to the other stuff I don't know about that's out there.

Best,
Ron (nothing new here, move along please...) :D

DH
06-25-2007, 06:57 AM
Hey Bud
Why not "tag along" with Ron, Mark, or Murray and make a weekend or prolonged day thing of it. You'll leave with plenty of homework and then we can talk on the phone to refresh some of the exercises. My goal is to get you guys on your own and thinking in as short a time as possible.
Think of it this way.
It's free
It's fun
And it will change your Budo- maybe even how you "think" about Budo forever.

Budd
06-25-2007, 08:19 AM
All sounds good to me.

Best,

Budd

Budd
06-25-2007, 09:19 AM
Oh . . . and thanks, again!

Mike Sigman
06-26-2007, 12:22 PM
Well, that's your prerogative, but like Mike, I think you're confusing the purpose of Feldenkrais. I don't confuse the purpose of Feldenkrais at all, David. I think you do. I think Feldenkrais is an interesting take on body mechanics. I think it actually evolved from an incomplete understanding of "intent" (which Ueshiba refers to also, BTW) and therefore it missed the mark. You think it adequately meets the criteria, including intent, so I would suggest that it's *you* who are confusing the purpose of Feldenkrais. Feldenkrais wasn't used by Ueshiba, Kano, Mifune, or anyone I know of, so your theory seems to be unique to yourself.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Haowen Chan
06-26-2007, 12:31 PM
No. That's why I quit selling them... I didn't feel like people were getting adequate results (videos made good money, though... but that wasn't why I put them out). Basically it boils down to the fact that someone has to show you and sort of chaperone you through a bit of a learning period. Books and videos just don't work *unless* you already have some idea of how to do the skills already.

Besides, those videos are over a decade old (the last set I did) and they're pretty outdated. I suggest just get one of them (#2) if someone is curious.

Best.

Mike

Much thanks for the info Mike!

statisticool
06-26-2007, 02:26 PM
Feldenkrais wasn't used by Ueshiba, Kano, Mifune, ... so your theory seems to be unique to yourself.


But was "pengjin"?

David Orange
06-26-2007, 03:23 PM
I think Feldenkrais is an interesting take on body mechanics. I think it actually evolved from an incomplete understanding of "intent" (which Ueshiba refers to also, BTW) and therefore it missed the mark.

Mike, you are so funny. You never let a lack of understanding keep you from tearing something down...or trying to, anyway. What do you think "the mark" of Feldenkrais is? Maybe you're missing that (duh) so you think Feldenkrais misses. You don't even see the target of Feldenkrais, dude.

You think it adequately meets the criteria, including intent, so I would suggest that it's *you* who are confusing the purpose of Feldenkrais.

Why don't you tell me what you think the purpose is?

Feldenkrais wasn't used by Ueshiba, Kano, Mifune, or anyone I know of, so your theory seems to be unique to yourself.

Feldenkrais "GOT" a lot of his method from Kano. A lot of it is the basics of judo, broken down into much smaller components, which are then used as departure points to examine "effort" and to find excess "slack" and tension in the body as describe earlier. That is its purpose--to make the learner aware of where they're using too much or not enough muscular involvement to make their movements. How does Feldenkrais "miss the mark" on that?

It is a bit of a shame that, while Feldenkrais did get extensive instruction in judo both directly from Kano and from Kano via some of his top students, he never met Morihei Ueshiba. With a mind like his, meeting Ueshiba would undoubtedly have produced some incredible insights.

DH
06-26-2007, 05:58 PM
Oh I dunno David. Like I said 5 minutes into a conversation I know if someone is on the right track with certain things. Ten minutes into reading Feldankras I said '...Naw'

I spotted way back that you don't know this stuff and neither did a host of folks who were very vocal in oppostition. You guys sort of said -we- were full of crap.
All of -you- who now felt us,
now agree with us
and disagree with you.:D

All due respect man, I still like ya. You just aint doin- what I'm doin.

Mike Sigman
06-26-2007, 06:16 PM
Feldenkrais "GOT" a lot of his method from Kano. A lot of it is the basics of judo, broken down into much smaller components, which are then used as departure points to examine "effort" and to find excess "slack" and tension in the body as describe earlier. Feldenkrais "got" his impression of how *some* of the ki things actually work from Kano. One of the things becoming more clear through a number of sources currently is that even worse than western Aikidoists, western judokas dropped the ball on the ki aspects that were in ju jitsu and judo. I've read Feldenkrais's takes on a lot of things and frankly, I think he got some things and missed others.... but the next generation simply blew it and Moshe probably wouldn't approve of a lot of what is being called Feldenkrais nowadays. Regardless, the main point that gives away the big "miss" is the point about "intention". It didn't make it into Feldenkrais. Ergo, Feldenkrais doesn't hack it for the Asian martial arts. Which means, as I stated, that it's *you* who is confusing the purpose of Feldenkrais when you try to conflate it with martial arts, David. If you now want to pronounce Feldenkrais has some other purpose,fine.... but you're the one who introduced it as a companion to Aikido.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
06-26-2007, 06:20 PM
But was "pengjin"? Heh. "Pengjin" is used in Cheng Man Ching's own books and in every other acceptable source of Taiji commentary. You just don't know what it is, or you wouldn't have set yourself up so badly.

But I've been through this with others, like Peter Lim. First the denial that there is such a thing and then when a number of actual experts say it's in all the literature, all that's left is to say... "Oh... pengjin.... sure, but Sigman doesn't really understand it." Heh. If you don't know what pengjin is, Justin, then your teacher was a fraud if he taught you something and called it taiji. It's the basis of Taiji. And Aikido. And Xingyi. Etc. Sometimes called "neijin" or often just "jin".

Mike Sigman

Ecosamurai
06-26-2007, 06:32 PM
Hi Rob
Kuroda? Otake Sensei?
I'd bet my money on mid level students of various Koryu bujutsu of my choosing against Aikido Shihan. I'm not disparaging Aikido but rather the "idea" that you can take the sword away from men who train to use it. I've had this discussion with top men in the field of Japanese Bujutsu. I don't think you'll find the idea taken seriously by many of them and you will get laughed at to your face by several I know. The idea is viewed with as much credibiltiy as the Aikido folks who punch the knuckles of a knife wielders hands as a defense, or tenkan. Its generally recognized that allot will change if you give the knife- or in this case the sword- to someone who knows how to use it.

A more interesting topic is the idea of internal training and sword. Which is better; speed or power?
Speed.

I disagree. While I agree with your point concerning aikiken vs other JSA. I think speed is less advantageous than power IMO. I've found that internal skills help prevent people from striking you, which balance out against speed of attack. So if you want to win by attacking, speed. If you want to win by waiting for the other guy to screw up, power. Though as with all things of this nature there is a balance to be struck I think, and of course a knowledge of both sides of that particular equation is needed.

IMHO

Mike

David Orange
06-26-2007, 08:29 PM
Like I said 5 minutes into a conversation I know if someone is on the right track with certain things. Ten minutes into reading Feldankras I said '...Naw'

I like Feldenkrais' writing style, but the real Method is very much like what you do: it can't be expressed in words. You can only understand it when you feel it. Some people have approached you with some knowledge, but they obviously came in on an angle of trying to show you how to apply force, which you obviously already know. That's not how I approach it and I don't think Moshe Feldenkrais would have approached you in that way, either. You have to feel it to know what it is. And no one has shown you yet.

You just aint doin- what I'm doin.

Well, if I were, I wouldn't be looking for a way to come and see what you're doing. And I am working that out.

I'm not saying that Feldenkrais "is" what you're doing. I'm saying it's something that, if you experienced it as it should be experienced, you'd find it a pretty interesting tool to enhace what you're doing.

Earlier you said "the proof is in the pudding," (I think that was it), but again, I have to say, "Proof of what?" As to what I'd like to to with what I know of Feldenkrais' methods (not Method (c)), I'd like it to help me understand more quickly what you're doing by more accurately perceiving what you're doing and more subtly attempting to do what you show me. Along the way, I'd like to make someone in your group two inches taller on one side of his body than the other. Could be your folks are all very well organized already and that potential doesn't exist in them. But understand that I'm not saying that Feldenkrais' methods = what you're doing. I'm not.

Best to you and may we meet sooner rather than later.

David

David Orange
06-26-2007, 08:50 PM
Feldenkrais "got" his impression of how *some* of the ki things actually work from Kano.

Again with the tearing down of the things you don't understand and things of that nature. If you'd read the article, you'd know that Moshe Feldenkrais dismissed "ki" as some mysterious force and didn't even spend time on it. But some of Kano's top students endorsed his explanations of the mechanics of thought translated into movement.

even worse than western Aikidoists, western judokas dropped the ball on the ki aspects that were in ju jitsu and judo.

That's small potatoes compared to how judo dropped the ball on Kano's original intent as a method of physical/mental/moral education because of the increasing focus on competition and the necessary limiting of technical range for the average player.

I've read Feldenkrais's takes on a lot of things and frankly, I think he got some things and missed others.... but the next generation simply blew it and Moshe probably wouldn't approve of a lot of what is being called Feldenkrais nowadays.

That is assuming you really understand what Moshe wanted his Method to do. I've met some people who were really fantastic with it. It seems to have been destiny that the first practitioner I met was one of the best I've met to this day. He did a tremendous amount for me and was very subtly powerful (but not in the way you think of "power").

I've met lots of people since then who were, frankly, disappointing, compared to him, and if they had been the first practitioners I met, I probably wouldn't have pursued it further or bothered to read as deeply Moshe's his writings as I have. But I think that even they can accomplish a lot for people in the line that Moshe intended. Not everyone can be a master, but everyone can do some good.

Regardless, the main point that gives away the big "miss" is the point about "intention". It didn't make it into Feldenkrais. Ergo, Feldenkrais doesn't hack it for the Asian martial arts.

Read his article. Kano and some of his top students endorsed what he was doing and he was the first to successfully propagate judo in France. All before him had seen their efforts fizzle out. When Mochizuki taught in France after the war, it was Feldenkrais' students that he met. Of course, they weren't up to the level of someone like Mochizuki, who was uchi deshi to Kyuzo Mifune and who had really never done anything but martial arts. But since you can't lay hands on Moshe and prove him wrong, I'll rank you with him when you have a following of thousands in Europe.

Which means, as I stated, that it's *you* who is confusing the purpose of Feldenkrais when you try to conflate it with martial arts, David.

"Conflate" it? Er.....con....flate.....huh?

I've said that the Feldenkrais Method is a good aid for anyone in any mental/physical endeavor as it does get to the very heart and essence of "intention." You, for instance, should read "Higher Judo: Groundwork," where he talks about crossed motivations. He uses the word "motivation" where I think you use "intent". You seem to have a great intent to develop internal methods, but you suffer from the competing cross-motivation to elevate yourself in some very strange ways. I'm sure you're a likeable guy to people who, in whatever way, manage to start off on a good foot with you. But you cloud and muddy your internal development by having that other motivation which seems to be nearly or equally strong. So for all your attempts to advance what you're doing, you weaken it by attempting to advance yourself.

That kind of thing. You reject what could do you some good because it doesn't inherently glorify Mike Sigman.

If you now want to pronounce Feldenkrais has some other purpose,fine.... but you're the one who introduced it as a companion to Aikido.

No, I don't "now" want to pronounce that Feldenkrais has "some other purpose." You have to understand that his Method is not judo or any other martial art. Its purpose was never fighting or competition or grappling or moving people at all. On the other hand, for someone whose purpose was grappling, it could help them become more efficient and clear in that purpose and in their efforts in that field. For dancers, it helped them move more lightly and gracefully. For musicians, it helped them become more fluent in their interactions with their instruments. For actors, it helped them become more believable in their roles. It helped David Ben Gurion to be a better Prime Minister of Israel.

That improvement in the fundamental level of human living is the "purpose" of the Feldenkrais approach, as I've gleaned it from my experiences, training and reading in the subject. That it also helps aikido or any other martial art or athletic training is only to be expected.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
06-26-2007, 08:56 PM
But I've been through this with others, like Peter Lim. First the denial that there is such a thing and then when a number of actual experts say it's in all the literature, all that's left is to say... "Oh... pengjin.... sure, but Sigman doesn't really understand it." ....It's the basis of Taiji. And Aikido.

I don't think anyone's denying that pengjin exists. Even that you have developed some of it...but then you go beyond what you should and try to overlay it on Japanese martial arts....and that's where your claims fall down.

Also, the illustration of the "suit below the skin" is misguided since the fascia is not contiguous, but wraps each individual muscle of the human body separately. So it's like hundreds of little balloons stretched over the body. Call it an illustration only, but you need to develop your thinking more if you can't come up with a better way to relay it than that.

David

Upyu
06-26-2007, 09:49 PM
He uses the word "motivation" where I think you use "intent".

David,
not to put words in Mike's mouth, but I can say with 99.99% confidence that that's not what Mike meant by "intent".
The thing he's talking about is "ishiki" ("意識"), the chinese refer to it as simply "i"("意.”)

Per the pengjin thing, I've felt both sides of the fence. From accomplished CMA guys to JMAists other than Ark.
It's mostly the same stuff.
There are different ways to manipulate it, use it, train it, but it still boils back down to connection in the body and creating a certain kind of bodyskill fused together with "Ishiki."
I think to a large degree Japanese arts would get muddled in transmitting this stuff since they never really made a set vocabulary like the chinese. Things like "kokoro" and "ishiki" would be confused and sometimes referred to as the same or seperate things.
Where the chinese would define something as "Kei"/"Jin", a japanese guy might call it "Chikara," or "Aiki" or "toumei na chikara" or "bujutsu teki chikara" etc etc
Basically there never was a set term. Just one teachers' interpretation of what he could do.

In anycase I'd get out and feel both sides then come back and tell us what you think. :)

statisticool
06-27-2007, 09:28 AM
Heh. "Pengjin" is used in Cheng Man Ching's own books ..


That may be Walter, but we were talking about "Ueshiba, Kano, Mifune, ...". Is it used by any of them?


and in every other acceptable source of Taiji commentary.


Ah, there's the rub. I'm guessing your def of "acceptable" is 'one that uses 'pengjin'. I guess that books before ~1963 aren't acceptable to you then.


But I've been through this with others, like Peter Lim.


Right, but you left out the parts where he corrects misunderstandings. Here it is for you: http://www.itcca.it/peterlim/pjcf.htm


It's the basis of Taiji. And Aikido. And Xingyi. Etc.
[/quote]

Yes, we know what you believe. Again, where did Ueshiba talk about pengjin? Where did the creator of xingyi talk about it?


Sometimes called "neijin" or often just "jin".


Um, you're saying pengjin is now the same as neijin or jin? This is too much. :)

ChrisMoses
06-27-2007, 10:05 AM
I disagree. While I agree with your point concerning aikiken vs other JSA. I think speed is less advantageous than power IMO. I've found that internal skills help prevent people from striking you, which balance out against speed of attack. So if you want to win by attacking, speed. If you want to win by waiting for the other guy to screw up, power. Though as with all things of this nature there is a balance to be struck I think, and of course a knowledge of both sides of that particular equation is needed.

IMHO

Mike

Apologies for interrupting the Mosha-madness... ;)

I picked up Shou-Yu Liang and Jwing-Ming Yang's Hsing Yi Chuan: Theory and Applications (http://www.amazon.com/Hsing-Yi-Chuan-Applications-Internal/dp/0940871084/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3655896-2384905?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182955335&sr=8-1) not too long ago. The authors address this concept directly. To paraphrase: everything else being equal, speed is more important than power is more important than technique. Any one aspect of one's martial ability can make up for other areas (in other words, someone with AMAZING technique may be able to overcome someone with great speed...) but generally speaking the order is: speed > power > technique. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. If you're faster than the other guy, you will get what you know in, and he will have difficulty doing anything to you. If you have a lot of power, what you can pull off will have a great effect, you may only need one blow to finish things. And technique will only get the job done if you have enough speed to have the opportunity to use it and can generate enough power for it to be effective. A good training *system* will develop all three aspects. Different schools will go about this differently, and will have different goals. I think a lot of Japanese arts (particularly the koryu) *tend* to focus on technique over power or speed. This is OK if the system is designed correctly, in other words that the way one studies technique also serves to develop speed and power. I think many of the Chinese based internal styles *tend* to develop power as their focus. They do this with with a relatively simple technical syllabus (in terms of fighting techniques). I think that these lessons also serve to increase speed, but more through efficient movement and immediate power delivery. If you don't have to wind up at all in order to strike, your movements seem faster than they in fact are. And if a glancing blow doesn't affect your core movements much, you don't need to work as hard to avoid everything coming at you. I found it refreshing to have someone acknowledge the advantage that speed and power play in the martial arts right from the beginning. I think in the aikido world, there is a false reliance on technique and a dismissal (or even avoidance) of speed and power.

Something else I took from this book (and a few others on Chinese arts) was an underlying assumption that all martial arts boil down to the same thing. I think this is fundamentally different from the Japanese budo view, that all arts are fundamentally different. If you look at the goals for the different culture's martial traditions this makes both assertions true in their own context. The Japanese arts come from the ryuha system, trademarked strategies and movements with a strong emphasis on preserving tradition and a unique identity. The Chinese arts started with the goal of developing effective soldiers as quickly as possible, but have shifted over time to developing individuals into strong fighters (really an extension of the original intent). Most Chinese systems could be considered MMA to some extent, combining elements of internal training (bagua, hsing yi, tai chi...), chinese grappling (chi na), weapons styles and more practical striking methods.

All the usual disclaimers apply folks, I'm painting fleas with a 5" brush... :cool:

David Orange
06-27-2007, 10:05 AM
I can say with 99.99% confidence that that's not what Mike meant by "intent".
The thing he's talking about is "ishiki" ("意識"), the chinese refer to it as simply "i"("意.")

Well, of course, "motivation" isn't the same as "intent" itself, but we form intentions from motivations. We want to stop a bully, we intend to smack him. That's clear enough and I think "i"("意") does well convey that meaning of "intent."

But Feldenkrais also covers that. Whatever we "intend" to do, whatever is in our "i"("意"), we make the physical actions to carry that out. Children are very good at doing directly (is somewhat shakily) what they conceive in their minds. Most adults, though, suffer from crossed motivations, as I described above and that is where Feldenkrais works. By leading a person into unusual positions, then requesting a simple movement, like lifting the head, Feldenkrais shows one directly and unmistakably if he is not using his muscles as he should. He puts people into a position, for instance, in which one can lift his head only if he is using the correct muscles for that effort. And if he is not using the correct muscles, he won't be able to lift his head. But by numerous small changes and repeated efforts, he suddenly feels what he is doing wrong and learns to activate a muscle that he has left slack because he was using other muscles to achieve that action (which he can do in ordinary postures, but not in the unusual position).

Then the person recognizes that he has not been aware of his own intent. He has been doing something without intending to do it. And thereafter, he has the choice to do it the natural way or to do it by his habitual way. And he invariably recognizes that the natural way works better and also feels much better. So his posture changes, his way of movement changes, his way of feeling changes--all for the better, and all to a more natural state.

What I also addresse with Mike is the problems that arise with crossed motivation: we not only want to smack the bully, but we want the pretty girl to see us do it and we also want to see the look of admiration on her face when we do it....

If we have only one motivation, we have only one intent and we can express that intent very powerfully, with a clean act with full commitment, which will feel and appear very easy. I think that's the essence of xingyi.

But when we have crossed motivations, in order to satisfy them all, we have to set up a much more complex action, which will be much harder to pull off and will therefore be much less likely to succeed.

Where Feldenkrais excels is in making people aware of how many crossed motivations they carry around in life and that they carry all those crossed motivations in their muscles and postures and ways of moving. They can never really act on their true motivation when it has to compete with other motivations. Gaining awareness through movement, one chooses which motivation to follow and acts only on that motivation. Then action becomes easy and natural and far more efficient and effective.

So I think that Feldenkrais does very effectively deal with ""i"("意").

Per the pengjin thing,...It's mostly the same stuff...There are different ways to manipulate it, use it, train it, but it still boils back down to connection in the body and creating a certain kind of bodyskill fused together with "Ishiki."

Now people have been mistaking my ("意") to be that I think Feldenkrais is the same as developing those body skills, which is not exactly correct. Feldenkrais does stimulate a direct connection between yi and xing, but it is not primarily related to the kinds of power development you refer to. Still, it is such a powerful tool for finding the inner workings of the mind/body connection that it should be very useful for anyone wanting to develop those skills. It's like you're a watchmaker and Feldenkrais is a magnifying glass.

I think to a large degree Japanese arts would get muddled in transmitting this stuff since they never really made a set vocabulary like the chinese...Where the chinese would define something as "Kei"/"Jin", a japanese guy might call it "Chikara," or "Aiki" or "toumei na chikara" or "bujutsu teki chikara" etc etc...Basically there never was a set term. Just one teachers' interpretation of what he could do.

I can agree with most of that except equating "aiki" with "chikara" or "jin". But it still leaves Mike trying to put his own spin on things that don't necessarily spin that way. I'm sure what he's doing is strong, but a lot of what he's saying is wrong.

In anycase I'd get out and feel both sides then come back and tell us what you think. :)

Well, as I've said, I've felt a marked difference between the Chinese and Japanese expression of power. I don't claim to have met everyone in Japan, of course, but I did meet some heavy hitters and nothing they did felt like what I got from the most advanced Chinese stylists I've met.

I'm working on a trip to meet Dan and I do want to meet you and Ark, but Massachusetts is hard enough to swing and I just don't know when I'll be back in Japan.

So until then.

gdandscompserv
06-27-2007, 10:40 AM
I remember bucking hay as a lad. I would watch my "sempai's" throw heavy bales of hay to height's I could not fathom. I not only wanted to learn how to do this but needed to in order to avoid words of encouragement from sempai's such as, "Send a boy to do a man's job," as he would pick up the bale I couldn't handle, and toss it almost effortlessly to the top of the wagon. My first inclination was to muscle it up. Not the way to go. Makes a lad very tired by the end of the day. So I watched and trained. It wasn't long until I too could toss heavy bales of hay almost effortlessly to height's well above my head. I suppose there are an almost infinite number of methods for developing baseline skills, but in my mind it's all about training the body in a way appropriate to the task at hand. Simple as that.

Mark Jakabcsin
06-27-2007, 09:40 PM
We want to stop a bully, we intend to smack him. That's clear enough and I think "i"("意") does well convey that meaning of "intent."


Rob, Dan, and Mike,
If you do not mind throwing the forum at large a bone please elaborate on what you mean by intent, in the context of internal power. My view on intent has changed.....or perhaps expanded is a better word, in the last few years. I am curious to hear each of your thoughts if you do not mind sharing.

I highlighted the above statement by David because from my current perspective it highlights a common error or limitation in understanding intent and it's affect. Agree or disagree?

Take care,

Mark J.

DH
06-28-2007, 07:26 AM
Not that I can help you. But intent is everything. What you do with it inside the body is the difference.
The quickest way I demonstrate intent as “mind moving the body” is have someone push me and I stand there. Without me moving externally they feel weight at their feet, then they feel it cutting at their feet. then...lifting, then pressing down on them. They cannot explain what I am doing inside to cause all these changes. Next I place my hands on their stomach and without chambering or a wind-up I either cast them off or knock the wind out of them. But then I take the mystery away and have them start learning what I do. Once folks know what, is doing what, it is all rational and understandable. Doesn't mean they can do it right away though.
Ya need to find someone who is less concerned with impressing you and more concerned with helping you.
With those who are limited in their view and can ONLY think and consider ideas in "Japanese" terms. You can demonstrate it in Kokyu ho, or aiki age- where you are grabbed and they start to rise before I start to move. Or you can give them whiplash when you do. The truth is none of the power comes from, nor relies on, the muscle chaining that people do. I am moving other things.
If you want a bit of a challenge- or to frustrate yourself- you can try our wall-work. Most people have an amazing amount of slack in their bodies. Slack, by the way, is not to be confused with relaxation. It is easily revealed in wall work. One thing we do. is a training exercise where you learn to hold certain things together while you make pressure on the wall with a single hand while having the body in a relaxed and swimming fashion. You then have to switch feet and maintain that pressure on the single hand while you "add" the other hand with no noticeable change in pressure on the first hand. Then with both hands on the wall (with equal pressure) you start to move your feet and change your body angle and position. Anyone can "copy" the movement and mimic me. When I get them to start to feel it, all of a sudden they stop and realize the trouble and difficulty they are now facing.
At the end of it I say place both hands on the wall and now "pop off" without moving.
They can't.
What "pops?"
How? Intent
What they do is clearly demonstrate their slack or muscle chaining. Various parts of their bodies will peel off as they try and force the wall or they get better and sort of do a shoulder-heavy step back. Over time as you re-tool your body to identify and maintain currents or "pathways" throughout the body you build up that hard rubber/flexible cable feel. Then you find certain exercises rudimentary.
I invented that one wall exercise years ago with the help of a certain teacher to solve my dilemma with Daito ryu's model of "kuzushi on contact" and kuzushi maintained throughout movement. For the most part I found the "idea" to be B.S. outside of kata -in sustained and quick-change grappling. Kata is kata but coming home and having to "test" and train the theory on collegiate wrestlers and judoka who didn't give a rip about any japanese "aiki", and my failing continually and resorting to muscle myself forced me to look for a faster method to train my body.
Anyway there's now plenty of men and women who read here who have felt and done the above.

Now if you like, all of this begins and is trained all the time by using in/yo ho. Moving energy and focus around in your body while sitting, standing, whatever. It can be very enervating and even give you a buzz.
To make old world myths and stories come alive in the modern era consider this.
We have all heard stories of the guys who trained outside in the snow while it melted off them. Most scoffed-while others were confused. The readers here have now heard any number of folks who have written about doing some of our exercises (while standing still) and in about 5 minutes being covered in sweat, while not moving. In fact they came alive-on the inside and were moving a bone-tendon-fascial chain by....intent. So here we have modern men and women using intent to move and manipulate energy paths in their bodies, and getting real results in the 21 century.
I think the Indian/Chinese/Japanese were right after all. They just didn’t teach it openly. And Sagawa was right when he said you had to get inventive and doggedly pursue it by using your mind.

Tom H.
06-28-2007, 07:36 AM
Not that I can help you. But intent is everything. What you do with it inside the body is the difference.
Quick note: wanting or trying desperately to do something and having the proper intent manifest in your body may be two different things at first. :)

DH
06-28-2007, 07:47 AM
Why Tom...what could you possibly mean?
I thought the internet solved everything by descriptions!
"Motion in stillness /stillness in motion."
See
We read it, now we get it.:D

Mark Jakabcsin
06-28-2007, 07:56 AM
Thank you very much for the post Dan. Interesting stuff, I appreciate the time it took to write it.

Mark J.

DH
06-28-2007, 08:25 AM
No problem. Mike may have more of the correct CMA classical model. Try P.M.'ing him.

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 09:10 AM
I don't think anyone's denying that pengjin exists. Even that you have developed some of it...but then you go beyond what you should and try to overlay it on Japanese martial arts....and that's where your claims fall down.
Take something very simple in the qi/ki/jin/kokyu topic. Say, Tohei, Ueshiba, or others standing immoveably against a push. It's an Asia-wide demonstration of a basic concept. You're saying, in essence, that because Aikido uses different terms, the way they do the demo is actually different. How does that work? It doesn't. You just got shown to be wrong, using a very simple example. So logically you don't understand these things, which are part of basic Aikido. The rest follows.

Mike

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 09:13 AM
Well, of course, "motivation" isn't the same as "intent" itself, but we form intentions from motivations. We want to stop a bully, we intend to smack him. That's clear enough and I think "i"("意") does well convey that meaning of "intent."David, once again you're not making any argument, even though you think you are. Your very first words show that you don't understand these things, so any argument is obviated.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 09:19 AM
[QUOTE=Dan Harden;181990]At the end of it I say place both hands on the wall and now "pop off" without moving.
They can't.
What "pops?"
How? Intent
[QUOTE]No, instead of using normal muscular strength you use jin (don't think that completely precludes any muscle of course). The way you conjure up the jin is with your "intent". So jin/kokyu-power is initiated by intent.

The old saying goes roughly like this:
The heart (the desire to do something) triggers the mind. The mind's intent triggers the qi. The qi leads the strength/jin.

Of course, they shorten that often to read:
heart-mind; yi-qi; qi-jin.

Best.

Mike

David Orange
06-28-2007, 09:20 AM
I highlighted the above statement by David because from my current perspective it highlights a common error or limitation in understanding intent and it's affect.

Mark, having read Dan's detailed description, I have to say, intent is still "what you intend to do." Whether that is a very big thing, visible to everyone around you, or a motionless, invisible inner movement, intent is "what you want to do."

And while Feldenkrais doesn't, in itself, develop the kinds of things Dan describes, it can help one perceive on that minute inner level far more effectively than if you had not had the Feldenkrais experience--and far more effectively than if your only approach to effort is the progressively-greater kind of exertion involved in weight-lifting or other "increasing" kinds of practices.

Best wishes.

David

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 09:23 AM
Rob, Dan, and Mike,
If you do not mind throwing the forum at large a bone please elaborate on what you mean by intent, in the context of internal power. My view on intent has changed.....or perhaps expanded is a better word, in the last few years. I am curious to hear each of your thoughts if you do not mind sharing.

I highlighted the above statement by David because from my current perspective it highlights a common error or limitation in understanding intent and it's affect. Agree or disagree?

Take care,

Mark J.It's a common error, Mark. I have had some fun conversations with Asian m.a. experts about some of the way the traditional sayings are butchered by westerners trying to appear knowledgeable. The saying I remember the most (although the conversation of the moment was about double-weighting) was "if it was that simple, everyone would already do it and why would we talk about it in the old sayings? Were they that stupid in the old days? No. ".

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 09:26 AM
That may be Walter, but we were talking about "Ueshiba, Kano, Mifune, ...". Is it used by any of them?Well, good. You admit that Cheng used 'pengjin' as common term (the westerners usually mistranslated it as "ward-off energy"). Then you should know what it was. You obviously don't. Ergo, your teacher defrauded you and what you know about internal martial arts is zip. Give us the name of your teacher. In any art.

Kind Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
06-28-2007, 09:28 AM
David, once again you're not making any argument, even though you think you are. Your very first words show that you don't understand these things, so any argument is obviated.

What do you form intentions from, Mike? Do your intentions arise straight from the fascia?

David

David Orange
06-28-2007, 09:52 AM
Your very first words show that you don't understand these things...

Yet, you rephrased my words for your own argument 10 posts later!

You really are funny, Mike!

#1082 David
"… we form intentions from motivations."

#1091 Mike
"Your very first words show that you don't understand these things..."

#1092 Mike
"… (the desire to do something) triggers the mind. The mind's intent triggers the qi."

In short, the desire to do something (motivation) triggers the mind's intent...

You're saying the same thing I said, which you also said proves that I don't understand.....so.....come on, now. You can figure this out: you're saying YOU don't understand. I know the saying is, "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing...." but you're coming right down the middle contradicting yourself.

Always enterntaining, Mike. Thanks.

David

gdandscompserv
06-28-2007, 10:52 AM
If you want a bit of a challenge- or to frustrate yourself- you can try our wall-work. Most people have an amazing amount of slack in their bodies. Slack, by the way, is not to be confused with relaxation. It is easily revealed in wall work. One thing we do. is a training exercise where you learn to hold certain things together while you make pressure on the wall with a single hand while having the body in a relaxed and swimming fashion. You then have to switch feet and maintain that pressure on the single hand while you "add" the other hand with no noticeable change in pressure on the first hand. Then with both hands on the wall (with equal pressure) you start to move your feet and change your body angle and position. Anyone can "copy" the movement and mimic me. When I get them to start to feel it, all of a sudden they stop and realize the trouble and difficulty they are now facing.
At the end of it I say place both hands on the wall and now "pop off" without moving.
Thanks Dan.:)
That makes alot of sense.

Haowen Chan
06-28-2007, 10:58 AM
David: here is the difference in your position vs Mike's, in plain English and without judgement:


intent is "what you want to do."



The heart (the desire to do something) triggers the mind. The mind's intent triggers the qi. The qi leads the strength/jin.


You're referring to the first step ("heart") in Mike Sigman's quote above, not the second step: intent (yi). Actually nobody really gives a damn about why I want to do move my arm, maybe I'm reaching for a donut, who cares. The real issue is, "okay, now my brain is wanting to move my arm. HOW am I going to ACTUALLY cause my arm to move?"

Untrained way (strength/li): "contract your bicep and your arm will move"
Semi-trained way (intent/yi): "focus on a particular visualisation/state of mind that will trigger structures in your arm that are not under direct conscious control, thus make it 'move by itself' "

I call it the semi-trained way because I think once you reach a high level all that "visualisation" stuff is instantaneous so that long-winded description is not accurate.

I am not really sure about this, so please correct me if I'm off base.

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 01:17 PM
Thanks for pointing that out, Howard.

Incidentally, I see a lot of comments about "the Chinese perspective" and the implication is that the Japanese perspective is somehow different. It's not. They are the same thing, although I admit it's confusing for someone who encounters a lot of terms, choices in translation, and so on in *both* Chinese styles and Japanese styles that are all talking about the same thing.

A good example is this idea of "yi" or "intent". In O-Sensei's douka he refers to the "Divine Will". He's referring to "intent".

Best.

Mike

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 01:22 PM
At the end of it I say place both hands on the wall and now "pop off" without moving.
.Hmmmmm..... just a note that to someone unfamiliar with what you're saying, Dan, you've just said, in essence: "At the end of it I say place both hands on the wall and now "move" without moving. :D

Just to caveat your statement from my own perspective: in reality none of this is ever done "without movement". There is always some movement, even though it may be small, may be just the torso or legs moving, or etc.

Best.

Mike

ChrisMoses
06-28-2007, 02:19 PM
Incidentally, I see a lot of comments about "the Chinese perspective" and the implication is that the Japanese perspective is somehow different. It's not. They are the same thing, although I admit it's confusing for someone who encounters a lot of terms, choices in translation, and so on in *both* Chinese styles and Japanese styles that are all talking about the same thing.


Mike, I think that you're missing the point of one of my earlier posts. Namely that from the Chinese perspective these things are all fundamentally the same, but from a Japanese they are not. I'm not taking either side by stating this, but rather offering a way for people to acknowledge their inherent biases. If you were to go onto a JSA forum for instance and tell them that all of the ryuha are essentially the same, you would be *generally* disagreed with. Yes, people will acknowledge there are some similarities, but it's just a different way of thinking about budo. Some don't even like lumping the JSA into a concept like JSA because they feel they are simply too different. We all have assumptions we bring to the table, it's just helpful to realize when we're making them.

David Orange
06-28-2007, 03:31 PM
David: here is the difference in your position vs Mike's, in plain English and without judgement:

David Orange wrote:
intent is "what you want to do."

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
The heart (the desire to do something) triggers the mind. The mind's intent triggers the qi. The qi leads the strength/jin.

You're referring to the first step ("heart") in Mike Sigman's quote above, not the second step: intent (yi).

You miss my point, Howard. Intent is what you want to do. Motivation is "why" you want to do it. Where Mike refers to "the heart (the desire to do something)" that's motivation. The "intent" is then to satisfy that motivation (motivation triggers the intent--which is why criminal investigators seek a "motive" when they want to know if someone acted with criminal "intent", for instance).

Actually nobody really gives a damn about why I want to do move my arm, maybe I'm reaching for a donut, who cares.

Well, that's the issue of motivation at its core. Most people do most of what they do without really knowing "why" they do it. They can usually give a superficial reason, but if you look closely, you'll find that there are other positive reasons why the do want to do the thing as well as negative reasons why they don't really want to do that. Take the donut, for instance--even as one reaches for the donut, he's also thinking, "I really don't need to eat another one...."

That crosses motivations with his desire to lose weight. If it interferes with his action of taking the donut, and someone else gets it instead, he's really lucky. But applied to martial arts techniques, having crossed motivations interfers with intent and therefore interfers with action to a degree that could be fatal. In any case, you can only have clear intent when you have one, single clear motivation.

The real issue is, "okay, now my brain is wanting to move my arm. HOW am I going to ACTUALLY cause my arm to move?"

The Feldenkrais approach is "How am I moving my arm right now?" It requires close observation of exactly what we do in that single, small movement.

Untrained way (strength/li): "contract your bicep and your arm will move"
Semi-trained way (intent/yi): "focus on a particular visualisation/state of mind that will trigger structures in your arm that are not under direct conscious control, thus make it 'move by itself' "

I'm not sure what you're refering to there and if it relates to something I've said. In Feldenkrais, certainly, one does not "visualize" anything, but "feels" exactly what he's doing. If he's using more muscles than necessary, why is that? If he's using the wrong muscles, why is that? By placing the body in a restrictive position, then attempting the simple movement, one may find that he can't do the movement at all because he's been using the wrong muscles and failing to even activate the proper muscle. This has nothing to do with "visualizing" but with noticing how the movement should be done and the way you're actually doing it.

I call it the semi-trained way because I think once you reach a high level all that "visualisation" stuff is instantaneous so that long-winded description is not accurate.

The only reliable action is direct, based on immediate perception. Intimate interaction with the environment cannot be achieved if one is actively "visualizing" anything. That can only interfere with immediate interaction. Only direct perception, through kinesthetic sense, allows accurate interation with the environment, including one's own muscles and mind.

Hope that clarifies the point.

Thanks.

David

David Orange
06-28-2007, 03:44 PM
...from the Chinese perspective these things are all fundamentally the same, but from a Japanese they are not.

Mochizuki Sensei's perspective was that they all have a central common base, that you can master that simple centrality and all the different arts (which really are different arts) will become comprehensible and rather interchangeable.

...If you were to go onto a JSA forum for instance and tell them that all of the ryuha are essentially the same, you would be *generally* disagreed with.

I've had that problem, literally, for decades. I was saying it's basically "all the same" long before I went to Japan and I was getting "heated" (to say the least) opposition on that point. I met a guy who wore different dogi for judo, aikido and karate and would never think of wearing "cross" dogi to train in different arts. He got so mad he was just about ready to fight. That's because he didn't see things in the terms in which Mochizuki Sensei presented them. And very few people do.

...Yes, people will acknowledge there are some similarities, but it's just a different way of thinking about budo. Some don't even like lumping the JSA into a concept like JSA because they feel they are simply too different. We all have assumptions we bring to the table, it's just helpful to realize when we're making them.

Still, even with a central core (the human body, nervous system, musculature, skeleton, four limbs and a head connected via the torso), the arts are different arts and use methods which are highly refined in different directions. Simply--an art that emphasizes kiai refines that principle to such a high and sharp degree that its methods can become completely incompatible to one emphasizing ju or aiki.

And the Chinese arts are similar in that they emphasize certain principles and refine them to a highly distilled state that goes in quite a different direction from the Japanese arts--unless anyone can show me a Japanese art that uses the "silk-reeling" movement.

So, while there are commonalities, it's just as wrong to say that they many, many arts of China and Japan are "all the same" as it is to say there's no difference between them.

Best wishes.

David

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 03:56 PM
Mike, I think that you're missing the point of one of my earlier posts. Namely that from the Chinese perspective these things are all fundamentally the same, but from a Japanese they are not. I'm not taking either side by stating this, but rather offering a way for people to acknowledge their inherent biases. If you were to go onto a JSA forum for instance and tell them that all of the ryuha are essentially the same, you would be *generally* disagreed with. Yes, people will acknowledge there are some similarities, but it's just a different way of thinking about budo. Some don't even like lumping the JSA into a concept like JSA because they feel they are simply too different. We all have assumptions we bring to the table, it's just helpful to realize when we're making them.Well, that's not what I mean, Chris. If you meet someone with good skills in ki, qi, jin, kokyu, whatever in any of the Asian arts, it's the same thing. That's what I mean.

When you talk about going to a JSA forum and having an agreement on terminology, no, it won't happen. It doesn't happen on this Aikido forum, either. In fact, there is great outrage and argument about very simple assertions. Is that because of some real intrinsic difference between the "Japanese martial-arts approach" and the "Chinese martial-arts approach"? No. There is no real difference. The problem is general unfamiliarity (for whatever reasons) with basic terms and what the skills are.... not because there is any difference between Chinese and Japanese.

A more interesting discussion would be to take any "internal" skill from a Chinese or Japanese martial art (and trust me, all of them have slightly different approaches to terminology, but the giveaway is the work "ki" or "qi") and have someone try to argue that "there... see that skill XYZ? That's not part of the traditional qi or jin skills". I'd be happy to take that bet anytime. And not because I'm an expert.... simply because most of these things we're discussing are actually pretty low, basic-level stuff. ;)

YMMV

Mike

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 04:09 PM
And the Chinese arts are similar in that they emphasize certain principles and refine them to a highly distilled state that goes in quite a different direction from the Japanese arts--unless anyone can show me a Japanese art that uses the "silk-reeling" movement.There are a LOT of permutations to the basic skills. "Silk reeling" (chan ssu jin) is just one of ways of manipulating the qi. There are linear ways (chou ssu jin). But the basic principles are the same.

In the ancient days of the Tang Dynasty and thereabouts, these skills were more widely known and used by many arts. Martial arts were king. "Reeling Silk", part of what is known as six-harmonies movement, was commonplace in many arts. The "Liu He" (six-harmonies) addendum to the name of many arts was common. Some of the current descendents of these ancient arts no actually use six-harmonies, even though it's still in the name of the art. Martial arts have declined. They have also declined markedly, as I'm sure you'd agree, in Japan. I wouldn't bet any money at all that NO Japanese martial art ever used "silk reeling", David. Research will most likely turn up some damned Koryu that actually has some in it. ;)

There is no substantive difference between the principles of qi/ki and jin/kokyu-power in Chinese and Japanese martial arts. And Takeda Sokaku be hanged. He got his knowledge of ki/kokyu-power from somewhere in Japan and it looks to me now like that stuff is far more widespread among the good-ole-boys of the high levels of Japanese martial arts than we've realized for some time. It's just that it's not freely shown to people. Not even some gaijin who spent 15-years in Japan. ;)

Someday I'll have to start listing the horror stories I know about people who spent years with name teachers in name schools and who were never shown this stuff. And I can match that with a *few* people who were shown good stuff. I know of a couple of westerners who were shown some really good stuff.

FWIW

Mike

Mark Jakabcsin
06-28-2007, 04:15 PM
Mark, having read Dan's detailed description, I have to say, intent is still "what you intend to do." Whether that is a very big thing, visible to everyone around you, or a motionless, invisible inner movement, intent is "what you want to do."



I am not saying I understand what Mike and Dan are talking about when they discuss intent, hence I asked the question. As stated before my understanding of intent has expanded in recent years and some of what D & M are saying rings some bells, although that is not the same knowing with certainty. Any way, I will throw out the following thoughts on intent for the forum to dissect and mutilate (cheerfully I hope) at will.

Drill A): #1 and #2 face each other. #1 place his fist/hand on #2's torso (anywhere is fine). #1 slowly increases the pressure and attempts to push #2 over or at least to move. #2 resists moving. Notice the results and amount of struggle. It is best if #2 is considerably larger than #1.

B) Same drill but now as #1 attempts to push #2 he focuses on feeling #2's center and pushing into that center to move #2. Notice the results and amount of effort. #2 can even attempt to move his center to keep a connection from occurring. Study the out come.

C) Same drill but now when #1 places his fist on #2 he totally ignores #2 even to the point of limiting as much of the tactile feel as possible. #1 then slowly reaches forward, just like he is reaching for the donut mentioned above. Make sure during the reach not to get drawn into the feel of #2 or the need to push #2, simply reach for the donut. Notice the results and effort. Even have #2 move his center and see what if any difference that makes. Totally ignoring #2 and reaching for the donut can take some practice but I have found the results to be worth the effort.

So this leaves us with three different types or perhaps levels of intent. Drill A, #1 is focused on the whole of #2 and attempts to move the whole. This recognition of the whole changes the manner in which our body moves. In drill B, #1 ignores the whole and focus on a specific part of #2. This focus on a specific part of #2 by #1's brain affects the manner in which the body moves as compared to Drill A. In Drill C, #1 has no intent towards #2 at all and is simply moving casually. Again this movement is different than the other two and the results can be in line with what some of what Dan suggested above.

David, in your post #1082 your selection of words with regard to the bully highly suggest that you are very much in Drill A, possibly a little of Drill B but definitely not Drill C or above. I.E. To me there appears to be many more avenues to intent, feel free to ignore them all and argue away.

Take care,

Mark J.

ChrisMoses
06-28-2007, 04:38 PM
Well, that's not what I mean, Chris. If you meet someone with good skills in ki, qi, jin, kokyu, whatever in any of the Asian arts, it's the same thing. That's what I mean.

Again, to quote ‘Joe vs. the Volcano’, “I’m not arguing that with you.” ;)

Is that because of some real intrinsic difference between the "Japanese martial-arts approach" and the "Chinese martial-arts approach"? No. There is no real difference. The problem is general unfamiliarity (for whatever reasons) with basic terms and what the skills are.... not because there is any difference between Chinese and Japanese.

Again, I’m not talking about the approach to martial arts or any underlying truth about those arts, but the *perceptions* about those arts within the two different communities. All of the Chinese based books I have contain references to different arts, nearly all of the authors have studies various styles, often from the same teacher. They are often presented as different ways of looking at the same thing. Agree? I imagine you would, since *your* primary background is through the Chinese arts, that would color how you observe other arts. There are exceptions over there too, I got into a heated debate with a bunch of mouth-breathers over on kung-fu world’s forum over whether or not it was offensive for Kajukenbo schools to use “Kung Fu” and Chinese terms in their system, as they were really ‘krotty’ and that was *totally* different. Now in the budo world (and particularly in Aikido) there is the very real *perception* that what they are doing is unique to them, even among similar arts from the same culture. I can’t tell you how many (very senior) aikido teachers have told me that aikido has nothing to do with judo, jujutsu, tai chi or bagua and that not only will the study of any of these arts not only not help ones aikido to improve, but they will be absolutely detrimental to ones progress because they are *completely different*. I know that’s crap, you know that’s crap, a lot of people in this thread know that’s crap, but that is a common *perception* in Japanese arts. Possibly as common as the Chinese *perception* that all wushu/kungfu are all aspects of the same martial truth. That any clearer?

A more interesting discussion would be to take any "internal" skill from a Chinese or Japanese martial art (and trust me, all of them have slightly different approaches to terminology, but the giveaway is the work "ki" or "qi") and have someone try to argue that "there... see that skill XYZ? That's not part of the traditional qi or jin skills". I'd be happy to take that bet anytime. And not because I'm an expert.... simply because most of these things we're discussing are actually pretty low, basic-level stuff. ;)

Again, you have to admit that this is interesting because of your bias towards this kind of training. Ask Rob about his experiences on kendo world. Many arts don’t care. I guarantee Jon Bluming could care less what internal skills anyone has. He cares if he can get a good osoto gari on you and how fast you turn purple with him sitting on your chest. Go into a boxing gym and compare internal skills notes, hit up a Kosen Judo dojo. They would be about as interested as you probably are in a three hour study on the subtlety of how to grab a gi lapel for the best judo throw, or where to put the hands for the best nikyo. Now again, I’m not saying that they’re right, or that they’re not missing out on something that could really improve their training. Obviously, I’ve changed my whole training regimen based on this stuff, so I’m convinced. I’m just trying to make *everyone* aware of what biases we bring into this stuff. It’s just like in aikido if you’re used to training with one group and you mix it up with some other aikido people and they attack with a slightly different timing and it throws you completely off. If you live with a set of assumptions long enough, you lose the ability to recognize them as assumptions and that others may have different assumptions from yourself.

ChrisMoses
06-28-2007, 04:45 PM
And the Chinese arts are similar in that they emphasize certain principles and refine them to a highly distilled state that goes in quite a different direction from the Japanese arts--unless anyone can show me a Japanese art that uses the "silk-reeling" movement.


Frakly, the silk-reeling movement is one of the most obvious. There are several kata in my sword ryuha that incorporate the same internal dynamics. We run into this one constantly with our open hand stuff. Funny how a lot of the waza that uses this dynamic is much easier to do once you actually have an idea of what the exercise of silk reeling is actually doing/teaching. ;)

So, back to Mike, this is a great example. You and I know that the silk-reeling movements apply to a lot more than just the exercise, and that what that exercise teaches is in a lot of basic movements, but to an external stylist, if things don't LOOK similar enough, are simply not the same.

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 05:54 PM
Again, you have to admit that this is interesting because of your bias towards this kind of training.
Chris, I'm not sure if you realize it, but I had a total of around 21 years of judo, karate, and Aikido. What bias do you think I have? Frankly, I'd ask that you just accept that I'm telling the truth when I say that I'm ambivalent about whether something is "Chinese" or "Japanese".... I see them all as just related arts. Same car, different colors and bells and whistles... I only see the car. Ask Rob about his experiences on kendo world. Many arts don't care. OK, let me revert to my usual bluntness. What you've been saying, and which I diplomatically commented on in my last post, is that most people are really so poorly educated in their own "Asian Martial Art" that yes, they argue incessantly from sheer ignorance. My point is that these role-playing segments of given arts do not represent the art itself. I.e., ignore those guys... don't seriously hold it against the art they claim to represent. Notice that I offered to shift to "high level" practitioners, so we don't have to acknowledge the average joe on e-Budo or Empty Flower or whatever. ;) I guarantee Jon Bluming could care less what internal skills anyone has. He cares if he can get a good osoto gari on you and how fast you turn purple with him sitting on your chest. Go into a boxing gym and compare internal skills notes, hit up a Kosen Judo dojo. They would be about as interested as you probably are in a three hour study on the subtlety of how to grab a gi lapel for the best judo throw, or where to put the hands for the best nikyo. Now again, I'm not saying that they're right, or that they're not missing out on something that could really improve their training. Obviously, I've changed my whole training regimen based on this stuff, so I'm convinced. I'm just trying to make *everyone* aware of what biases we bring into this stuff. It's just like in aikido if you're used to training with one group and you mix it up with some other aikido people and they attack with a slightly different timing and it throws you completely off. If you live with a set of assumptions long enough, you lose the ability to recognize them as assumptions and that others may have different assumptions from yourself.Fair enough. I agree with you.

Best.

Mike

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 05:58 PM
Frankly, the silk-reeling movement is one of the most obvious. There are several kata in my sword ryuha that incorporate the same internal dynamics.
Well, just in order to not be rude and let that go in silence, I'd have to say that logically I don't see how you could be using the same internal dynamics as silk reeling, Chris. It's an open and shut argument, IMO, but I don't want to do it on this forum. ;)

Best.

Mike

DH
06-28-2007, 05:59 PM
Hi Dave
You are wrong about the silk reeling in Japanese arts. As a private exercise it was thee very first thing I learned in DR. And I have had two masters of taiji tell me I was in fact doing a type of silk reeling "according to them." But I don't know taiji, from baji, from xing-I. But your are wrong about that as well, bud...sorry. From Feldenkras to toddler movement I really don't care to debate it. If you can do what I do-or better me at it -I'm all ears. I respect the way you play man-But I think you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
Lets wait till we get together, mess around, shoot the breeze, talk budo crap and have fun. I'm bettin you are going to go what the hell? How did you do that? And...I'll show ya. I have no vested interest in being right or wrong I really don't give a crap. It's not a question of needing, or wanting to be right. I'll show you what I know. Then -if they will have you- go see Ark and Mike. Its Budo research, all the way. I think you'll have a blast.

DH
06-28-2007, 06:17 PM
Dave
Last thing. There's now dozens of folks who have felt various combinations of Ark, Mike and I. From Ark and I, Mike and I, Mike and Rob, etc. Then about six who have felt all three.
If you notice, they range in rank from shodans to yondans to menkyo's.
Take a hint.
No one is agreeing...with you.
How'd that happen? What does it mean?

ChrisMoses
06-28-2007, 06:33 PM
Well, just in order to not be rude and let that go in silence, I'd have to say that logically I don't see how you could be using the same internal dynamics as silk reeling, Chris. It's an open and shut argument, IMO, but I don't want to do it on this forum. ;)

Best.

Mike

That would be because of your extensive knowledge of my ryuha's curriculum or because it would be impossible to find something so intrinsically Chinese in a Japanese art?

Honestly, I think you just like to disagree with people sometimes.

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 08:40 PM
That would be because of your extensive knowledge of my ryuha's curriculum or because it would be impossible to find something so intrinsically Chinese in a Japanese art?

Honestly, I think you just like to disagree with people sometimes.Well, I only disagree when I'm pretty sure I'm right, Chris, and the person making the claim is wrong. Reeling silk is not as simple as a lot of people think it is. You can't just do "winding exercises" and be doing reeling silk. Reeling silk requires the ability to manipulate jin in all directions and it requires a cohesive body connection that takes a pretty good while to develop. If the stuff you encountered with Rob and Akuzawa was just basic jin (which is what it was) and you weren't familiar with it, how could you argue that you have the skills to be doing the full reeling silk?

What this boils down to is that the *perception* of the interpretation of a lot of these terms is still generally not up to what's really going on. I've met people who tell me that they are doing a form with reeling silk but I can't see it because "it's inside". Phooey. If you can do it small, you can do it large and also you can do the spiral equivalent of standing immobile to a push. The conversation usually gets changed right there, in my experience.

My point isn't to belittle you or whatever you study, but to make you begin to question all these things that you think you know.... they already caught you flat-footed once in Japan, so don't let it happen again. Question everything.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

ChrisMoses
06-28-2007, 09:56 PM
My point isn't to belittle you or whatever you study, but to make you begin to question all these things that you think you know.... they already caught you flat-footed once in Japan, so don't let it happen again. Question everything.


Unless it's Mike Sigman apparently. Fine, I have no idea what I'm talking about, I have been found out. Darn, the gig is up. :eek:

Mike, I'm sure you're really good at what you do, and I could probably learn a lot from you. But I really wish you could offer just a fraction of the respect and benefit of the doubt that you expect from seemingly everyone else.

Yes, I was flat footed when I met Rob and Ark, *when I was playing by their rules and doing their exercises*. Funny thing happened when I was able to do what I knew. Like when Ark asked to show how Ikkyo didn't work on him and I slowly did ikkyo the way we do it (not a standard aikikai variety) and lo and behold it worked. He got up laughing and commented (paraphrasing), "Wow, he actually knows how to do ikkyo... OK now do it like you were an aikidoka..." And then later when Rob had me get in a mount position on him to show how the power release stuff we were doing applied to newaza, and guess what happened, nothing. His response? He didn't get mad at my challenging him on the ground, he laughed and said something like, "Yeah, well you know how to hold someone down, so pretend like you're in aikido trying to pin someone..." I know when there's something I can learn from someone else and I'm plenty willing to eat crow in public, but it's a mistake to think I'm an idiot. You know that if I was making this stuff up, Rob would certainly call me on it. A cup full of rocks has plenty of room for sand and water...

I don't think it's necessary to put, **all comments based on my current experiences and understandings and are subject to change should events outside of my current frame of reference occur** at the end of every post I make. We all operate from that space, it's a given. It's a different thing to say, "I don't see how you could say that..." and "You are wrong." I suppose it's that or you could agree with David, which option suits you more? ;)

Mike Sigman
06-28-2007, 10:07 PM
Unless it's Mike Sigman apparently. Fine, I have no idea what I'm talking about, I have been found out. Darn, the gig is up. :eek:

Mike, I'm sure you're really good at what you do, and I could probably learn a lot from you. But I really wish you could offer just a fraction of the respect and benefit of the doubt that you expect from seemingly everyone else.

Yes, I was flat footed when I met Rob and Ark, *when I was playing by their rules and doing their exercises*. Funny thing happened when I was able to do what I knew. Like when Ark asked to show how Ikkyo didn't work on him and I slowly did ikkyo the way we do it (not a standard aikikai variety) and lo and behold it worked. He got up laughing and commented (paraphrasing), "Wow, he actually knows how to do ikkyo... OK now do it like you were an aikidoka..." And then later when Rob had me get in a mount position on him to show how the power release stuff we were doing applied to newaza, and guess what happened, nothing. His response? He didn't get mad at my challenging him on the ground, he laughed and said something like, "Yeah, well you know how to hold someone down, so pretend like you're in aikido trying to pin someone..." I know when there's something I can learn from someone else and I'm plenty willing to eat crow in public, but it's a mistake to think I'm an idiot. You know that if I was making this stuff up, Rob would certainly call me on it. A cup full of rocks has plenty of room for sand and water...

I don't think it's necessary to put, **all comments based on my current experiences and understandings and are subject to change should events outside of my current frame of reference occur** at the end of every post I make. We all operate from that space, it's a given. It's a different thing to say, "I don't see how you could say that..." and "You are wrong." I suppose it's that or you could agree with David, which option suits you more? ;)I think you're missing what I'm saying, Chris. If we meet up, you can show me your reeling silk exercises. Regardless of the other stuff you were able to do, I'm talking about basic jin from a frontal push. You didn't know how that worked, regardless of the other stuff. If you didn't know how that worked, then logically the 4-directions of jin stuff you wouldn't know and ergo, whatever you do for "silk reeling" falls out of the equation. That's what I meant. "Silk reeling" is more complicated than just a "winding exercises thing"... it would require that you could maintain and use jin in a number of directions and since you didn't know the easy one, do you want to tell me that you know all the rest, so it doesn't matter? That's the logic. I'm going by what YOU have said happened and simply extending it. If it's going to cause you to have another fit, then OK, you already know it all, Chris. Good luck in your practice.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

gdandscompserv
06-29-2007, 08:12 AM
And not because I'm an expert.... simply because most of these things we're discussing are actually pretty low, basic-level stuff. ;)

Ah, but isn't that where the good's are?

gdandscompserv
06-29-2007, 08:26 AM
Like when Ark asked to show how Ikkyo didn't work on him and I slowly did ikkyo the way we do it (not a standard aikikai variety) and lo and behold it worked.;)
Christian,
Are you suggesting that the standard aikikai variety of ikkyo would not have worked?

ChrisMoses
06-29-2007, 09:31 AM
Christian,
Are you suggesting that the standard aikikai variety of ikkyo would not have worked?

That's correct, I doubt it would have, not a direct enough connection to uke's core and too many degrees of freedom to the rest of the body. edit- I should point out that both examples were done at training/demonstration (meaning far from full bore) levels of resistance and speed. I'm not asserting that I could slam and ikkyo on Ark whenever I wanted. Just wanted that clear.

Mike, I find it amazing how much we talk past each other. I took David's comment to be that there is no place in Japanese arts where we find anything like the movements of silk reeling. Based on my limited understanding of silk reeling (which would be at the very least comparable to David's, whose comments I was directly responding to) I have found numerous *similarities*, some rather striking. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement. Why didn't you comment on David's original assertion? Certainly he would face the same difficulty in making any statement about silk reeling, and therefore, his statement would be equally "wrong." What level of mastery do you consider a minimum before being qualified to make observations and opinions? That's a real question by the way, but you'll probably take it as another fit of mine.

Mike Sigman
06-29-2007, 12:25 PM
I took David's comment to be that there is no place in Japanese arts where we find anything like the movements of silk reeling. Based on my limited understanding of silk reeling (which would be at the very least comparable to David's, whose comments I was directly responding to) I have found numerous *similarities*, some rather striking. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement. Why didn't you comment on David's original assertion? Certainly he would face the same difficulty in making any statement about silk reeling, and therefore, his statement would be equally "wrong." What level of mastery do you consider a minimum before being qualified to make observations and opinions? That's a real question by the way, but you'll probably take it as another fit of mine.Yeah, but the difference is that you're working on other things and looking around, David's pretty much done and not really interested. I started to let it go (about the reeling silk), but I thought it might be helpful in terms of stopping you from wasting time if you understood that "reeling silk" as a term is bandied about as a buzzword by too many people and the actual usage means something pretty sophisticated. I said why it was sophisticated, I didn't just throw it out there or call anyone names or get off topic, etc.

David's perceptions of what the Chinese do is wrong, but it's usually a waste of time to get into any discussion with him, so I didn't bother.

While I am open to the idea (and probability) that some degree of six-harmonies movement remains (even vestigially) in Japanese martial arts, I'd question anyone that claimed them fairly closely in order to see whether they really knew them or not. It would be a breakthrough (in my explorations) to find someone in Japanese martial arts that really understood them because they're far more sophisticated than they appear on the surface. It would be social chat-level for me to just go "Oh, that's interesting" if someone made the claim.

I don't know if you followed the logic of what I said, but I'm pretty comfortable standing on it, Chris. If you want to probe it further, I can put you on the QiJin list provisionally and lay out the details. I'm not going to write that much just as an exercise for this forum, though, since it's not particularly of interest to most people doing Aikido. ;)

Maybe we talk past each other. I'll try to do what I can to help avoid it.

Best.

Mike

ChrisMoses
06-29-2007, 01:17 PM
While I am open to the idea (and probability) that some degree of six-harmonies movement remains (even vestigially) in Japanese martial arts, I'd question anyone that claimed them fairly closely in order to see whether they really knew them or not. It would be a breakthrough (in my explorations) to find someone in Japanese martial arts that really understood them because they're far more sophisticated than they appear on the surface. It would be social chat-level for me to just go "Oh, that's interesting" if someone made the claim.

Yeah, I was not making the claim that my ryuha teaches six direction harmonies through silk reeling on a sophisticated level. I agree with you that it's just not how the Japanese teach/transmit either. The Japanese hide things, even from their own students. Some eventually get the goods, most don't. Much is lost along the way, sometimes in a very short period of time. I now 'know' the entire curriculum of my ryuha, so I'm at the stage where I get to go back through everything and see why it's laid out the way it is. Many people in kata arts lose sight of what exactly kata are (lessons) and mistake them for scenarios. The idea is that "OK, I now know the kata, I know it all. What's next." The kata really only serve as a framework to ensure that certain lessons are passed on. To use a simple example, I know a lot of people who have studied tai chi for years and have no idea how any of this stuff works. Even I can tell that they have no idea, but the shell of the form is 'correct'. I know that the silk reeling is a deep and complex study. I also know that I've only seen a portion of it, but I have been introduced to some of the concepts, and I'm not talking exclusively about the Aunkai stuff. That educates what I've been told from others and helped me create a framework to approach it. But as you commented on a while ago, sometimes you learn something from one person, only to have a lot of depth of meaning filled in from somewhere else. But when you find yourself feeling similar stuff doing a similar motion you kind of wonder, "Hmm, I wonder if that's one reason why this kata is here? Is this someone's external way of trying to nudge their students towards this? Interesting..." So much of the depth of knowledge in Japanese budo was left on the battlefields of WW2, that it's no wonder that things exist as they do.


Maybe we talk past each other. I'll try to do what I can to help avoid it.


That would be great. I don't mind being wrong, but it drives me crazy to not be understood. I also feel that if you (or anyone else) is willing to go through the trouble of saying, "You're wrong," they have and obligation to say why and what is correct (in their view). That's part of the process of dialectic, of coming to a shared understanding. If that isn't what's going on, then there's no point to participating in these forums. I hit that with Chris Li a lot these days, "No, you're wrong, go read this book that is in a language that you can't read..." Not helpful at all. And I do realize what it's like to offer something and have someone else say, "Oh yeah, we do that too..." when you know that they don't. This even happens to me in person. It's a bummer, but it's par for the course with subtle stuff.

Mike Sigman
06-29-2007, 01:32 PM
But when you find yourself feeling similar stuff doing a similar motion you kind of wonder, "Hmm, I wonder if that's one reason why this kata is here? Is this someone's external way of trying to nudge their students towards this? Interesting..." Well, almost undoubtedly, if you trace the roots of Okinawan Karate (mainly the Southern White Crane offshoots, I mean) you'll find a number of vestigial "silk reeling" (six-harmony) characteristics. For instance, the twisting forearm/fist punch is actually an old trick from silk-reeling practices that adds greatly to the power if someone's full-suited qi is developed. As just a twisting-arm punch, it's not much one way or the other to justify the twist. But the point is that just because there are vestigial components that look like silk-reeling, that doesn't mean that the silk-reeling actually carried over. One of the reasons six-harmonies type movement died out in so many arts is because to really do it takes a lot of work and focus over a long period of time, (IMO). That would be great. I don't mind being wrong, but it drives me crazy to not be understood. I also feel that if you (or anyone else) is willing to go through the trouble of saying, "You're wrong," they have and obligation to say why and what is correct (in their view). Yeah, but go back and look. I did say why, at least to the extent that if you had understood, you would have taken the next step in the discussion and told *me* why what I said was right or wrong or applied or didn't apply. As it was, you defensively named a couple of extraneous things that you did to Rob and Akuzawa and then you made bad noises at me personally, which caused me to run from the room crying and stamping my little feet and shaking my golden curls. ;)

I wouldn't expect you to know the intricacies of silk-reeling, Chris. I was just saying, FYI, that it's doubtful you've really been exposed to silk-reeling. Knowing that may save you a lot of time in the future.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

ChrisMoses
06-29-2007, 01:52 PM
I'm done here, I just don't know how to talk to you Mike. That's too bad.

David Orange
06-29-2007, 04:17 PM
...if you (or anyone else) is willing to go through the trouble of saying, "You're wrong," they have and obligation to say why and what is correct (in their view). That's part of the process of dialectic, of coming to a shared understanding.

Yeah. That's why I always wonder why you want to say my ideas about child movement are wrong, but you can't come up with any actual reason. Like a lot of people, you seem to be simply offended at the idea that what you've worked so hard to 'learn' was already in your nervous system and you've actually been working against it by trying to replace it with something you think is better. It's all in the kata.

David Orange
06-29-2007, 04:24 PM
I wouldn't bet any money at all that NO Japanese martial art ever used "silk reeling", David. Research will most likely turn up some damned Koryu that actually has some in it.

Well, that's what I said. Unless someone can show me a Japanese art that uses silk reeling....

I've read down the messages and I saw your reference to Okinawan karate, though we all know that that comes directly from China. On the other hand, look how far it has come from China. In just a couple of centuries it is quite different from the Chinese arts. And that's not really Japan, where the katana was the real rule and everything else was both subordinate and tailored to fit within that sword culture.

Again, not saying It's entirely different or unrelated. The ancient warlords of Japan used I Ching and refered to Sun Tzu, after all.

David

David Orange
06-29-2007, 04:29 PM
You are wrong about the silk reeling in Japanese arts. As a private exercise it was thee very first thing I learned in DR. And I have had two masters of taiji tell me I was in fact doing a type of silk reeling "according to them."

Well, is it "in" daito ryu itself, or was this a personal skill that the particular teacher had developed, incorporated into his DR and showed you? I ask because I don't know if you got this lesson from Tokimune Takeda or from whom. Mochizuki Sensei used a lot of boxing methods, but we wouldn't ordinarily say that boxing is "in" aikido. So I ask.

I respect the way you play man-But I think you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

No, I don't. That's why I keep responding and keep working toward meeting with you. I want to know what you're doing and how you're doing it, based on what people have described.

Lets wait till we get together, mess around, shoot the breeze, talk budo crap and have fun. I'm bettin you are going to go what the hell? How did you do that? And...I'll show ya. I have no vested interest in being right or wrong I really don't give a crap. It's not a question of needing, or wanting to be right. I'll show you what I know.

Sounds great and it is my aim. Looking forward to it.

David

gdandscompserv
06-30-2007, 08:34 AM
A good example is this idea of "yi" or "intent". In O-Sensei's douka he refers to the "Divine Will". He's referring to "intent".Whose intent?

ChrisMoses
06-30-2007, 10:58 AM
Yeah. That's why I always wonder why you want to say my ideas about child movement are wrong, but you can't come up with any actual reason.

That's just not true. I've spent pages discussing this with you. I even went so far as to critique video of you running around your toddler. The terms you are using simply do not mean what I mean when I use them, so we're left with no where to go. No one can fault me for not trying to get my point across to you. You have defined the root of aiki as avoidance (a child's resistance to being taken by an adult). I do not feel this is a reflection in the slightest of what aiki is. Further, I feel the 'root' of any art can only be traced back to the point where it is differentiated from other arts/kinds of movement, therefore a 'root' of aiki, must be more than efficient skeletal movement. You have a bold theory, the next step would be vetting that theory. Can you teach this to your students and training partners? This is my last post on toddler aikido, I promise.

gdandscompserv
06-30-2007, 02:26 PM
Christian,
Would you please describe the differences between your variety of ikkyo and the "standard aikikai variety of ikkyo?"

ChrisMoses
06-30-2007, 03:19 PM
Christian,
Would you please describe the differences between your variety of ikkyo and the "standard aikikai variety of ikkyo?"

This is the short version, I'm leaving out a lot, if we ever hook-up I'd be glad to expand on it. For clarity, let's talk about a left hand shomenuchi attack from uke. The most obvious external differences would be the placement of nage's right hand behind/under the deltoid instead at the elbow, and then the blocking of uke's left hip with our right hip (almost in position for uchi mata). Other differences would be the way we enter, amount (or lack) of blending, straighter lines of movement, and which muscle groups are being used to transmit force and stabilize the body, but that quickly gets too complicated to talk about online. When I still did Aikido, if I did this version in class, the instructors would frequently try and correct how uke was taking ukemi because if you do it right their feet 'feel' stuck to the ground and it looks like they're not moving enough. What I was doing looked similar enough they often mistook it for something uke was doing wrong to make them fall and move awkwardly, but it wasn't. ;) I'd usually back off so that they could go back to falling normally. Hopefully that gives you at least an idea.

gdandscompserv
06-30-2007, 04:13 PM
Christian,
Other than nage's hand placement, this sounds very much like "standard aikikai ikkyo." I really don't like to get too attached to the exact location of nage's hand placement as long as it controls uke's center. It kinda sounds like you are simply entering a little deeper and more directly than others you have trained with.
Thanks for explaining.
Do you like to give an atemi to the exposed ribcage on your version?

ChrisMoses
06-30-2007, 04:27 PM
Christian,
Other than nage's hand placement, this sounds very much like "standard aikikai ikkyo." I really don't like to get too attached to the exact location of nage's hand placement as long as it controls uke's center. It kinda sounds like you are simply entering a little deeper and more directly than others you have trained with.
Thanks for explaining.
Do you like to give an atemi to the exposed ribcage on your version?

Like I said, that was a very superficial description of what's different. One of the things that is different is that we feel the hand placement is very important. There isn't really an atemi opportunity to the ribcage in this version, at least not the way you're talking about.

DH
07-01-2007, 08:15 AM
Well, is it "in" Daito ryu itself, or was this a personal skill that the particular teacher had developed, incorporated into his DR and showed you? I ask because I don't know if you got this lesson from Tokimune Takeda or from whom. Mochizuki Sensei used a lot of boxing methods, but we wouldn't ordinarily say that boxing is "in" aikido. So I ask. David

Anyone who has spent time in a certain lines of DR know the admonition about growing through the skin in a grab. They have also seen the exercise of softly maintaining skin contact. You were never meant to push through the skin-like many do in Kokyu-ho or aiki-age. You're supposed to inflate into the hand. It is also where the Daito ryu term "breath power" comes from. Its a difference that is substantial and years apart from doing other things that you can learn to do much faster. You can be shown, but unless you spend years doing inventive and creative imagery work and working your body through it....nothing will come of it. Its the same with guys and gals who were shown Kokyu-ho or aiki-age, then spent the rest of their careers doing aiki with their hands rotating and moving around their pinkies or thumbs. You'll get people to move -to a point- but it aint it.
In all these arts we can wonder whether the real questions are do folks get shown- but didn't get it? Didn't do the work? Didn't know how to get creative and and then doggedly pursue it? Or, were simply not shown the real stuff and were just more grist for the mill in creating and sustaining organizations. We all see so many people in various organizations, of all types, who are there every week and are nice folks-but they don't get it-then others who are creative and really woking it and getting results here and there. That very same focus can be applied to things other than "techniques." How else does one explain Sagawa yellin at his own men- telling them they have to "think" and work or they would never "get it." Gee, what does that mean? There was something outside of kata to....get? And other ways for it to BE gotten;)
Say it isn't so.......kata isn't enough? What?

Sagawa:
Training must be done EVERYDAY for the rest of your life. That is the meaning of “Shugyo.” No matter how much muscle you think you aren’t using (you’re only misleading yourself.) The true execution of Aiki requires an enormous amount of solo training to condition the body (Tanren). It is not easy to attain.
You won’t be able to manifest Aiki unless you continue tanren of the body everyday for decades. You must train the body, ponder and have the techniques “seep out” from the body itself. Even if you train everyday all the while changing yourself, it will take at least 20 years. Ten years or so isn’t nearly enough time.
Your body has to truly be ready; otherwise no matter what you do you won’t be able to do “Aiki.”
Most people would probably recoil if they knew what my training regimen consisted of.

Kimura has been training (tanren) on his own, so his lower back and legs are becoming different than others <around him.> I don’t often talk about how to train the body, but when I do mention it, Kimura goes out and does it. You can’t stop after two or three years. You must continue this and use it to change yourself everyday for the rest of your life.
<Author> “I thought it was impossible to change the body after you pass your thirties.”
<Sagawa> “That is not true. Your body will develop muscle until you’re seventy. Once you build such a body, your body will not falter or deteriorate even after you’re eighty


Takeda, and Sagawa, tossing judoka around when in they were in ther 80's. Takeda doing so uninvited and while insulting the Judo guys. Not my kind of guy. But his skills were certainly real and lasted him throughout his life. Apparently there is something going on outside of muscle use and further it can be "had" outside of kata.

Mike Sigman
07-01-2007, 01:10 PM
Most people have an amazing amount of slack in their bodies. Slack, by the way, is not to be confused with relaxation. It is easily revealed in wall work. One thing we do. is a training exercise where you learn to hold certain things together while you make pressure on the wall with a single hand while having the body in a relaxed and swimming fashion. You then have to switch feet and maintain that pressure on the single hand while you "add" the other hand with no noticeable change in pressure on the first hand. Then with both hands on the wall (with equal pressure) you start to move your feet and change your body angle and position. Anyone can "copy" the movement and mimic me. When I get them to start to feel it, all of a sudden they stop and realize the trouble and difficulty they are now facing.
Interestingly enough, I have a lot of things I say about "slack", yet they have little to do what Dan is talking about. It would be one of those situations where it would be very easy to talk at cross-purposes if it came up in a discussion. I.e., it's worth being careful to ascertain of terminology is coinciding in a lot of these discussions or whether it's misleading.

Best.

Mike Sigman

DH
07-01-2007, 04:01 PM
Interestingly enough, I have a lot of things I say about "slack", yet they have little to do what Dan is talking about.

I agree.
To be clear-we can be sure that whatever it is I was referring to and did not discuss- it has little to nothing to do with whatever it is you do and have never spoken of. ;)

Mike Sigman
07-01-2007, 04:44 PM
I agree.
To be clear-we can be sure that whatever it is I was referring to and did not discuss- it has little to nothing to do with whatever it is you do and have never spoken of. ;):)
Yeah, I use it more in the sense of why it's necessary for a straight (erect) extended posture and the fingers spread slightly on the hand. It's to get rid of the slack.

Best.

Mike

DH
07-01-2007, 05:38 PM
Er...No. To me thats more or less framework. What I would show someone new to all this- day one. A straight, stretched posture doesn't play as big a part later. I am thinking more of eminating out from center, and pushing/following/pulling a facial chain throughout the body. To folks it feels flexible and feels rigid and at the same time remaining sensitive. And the breath (in/yo ho) has a lot to do with it. Its far more difficult then basic aiki-age, jin/kokyu framework you describe. I was surprised to hear a term "full" from a Chinese teacher. And it is good term for breathwork. From discussions I have had with Rob what I do is different from what he does. Slack is a difficult concept. There are any number of ways folks display it in movement. But stretching out-and using spine-work- while fine- is but a first step. A good one- but only one. I think there are other things to focus on. Honestly I think they're deeper things..

Mike Sigman
07-01-2007, 05:50 PM
er...No. to me thats more or less framework. What I would show someone new to all this- day one. Really? Then you are far better than me at teaching.

What you described about "slack" would be more what I would consider jin-mechanics, since jin has to do with forces and the "structure", as you're calling it, has to do with the ability to transmit forces. Keeping a force while changing feet, keeping the body relaxed, etc., is, in my viewpoint, more to do with jin, since it involves forces. A straight, stretched posture doesn't play as big a part at all later. I am thinking more of eminating out from center, and pushing/following/pulling a facial chain throughout the body. To be flexible and feel rigid at the same time remaining sensitive. And the breath (in/yo ho) has a lot to do with it. Its far more difficult then basic aiki-age, jin/kokyu framework you describe. From discussions I have had with Rob what I do is different from what he does. Slack is a difficult concept. There are any number of ways folks display it in movement. But stretching out-and using spine-work- while fine- is but a first step. A good one- but only one. I think there are other things to focus on. Honestly I think they're deeper things.. Well, like I said, there are some terminology differences. My comment was simply to point out that "slack" was something I sometimes talk about, but that it means something different than what you described... which is more about jin-mechanics to me.

Regards,

Mike

DH
07-01-2007, 06:16 PM
My comment was simply to point out that "slack" was something I sometimes talk about, but that it means something different than what you described... which is more about jin-mechanics to me.

Regards,

Mike

Seems to me you're on frame, posture and stretching out. Which is fine. It involves tendon/ fascia too. I am far more concerned with slack in fascia and breathwork.as a continuous pliable current throughout the body and mainpulated in the body for a sense of "fullness" as a friend would say. The spine and framework connections is fine, but I'll take the mass of the center connected to everything else. Funny, other then showing new guys I don't think much about force vectors in what I am concentrating on right now. It takes care of itself. Oh well, I don't do Chinese stuff or know how they train.
See ya

Mike Sigman
07-01-2007, 06:29 PM
Seems to me you're on frame, posture and stretching out. Which is fine. It involves tendon/ fascia too. I am far more concerned with slack in fascia and breathwork.as a continuous pliable current throughout the body and mainpulated in the body for a sense of "fullness" as a friend would say. The spine and framework connections is fine, but I'll take the mass of the center connected to everything else. Funny, other then showing new guys I don't think much about force vectors in what I am concentrating on right now. It takes care of itself. Oh well, I don't do Chinese stuff or know how they train. So, are you doing Japanese stuff and that's how they train? Where did you learn this Japanese approach? You've got "fascia", like I've talked about on the internet for a decade or so, you've got stuff like Akuzawa's, and so on. Who did you learn this stuff from?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

DH
07-01-2007, 07:09 PM
So, are you doing Japanese stuff and that's how they train? Where did you learn this Japanese approach? You've got "fascia", like I've talked about on the internet for a decade or so, you've got stuff like Akuzawa's, and so on. Who did you learn this stuff from?

Regards,

Mike Sigman
I have had two great teachers-Japanese. No one teaches this stuff openly anywhere I have seen. It's 100% Japanese and a whole lot of my personal dogged -and some have told me obssesive-research (read- failure) added to it for a very long time. With a small group fo people training with me for up to 14 years.

Ark .
Well, Rob and any one of those who have trained with him will tell you I don't do his stuff. It's different. I borrowed two of his exercises and even that I do differently. I also asked him if I coud borrow one of his tests which I do differently as well. Mine is harder to pull off...for me... against men pushing in hanmi. There are or should be enough men-I think 5, who have trained with them who will tell you I don't do what they do.
Alluding that I "borrowed" fascia from you on the net is erroneous. I talked about it 11 years ago on the Aikido list when a certain teacher kept calling it "long muscle" till someone pried the meaning out of him-fascia. By the way it appeared on Aikido journal from another Japanese -Daito ryu- related teacher. I was reading along and there it was again "Long muscle." You coined "ground path" I learned it as "current", you have "chi", I learned it as "breath-power" or "in/yo ho." But, as I said on many lists recently I love some of the new terminology, its very convenient.
Your stuff
I keep hearing the Chinese stuff is different and very good. In a wierd enounter I made frends with a master level teacher who asked me to come stay with him at his house in China and train. So I may find out someday.
See ya

Mike Sigman
07-01-2007, 08:49 PM
Yeah, but that's aside from the point. You're saying in an earlier message (and others seem to like the idea, too) that there is a "Chinese" approach that is somehow different from the "Japanese" approach. I'm asking where you get that idea. For instance, the oldest available transcripts in China about qi and jin training refer to the "connective tissue" or "fascia", depending upon how you want to translate it. If you're trying to categorize people as somehow doing a "Chinese thing" while you're doing a "Japanese thing", why not clarify how you arrive at that conclusion and who (Japanese) taught you. If you're "borrowing things" from people, for instance, Akuzawa, maybe you should be clear how what he does absolutely represents a "Japanese" approach -- as distinguished from a "Chinese" approach -- and so on. As I understand it, Akuzawa doesn't really differentiate between "Japanese" and "Chinese". I don't either, and I've made that clear a number of times, as you'll see in the archives.

BTW.... can you point me to where you mentioned the fascia topics before? And I'm happy that people have politely invited you to come visit and train with them... it's a nice gesture often seen in Asian politesse.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

DH
07-01-2007, 10:02 PM
Yeah, but that's aside from the point. You're saying in an earlier message (and others seem to like the idea, too) that there is a "Chinese" approach that is somehow different from the "Japanese" approach. I'm asking where you get that idea.
No I am not. I said I "hear" the Chinese internal method is different. Which is my new line. I'm sick of saying they are or share similar methods. So instead I'll say "I hear they are different."
I have serious doubts that it can be so.
So far I see direct match ups with so many things that I think they are amazingly alike. But everytime and everywhere I mention it I get my head bit off. So the hell with it. Let the folks who don't have much of a clue anyway think they know and stumble around content. More and more I am talking with my guys and thinking of going back to being a hermit. Who needs the grief,

You-not me- are the one stating they are the same here. Which implies experience in both enough to know. Yet you -not me- have had to correct yourself and state -even recently-that you found somethings in the JMA that were a "surprise" to you.
So you are the one who gets to be "surprised."
I state, openly that I don't know the CMA.
Thats it, and thats all.
I stated "my" skills were Japanese. As -I-have made clear.
I borrowed two forms from Ark that I do differently to suit my needs. I will NOT talk about how it compares to Chinese arts. Why would I?
Apparently it might have about as much validity as you talking about the Koryu.:D


And I'm happy that people have politely invited you to come visit and train with them... it's a nice gesture often seen in Asian politesse.
Regards,
Mike Sigman

gees... quit already will ya
Why do I get to appreciate yet another unsolicited insult. Just couldn't help yourself eh? This time to my professional and martial experience, and for diminishing both my age and abilties to handle myself with Asian teachers. Thanks for the advice that "Teachers can be disenengouos." Wow what a revelation. You don't say?
Here's some advice for you:
You...weren't there and don't have clue as to what you are talking about., But thanks just the same. I might have needed it twenty years ago.;)

Mike Sigman
07-01-2007, 10:30 PM
No I am not. I said I "hear" the Chinese internal method is different. Which is my new line. I'm sick of saying they are or share similar methods. So instead I'll say "I hear they are different."
I have serious doubts that it can be so. Then why bother with the distinction? Logically, if you understand the Japanese ki paradigm and that it comes from the Chinese qi paradigm and everything follows a straightforward set of relationships, the idea that the physical manifestations in Chinese and Japanese martial arts is somehow different simply doesn't fly. You-not me- are the one stating they are the same here. Which implies experience in both enough to know. Yet you -not me- have had to correct yourself and state -even recently-that you found somethings in the JMA that were a "surprise" to you. I do. I do. And no, I only said that the depth surprises me, so you're mischaracterizing what I said. Again.
Apparently it might have about as much validity as you talking about the Koryu.:D Do you seriously think that the "Koryu" know something special about training ki and kokyu-power skills that is different from the known basics? Other than special techniques, mental mindsets, focus on various skills within the qi and jin parameters, I don't know of anything that makes the "Koryu" any different than "Uncle Joe's take on swordsmanship and jujitsu". That's the nice thing about these skills... it suddenly brings the Asian martial arts together. For someone to smugly brag about his "koryu secrets" is sort of a point of humour.

So enough of the distractions from the question I asked. Are you representing that some Japanese teacher taught you ki and kokyu skills and that's why you're distinguishing "Chinese" from Japanese? I don't have any trouble understanding the terminology and concepts of Tohei, Inaba, Abe, and others, but your take with your "slack" and other concepts seems to be different from any Japanese descriptions I've ever heard. I was just curious why you bothered to bring up the "Chinese" and "Japanese" dichotomy.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

DH
07-01-2007, 10:57 PM
So much for my attempts at humor.

Yes I am stating I learned it from Japanese sources
Yes I think the JMA and CMA internal methods are inexorabably intertwined.
The joke was that
a. I am sick of stating they share most things so
b. I am stating they MUST be different.
Which meant I could avoid being surprised like you were about the Japanese Koryu-a joke.

No I don't think the Koryu have a leg up.In fact I am on record of stating the opposite If you go back a year ago I told you -I- was surprised when I saw shared terminology, like "listening" and breath-power and even some of the same expressions in movement. Sorry but peng jin -IS- Aiki age. I thought "I was mistaken all those years when I thought my training was unique in all the world." I said that on aikido journal before I got disgusted and removed all my most posts and I said it here and on E-budo. Overal this is just a huge time waster to keep trying to convince people who either don't care or decidedly DO NOT want to know and then get ticked -off.. The hell with it.

I didn't bring up the Chinese method except to say a teacher I know was listening to me describe what I was doing and he used the word "full" which I jumped on! It was perfect for what I was trying to say. It is part of the breathing of in/yo ho. Every other referrence to things "Chinese" came from you.
What I don't get is we have been discussing my way as being different from the framework, stretched method you use. I don't do that except to teach new guys some basics to midlevel stuff.
But now you just swtiched and told me what -I- am doing is Chinese.
But it isn't what you are doing....
which is a background in Chinese arts...:hypno:
My head hurts.

Notice how I can be confused and not understand your point- as it sounds fishy- and yet still not insult you.
Take a hint.

David Orange
07-02-2007, 11:09 AM
You have defined the root of aiki as avoidance (a child's resistance to being taken by an adult). I do not feel this is a reflection in the slightest of what aiki is.

Chris, are you deliberately forgetting how many times I have quoted Minoru Mochizuki's exact definition of aiki? "aikiis the ura of kiai."

I have never defined aiki as "avoidance," but I have said that children use aiki when they avoid an adult's trying to control them. Avoidance, itself, is not necessarily aiki but it can employ aiki. In the child's case, they use the ura of the adult's strength by going instinctively to its weakest point without having to be taught how to find that weakness. They know inately because it is part of the human nervous system.

Further, I feel the 'root' of any art can only be traced back to the point where it is differentiated from other arts/kinds of movement, therefore a 'root' of aiki, must be more than efficient skeletal movement.

It has little to do with skeletal movement and everything to do with the instinctive use of the weakest part of an adult's efforts.

You have a bold theory, the next step would be vetting that theory.

That's why I post on it on these fora. Mostly, I find that people read part of my statements and then only to find something to object to, focussing their replies on that willfully-partial understanding of what I've said. No matter. Many other people have come in with their own observations of children's naturally displaying aiki movement.

Can you teach this to your students and training partners?

Yes.

This is my last post on toddler aikido, I promise.

I am taking bets on that at this point.

Bets to you.

David

David Orange
07-02-2007, 11:15 AM
Anyone who has spent time in a certain lines of DR know the admonition about growing through the skin in a grab. They have also seen the exercise of softly maintaining skin contact. You were never meant to push through the skin-like many do in Kokyu-ho or aiki-age. You're supposed to inflate into the hand...

Just to identify which post I'm replying to...interesting. Thanks.

David

David Orange
07-02-2007, 11:40 AM
(to Mike Sigman)Notice how I can be confused and not understand your point- as it sounds fishy- and yet still not insult you.
Take a hint.

This post refers both to Dan's recent interactions with Mike and to Chris' earlier skirmishes.

Having read a tremendous number of Mike's posts, I have come to some conclusions about his "intent" on the boards.

"Having a discussion" is NOT his intent.

Mike does have cross-motivations for posting.

Number One is self-aggrandizement. That forms about 90% of his intention.

80% of his intention is to belittle others.

Having both 80% of one intent and 90% of another is possible in that a tremendous amount of his self-aggrandizement comes from insulting others. A put-down of others is a boost to himself. So the self-aggrandizement and belittling actually add up to about 97% of his entire "intent" in posting.

Another 20% of Mike's intent in posting is a severe and easily understandable longing for human contact. Some of this is satisfied by people who suck up to him and want to jump on his bandwagon and he will accept that as long as one does not attempt, in any way, to imply that they agree with him because they, too, have some kind of understanding. Those meet with belittlement as severe as he gives those who dispute with him (see Chris' interactions above). But Mike enjoys the disputes as much as the sucking up because he knows that a person has to have some kind of human contact or he'll die.

And it's not that he is afraid of dying, or would even mind it, but he can't bear the idea of the great loss to the world his demise would represent!!!!

So there is how Mike combines 90%, 80% and 20% to arrive at 100%, which explains his vast powers of disputation, insult, self-glorification and long-windedness.

David

Mark Jakabcsin
07-02-2007, 11:49 AM
David,
Will your post make this forum better? Will your post above make this thread better? Will your post suddenly change the manner Mike uses while posting?

Not likely on any of those questions and I am sure you realized that before you posted. Please reflect on your intent for making that post.

Note: Whether your post is spot on or completely off, simply does not matter. If you feel the need for communicating to Mike about what you perceive as character issues please do so via PM. Such posts have no place in a public forum and please do not cry about him being mean to you first. Please stay on topic.

Mark J.

David Orange
07-02-2007, 11:59 AM
Such posts have no place in a public forum and please do not cry about him being mean to you first. Please stay on topic.

Mark J.

Again, so much for a little humor.

Anyway, if I want to cry about Mike, I'll post it on YouTube and link it here.

Best to you.

David

Mike Sigman
07-02-2007, 12:12 PM
This post refers both to Dan's recent interactions with Mike and to Chris' earlier skirmishes.

Having read a tremendous number of Mike's posts, I have come to some conclusions about his "intent" on the boards.

"Having a discussion" is NOT his intent.

Mike does have cross-motivations for posting.

Number One is self-aggrandizement. That forms about 90% of his intention.

80% of his intention is to belittle others.

Having both 80% of one intent and 90% of another is possible in that a tremendous amount of his self-aggrandizement comes from insulting others. A put-down of others is a boost to himself. So the self-aggrandizement and belittling actually add up to about 97% of his entire "intent" in posting.

Another 20% of Mike's intent in posting is a severe and easily understandable longing for human contact. Some of this is satisfied by people who suck up to him and want to jump on his bandwagon and he will accept that as long as one does not attempt, in any way, to imply that they agree with him because they, too, have some kind of understanding. Those meet with belittlement as severe as he gives those who dispute with him (see Chris' interactions above). But Mike enjoys the disputes as much as the sucking up because he knows that a person has to have some kind of human contact or he'll die.

And it's not that he is afraid of dying, or would even mind it, but he can't bear the idea of the great loss to the world his demise would represent!!!!

So there is how Mike combines 90%, 80% and 20% to arrive at 100%, which explains his vast powers of disputation, insult, self-glorification and long-windedness.

DavidGee, another post devoted to a personal attack on little ole me. I do notice an unfortunate pattern in my "skirmishes" over the years, David. It seems that every time I run afoul of some self-professed "expert" and I don't buy it and I question what they say, the conversation suddenly winds up about "me". Amazing. But frankly, pretty predictable, given the number of self-styled "experts" and "teachers".

Now you know why I so publicly disavow myself from those titles and why I consistently say that I only discuss basics. When you learn the basics, please feel free to get in touch with me.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

MM
07-02-2007, 12:14 PM
Chris, are you deliberately forgetting how many times I have quoted Minoru Mochizuki's exact definition of aiki? "aikiis the ura of kiai."


Hi David,
Can you explain that in more detail? The aiki is ura of kiai?


I have never defined aiki as "avoidance," but I have said that children use aiki when they avoid an adult's trying to control them. Avoidance, itself, is not necessarily aiki but it can employ aiki. In the child's case, they use the ura of the adult's strength by going instinctively to its weakest point without having to be taught how to find that weakness. They know inately because it is part of the human nervous system.

It has little to do with skeletal movement and everything to do with the instinctive use of the weakest part of an adult's efforts.


Hmmm ... okay, IF the main purpose/definition of aikido is using the inherent weak part of effort, then there might be something to your theory. IMO, using the basest sense of jujutsu or sometimes parts of aikijutsu, then you might have some working theory. Throw in Jung's collective consciousness and a few other odd bits and pieces and maybe. :)

But, I have a different view of aiki-do now. One in which your theory doesn't hold much sway. Structure has a lot to do with aiki. Weakest parts of an adult's effort does not. In other words, aiki works with either the strongest part of an adult effort or the weakest part of an adult effort. Doesn't matter. Not being sarcastic or anything here David, but think about that.

If you do make it to Maryland, we really should get together. In person is communication. This stuff here (AikiWeb, BB, emails, etc) is not.

Mark

David Orange
07-02-2007, 12:34 PM
It seems that every time I run afoul of some self-professed "expert" and I don't buy it and I question what they say, the conversation suddenly winds up about "me". Amazing. But frankly, pretty predictable, given the number of self-styled "experts" and "teachers".

Right. Of course, you never make the discussion about "them," do you? And of self-styled "experts" and "teachers," who among us has produced his own video series and sold it? 'Nuff sed, huh?

When you learn the basics, please feel free to get in touch with me.

Sure thing, Mike.

David

Mike Sigman
07-02-2007, 12:44 PM
Right. Of course, you never make the discussion about "them," do you? And of self-styled "experts" and "teachers," who among us has produced his own video series and sold it? 'Nuff sed, huh? And nowhere styled as anything but "basics", David. But you seem reluctant to leave the topic of personal attacks and inferences. Why not join the discussion with some "how to" stuff instead of the rancor?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
07-02-2007, 01:14 PM
Can you explain that in more detail? The aiki is ura of kiai?

Absolutely. According to Mochizuki Sensei, kiai is omote (front or visible, outward, recognized). It's one's pure intent. In other words, kiai is the spirit of attacking and it's pure. A person intends wholeheartedly to push, punch, kick or cut another person. That's his omote and he puts his power into that. A good example is the punch, where his power is truly focused within a small surface area in a space of an inch or two in depth.

It is, in fact, the ura of that omote to "block" the punch, strike it from the side or whatever, but that's not really the ura in a pure sense.

The real ura of an attack is where the strength is "empty" (the opposite of the fully-concentrated power in omote).

And there are two basic ways to do that:

1) move to where the force is not
2) manipulate the force to where it becomes weak

Aikido tai sabaki moves to the emptiness of the attacking strength (as a child slides into the weakness of his parents' grasp and moves to a position where he is hard to hold).

Manipulating the force can be done by parrying and/or turning the attack.

Aikido in fact, usually manipulates the attack/force while also moving into its weak spot, thereby multiplying the effect of both methods.

Unlike a "blocking" movement, though, real aiki goes to the "pure" ura of the attack--where it really is weak--and, unlike the "block," does not interfere at all with the force, so it is like the force "slips" or "slides" into its own ura or is turned inside-out or backward from itself.

But, I have a different view of aiki-do now. One in which your theory doesn't hold much sway.

That's not my "theory," it's Minoru Mochizuki's definition of aiki.

Structure has a lot to do with aiki. Weakest parts of an adult's effort does not. In other words, aiki works with either the strongest part of an adult effort or the weakest part of an adult effort. Doesn't matter. Not being sarcastic or anything here David, but think about that.

It "works" with the strongest part of any effort by using the inherent weakness of that effort. The old saying is, "Every front has a back. The bigger the front, the bigger the back."

Every omote has an ura. The bigger the one, the bigger the other. So however strong anyone is, his strength has an equal weakness in the ura and aiki uses that. So the weakest part of an adult's effort definitely does have something to do with aiki: it's the essence of it.

Of course, structure is a given. Without it, you literally can do nothing.

Take aki-age, for instance. If you don't have basic structure, you can't stop an on-rushing attacker by applying aiki-age because you'll be driven back, yourself. But once Mochizuki Sensei had us doing a series of techniques from aiki-age and he laughed when I did it to a judo godan, pointed at me and said, "Now that guy is good at this!"

Aiki-age would, on the surface, appear to go directly against the attacker's greatest strength, but it uses the principles described above (of course, with strong [but not fixed] posture) to access the ura of that strength, where it suddenly becomes completely weak.

I have broached the subject before with Rob and maybe with Dan as to whether their methods somehow "access" the ura of the attacker's strength directly through the physical contact. But I never got any real answer to that question.

If you do make it to Maryland, we really should get together. In person is communication. This stuff here (AikiWeb, BB, emails, etc) is not.

Well, as close as it sometimes comes, this is not an utter void, or I wouldn't spend as much time here as I do.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
07-02-2007, 01:23 PM
And nowhere styled as anything but "basics", David. But you seem reluctant to leave the topic of personal attacks and inferences. Why not join the discussion with some "how to" stuff instead of the rancor?

I note that whenever "anyone" discusses anything as they understand it, you (specifically) are very quick to come in with dismissals and ridicule, heavy with direct or implied personal attacks. It's just really funny to hear you come back like you do when you get a taste of the same kind of thing. Personal attacks until the cows come home, but when you get a cow at your house, you do the dramatic death scene from Hamlet and moan about personal attacks.

I think the fora would be far better if, as Dan suggested, we all become more subtle in and less focused on the put-downs and really discuss the stuff. Most of what you post is hints about what you know, dismissals of what others say and references implying that "those who know" would laugh at what the other guy says and humbly nod at whatever pearls you have laid before us.

I don't really care. This is electrons on a screen. If you wanted to be more forthcoming with what you "know," you could put a helck of a lot more content into your posts and a lot less misleading innuendo and put-downs. Like Chris' thing about silk-reeling. There he was trying his best to get on your good side and you just had to smack him down. You should be ashamed!!!!!

Shame on you, Mike Sigman!!!:D

David

Ron Tisdale
07-02-2007, 01:37 PM
/snipe mode/ jeez, there is plenty of shame to go around...look at what a jerk I can be!/snipe mode off/

:D

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
07-02-2007, 03:25 PM
I note that whenever "anyone" discusses anything as they understand it, you (specifically) are very quick to come in with dismissals and ridicule, heavy with direct or implied personal attacks. Oh stoppit. You claim to be an expert and a teacher and you resent people not accepting your word. If you knew the stuff, you could answer the questions. If you publicly post that you are an expert, expect the questions. Certainly bona fide students have a right to see how you handle questions and it's enlightening to see "teachers" challenged. It does good for the art.

Again, why don't you contribute factual information, physical "how to's", etc., rather than name-dropping with the constant "me and Mochizuki" stuff? One thing that always makes me suspicious is when someone's credentials rely heavily on someone else's name or reputations ( even anonymoust ones like "Chinese masters" or "secret koryu" or "senior Tai Chi teachers" :rolleyes: etc.). Hey.... I'm willing to listen to guys claiming to be experts, but when you get into the game, the ante is being able to answer real questions, not smear someone else's reputation to get off the topic. It's very un-Aikido-like. ;)

Insofar as Chris's "silk reeling', wouldn't the obvious answer to my first remark have been to simply explain how what he did was silk-reeling and how it worked?...... as opposed to anger and attack? Which response would have signalled actual knowledge? The "attack when the going gets tough" stuff seems to be pretty common on some "forums" ("fora" is proper if you speak Latin, for the neuter plural, but within English the more proper plural is "forums").... it seems to be a face thing. I'm not really interested in face or I'd hang out shingle of some sort... how about some plain answers from you experts?

The original topic had to do with the idea that the Chinese martial arts use some sort of "different approach". I say they don't really, if you look at the basics. "Reeling Silk" is actually a product of ki and kokyu-power, when you break it down to its components. However, if you disagree, why not see if you can explain why rather than do another post on my personality as you perceive it?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
07-02-2007, 03:56 PM
Yes I am stating I learned it from Japanese sources
[[snip]]
I didn't bring up the Chinese method except to say a teacher I know was listening to me describe what I was doing and he used the word "full" which I jumped on! It was perfect for what I was trying to say. It is part of the breathing of in/yo ho. Every other referrence to things "Chinese" came from you.
What I don't get is we have been discussing my way as being different from the framework, stretched method you use. I don't do that except to teach new guys some basics to midlevel stuff.
But now you just swtiched and told me what -I- am doing is Chinese. I have no idea what you're saying, other than the implication that you're somehow "advanced" and something about "stretching the body" is only for beginners up to moderate level. So much for suspending the head in every internal martial art I know of.

The point is this. You claim and infer that you have advanced skills. You don't provide the names of who you got these skills from, but you are definite that you got them from someone (see above quote). I politely asked where. That's a fair question, but it didn't get an answer.

You've spent a lot of time focused on the idea that Ueshiba learned his stuff from Takeda and that Ueshiba's claims to greatness need to be looked at closer because everything he got was from Takeda. You seem concerned about setting the record straight, when it comes to Ueshiba, so how about playing by the same standards yourself?

I listened to your comments on "slack" and told you that they sound more like "jin" to me and I asked where you got your stuff from. Now we're at your statement that you learned it from some Japanese. It's unlike anything I've ever heard from Japanese (and I started out exploring these skills in Japanese arts, so let's get off the idea that somehow what I do is only Chinese), so I asked questions. Again, it seems that when the questioning gets tough, the attacks start. I can point you to archived posts of yours where the same thing has happened.

What's so hard about explaining things simply? Who did you study with that taught you these things, Dan, if they're "Japanese"? If they're your take on things, why not just say so? Once you make the claim, why get upset about the public questions and start dragging in irrelevant comments about all the people who like you or have been polite to you? Surely someone as advanced as you claim to be will have no question with the simple questions I'm asking; my ante has been paid by the extended descriptions of how to do things, as are a couple of other peoples'. Or is this something where readers are expected to just accept each person's opinion without question.... sort of like ghost stories around the campfire? ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
07-02-2007, 04:35 PM
/snipe mode/ jeez, there is plenty of shame to go around...look at what a jerk I can be!/snipe mode off/



Isn't there?

Best to you.

David

gdandscompserv
07-02-2007, 04:48 PM
You've spent a lot of time focused on the idea that Ueshiba learned his stuff from Takeda and that Ueshiba's claims to greatness need to be looked at closer because everything he got was from Takeda. You seem concerned about setting the record straight, when it comes to Ueshiba, so how about playing by the same standards yourself?
"People in those days wanted to observe how I took ukemi for Takeda Sensei rather than his techniques themselves. His techniques were really rough. He would throw me to the mat by reversing my hand. Since I immediately stood up after being thrown with a smile on my face, he would grow increasingly more irritated. (Laughter) He again came to me. I entered before he reached me. In other words, I was in an irimi position. So he was unable to throw me. On the contrary, I was in a position to throw him but I couldn't since he was an old man. What Takeda Sensei did then was to take a "gyaku" or reverse position when he entered. But I had studied gyaku techniques since I was a boy. If I strike you like this you will fall. I learned this from my grandfather when I was small."
-Noriaki Inoue
http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=373

DH
07-02-2007, 04:52 PM
I have no idea what you're saying, other than the implication that you're somehow "advanced" and something about "stretching the body" is only for beginners up to moderate level. So much for suspending the head in every internal martial art I know of.
The point is this. You claim and infer that you have advanced skills. You don't provide the names of who you got these skills from, but you are definite that you got them from someone (see above quote). I politely asked where. That's a fair question, but it didn't get an answer.

I have advanced skills?
You're asserting I stated somewhere I have advanced skills?
Where?______________________________.
I stated that certain things I was talking about are past the things you were bringing to the table. Which are more in line with begining and midlevel work. There is more

Names of teachers? You hate it when names are brought up. You just said so yourself.. I stand on my own. My truth is in my own hands. As far as you are concerned just say I made up or learned this stuff from you on the internet. It was so easy I could read it and do it and impress my friends. Thanks.:D

Advanced or expert?. Odd that you are the only person I have ever met who tells me "I think I am one."
Apparently everyone else can read..


I listened to your comments on "slack" and told you that they sound more like "jin" to me and I asked where you got your stuff from. Now we're at your statement that you learned it from some Japanese. It's unlike anything I've ever heard from Japanese (and I started out exploring these skills in Japanese arts, so let's get off the idea that somehow what I do is only Chinese), so I asked questions. Again, it seems that when the questioning gets tough, the attacks start. I can point you to archived posts of yours where the same thing has happened.
Attacked? Where were you attacked by me?
Why not stick to the topic. For a guy who said on the Neijia list that you deliberately provoke and push people to get them spill the beans you sure have a thin skin. You presume that I care about your opinion enough to be moved by your prodding.


What's so hard about explaining things simply? Who did you study with that taught you these things, Dan, if they're "Japanese"? If they're your take on things, why not just say so? Once you make the claim, why get upset about the public questions and start dragging in irrelevant comments about all the people who like you or have been polite to you? Surely someone as advanced as you claim to be will have no question with the simple questions I'm asking ;)
Regards,
Mike Sigman

Ever heard the term projection?
You
Video's, interviews, now books. One of us is trying to come across as an expert. Whether you state it or can reconcile the implications or not- your behaviour is clear.

Me
.............................................................
Here maybe this will help ya Mike.
No one should come here.

David Orange
07-02-2007, 04:53 PM
Oh stoppit. You claim to be an expert and a teacher and you resent people not accepting your word. If you knew the stuff, you could answer the questions. If you publicly post that you are an expert, expect the questions. Certainly bona fide students have a right to see how you handle questions and it's enlightening to see "teachers" challenged. It does good for the art.

Nobody minds being questioned more than you, Mike. I don't mind and I've never claimed to be an expert. I knew an expert very well and I go by what I learned from him, but no one knows better than I that I'm not a "master."

But again, with the personal attacks. That's where you're the master and yet you have the thinnest skin when they come back to you! It's funny!

Again, why don't you contribute factual information, physical "how to's", etc., rather than name-dropping with the constant "me and Mochizuki" stuff?

Well, that's what I just said: whatever "anyone" (and that means me or "ANYONE" else posts, "you" and that means "MIKE SIGMAN" come in and not only "question" it but flat out say that it's wrong, mistaken, ignorant and (insert your favorite insult here) plus your opinion that the person who said it "doesn't understand," "doesn't have a clue," "can't do" or "(insert your favorite put-down here)".

And then your sycophants jump into the "discussion"....

So I give you back a taste of your own kusuri and your golden curls start whipping about and your little feet start stamping....

Get a sense of humor, Cap.

One thing that always makes me suspicious is when someone's credentials rely heavily on someone else's name or reputations ( even anonymoust ones like "Chinese masters" or "secret koryu" or "senior Tai Chi teachers" :rolleyes: etc.). Hey.... I'm willing to listen to guys claiming to be experts, but when you get into the game, the ante is being able to answer real questions, not smear someone else's reputation to get off the topic. It's very un-Aikido-like. ;)

(Dang...how do you type the sound of someone stifling a laugh?)...Like I say, Mike, all anyone can go on is where they've been and what they've done. You apparently once had someone "talking about promoting you to black belt in aikido" and...apparently that didn't happen...you went off into Chinese martial arts and now these years later, you want to be known as an expert in Japanese arts, too. I don't mind that. I don't put any stock in rank, myself. But you, yourself, would be taken even more seriously than a lot of people take you if you weren't so insistent on putting other people down. You can have glory on glory without that. But if you constantly put it out, you will eventually get some back. It's just human nature.

Insofar as Chris's "silk reeling', wouldn't the obvious answer to my first remark have been to simply explain how what he did was silk-reeling and how it worked?...... as opposed to anger and attack?

Funny you should interpret his response in that way. I don't think that's the kind of "sensitivity" we try to develop as martial artists, is it?

As I read Chris' reply, it was a little defensive, but far from an attack. He was trying to stay on your good side trying to ally with you. No way he wanted to attack you. He wanted your good graces. You should go back and reread it.

("fora" is proper if you speak Latin, for the neuter plural, but within English the more proper plural is "forums")

Oh. Sorry. I usually speak Latin, especially when I'm talking to myself....

The original topic had to do with the idea that the Chinese martial arts use some sort of "different approach". I say they don't really, if you look at the basics. "Reeling Silk" is actually a product of ki and kokyu-power, when you break it down to its components. However, if you disagree, why not see if you can explain why rather than do another post on my personality as you perceive it?

Again, that had to do with my statement that the Japanese and Chinese arts "do" "begin" with the same basics, but each emphasizes a different principle or two, then refines and evolves that emphasized method to the point that it is vastly different from those arts that have followed the same process emphasizing different principles. I said that "silk reeling" is an example--"unless someone can show me a Japanese art that uses silk reeling."

Your reply was something like "research would probably show that some koryu had used it at some point in the past" which was all you needed (your own speculation) to prove the "fact".

Of course, when Chris said that his ryu uses silk reeling, AH! That verged into an attempt to share the spotlight with Master M! Let the excoriation begin!!!!

I note that you never addressed Dan's assertion that silk-reeling is included in daito ryu....

Don't take it so hard, Mike. And maybe you shouldn't dish it out so much, either.

David

David Orange
07-02-2007, 04:58 PM
The point is this. You claim and infer that you have advanced skills. You don't provide the names of who you got these skills from, but you are definite that you got them from someone (see above quote). I politely asked where. That's a fair question, but it didn't get an answer.

Er....he implies: you infer.

Anyway, what a laugh!!!!

You have steadfastly refused to tell "who" taught you!

Geez!!!

Perp, babe?

Mike Sigman
07-02-2007, 06:08 PM
Again, that had to do with my statement that the Japanese and Chinese arts "do" "begin" with the same basics, but each emphasizes a different principle or two, then refines and evolves that emphasized method to the point that it is vastly different from those arts that have followed the same process emphasizing different principles. I said that "silk reeling" is an example--"unless someone can show me a Japanese art that uses silk reeling."How is silk-reeling an example? You simply assert these things like that settles it. Do you understand what "silk reeling" is? No, you don't. Prove me wrong, don't go off on another character-assassination attempt, let's see you back up your assertion with some rigor instead of the strength of your feelings, as you usually do. Okinawan karate has "kokyu power", yet a neophyte would tell you that Okinawan karate and Aikido are "different".... which is what you are saying about Japanese and Chinese martial arts. You see a superficial difference because you don't understand the commonality. Your use of "silk reeling" as an example is a classic example of where you think there's a divergence but in reality it's the same thing. So I ask you, as usual, to back it up with some facts (besides "me and Mochizuki").

BTW... notice how easy it is to discuss the issue rather than join you in your personality stuff. Try it, for a change.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
07-02-2007, 06:12 PM
Er....he implies: you infer.

Anyway, what a laugh!!!!

You have steadfastly refused to tell "who" taught you!

Geez!!!

Perp, babe?Look it up. It's in various forums when it was germane. As one of your attempts to stay in the bickering domain, I see no point in replying. Look at my previous posts.... you have yet to give a single substantive answer to very straightforward questions about how to do things. The only surmise appears to be that you don't know, right?... so it's an attempt to save face by changing the conversation continually to personalities?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
07-02-2007, 08:50 PM
Look it up. It's in various forums when it was germane. As one of your attempts to stay in the bickering domain, I see no point in replying.

Well, stop asking others for it, okay?

Someone mentions their teacher, they're namedropping, they don't mention the teacher, they're hiding. They don't give credentials, they have none. They ask for your credentials, it's character assassination.

As to silk reeling, I understand that it's a central method of many Chinese arts. It has even been said that it's essential for all Chinese martial arts. I know that it's developed from the physical movement used by Chinese silk makers and was adopted into and developed by Chinese martial artists--much as kokyu (breathing) was developed into a refined skill in Japanese arts.

And before you have an aneurysm, don't take that as the full summation of my knowledge of kokyu, though it is about all I know about silk reeling--except that it is a unique movement and very precise. It's a highly refined element of Chinese martial arts that I said exemplifies "a" skill that did not come into the Japanese arts unless, I said, you can show me a Japanese art that incorporates it.

You have not done that. You pirouetted all over Chris' assertion that his style has it and did a grande jette past Dan's assertion that he was taught it in daito ryu, but all you could provide was vague speculation that "some" koryu may have had it in the past, which satisfied your level of intellectual inquiry.

So if you know of a Japanese art that uses silk reeling, please, lay it out there. If you don't, don't cover it up with the stamping of the little feet and the flinging of the little curls and the things of that nature, like the saying of the negative things about the personalities of those who are questioning you. When you don't know, just admit it. I do. But where I do know, I will assert it and whatever you say doesn't bother me because I went where you didn't go and met people you didn't meet, who were closer to Ueshiba than you have been. Why would I take your word over theirs?

But then, you "got" what Draeger "failed" to get in all his years in Asia with all the Japanese and Chinese masters he knew. You've done better by touring the US and attending a seminar here and there.

That's just incredible. Who could fault a character like that?

David

Mike Sigman
07-02-2007, 10:04 PM
Someone mentions their teacher, they're namedropping, they don't mention the teacher, they're hiding. They don't give credentials, they have none. They ask for your credentials, it's character assassination. Emmmm.... do you think that you and I are the only people who read this thread and Dan's previous posts? I asked where he learned something... not what his credentials were. Something he represented as "Japanese". In your haste to make bad noises, you're getting a little whippy. As to silk reeling, I understand that it's a central method of many Chinese arts. It has even been said that it's essential for all Chinese martial arts. I know that it's developed from the physical movement used by Chinese silk makers and was adopted into and developed by Chinese martial artists--much as kokyu (breathing) was developed into a refined skill in Japanese arts. Silk Reeling is a form of movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu-power. That's all it is. In other words, your guess that there are specific, refined movements peculiar to Chinese martial arts indicates that you don't understand ki and kokyu, even though you use the terms. Go back to my example of karate having kokyu and Aikido having kokyu. There are karate people and Aikido people who have no idea what that means, so they take a superficial appearance, belief in their own style being unique, etc., and postulate to the world about the great "differences".... similar to what you're publicly doing. Yet, go ask Ikeda Sensei why he's discussing kokyu with the karate expert, Ushiro. Ikeda understands there's no real difference. Reeling silk is just a variant of the same process and it does NOT come from the movement of Chinese silk makers, for chrissake. Your whole commentary about silk reeling and "refined Chinese principles" is a fignewton of your imagination. And before you have an aneurysm, don't take that as the full summation of my knowledge of kokyu, though it is about all I know about silk reeling--except that it is a unique movement and very precise. It's a highly refined element of Chinese martial arts that I said exemplifies "a" skill that did not come into the Japanese arts unless, I said, you can show me a Japanese art that incorporates it. Who cares? The movements in Aikido employ pulling silk, which is just a variant of ki/kokyu as is reeling silk. You have not done that. You pirouetted all over Chris' assertion that his style has it and did a grande jette past Dan's assertion that he was taught it in daito ryu, but all you could provide was vague speculation that "some" koryu may have had it in the past, which satisfied your level of intellectual inquiry. OK, so all they have to do to respond to my side of the discussion is provide some details of how it works, right? Some people might just say, "I don't know", but that seems to be declasse' on this list. But then, you "got" what Draeger "failed" to get in all his years in Asia with all the Japanese and Chinese masters he knew. You've done better by touring the US and attending a seminar here and there.
Actually, a LOT of people now have "got" what Draeger and a number of the earlier martial-arts buffs didn't get in regard to this very narrow subject, but a very key subject... in a number of martial arts. But that's called progress. Unless you want to postulate that Draeger et al represented all there was to know about relatively shallow, technique-oriented Asian martial arts? Is that your position?

Let me note that you tried to respond with only a couple of facts, and those were misunderstandings about reeling silk. Is that all the facts you have, to support your assertions? Not even any simple "how to's", etc.? You made the assertion. I questioned it. You devoted posts to denigrating me in response, trying to mask your lack of knowledge and to curtail questions. You're used to speaking unquestioned to a bunch of open-mouthed students, I suppose? Why not just accept that if you make a public assertion it's open to public question and that slandering the questioner is not generally the best response.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
07-03-2007, 09:20 AM
Emmmm.... do you think that you and I are the only people who read this thread and Dan's previous posts? I asked where he learned something... not what his credentials were.

Same thing, Mike. You also demanded specifically "who" taught him. You should read again. Everyone else knows what you said, as well.

Silk Reeling is a form of movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu-power. That's all it is. In other words, your guess that there are specific, refined movements peculiar to Chinese martial arts indicates that you don't understand ki and kokyu, even though you use the terms.

There you go again, George Bush. So silk reeling is "ONLY" "a form of movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu power." That's "all" it is, huh? Then "any" movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu (again, that mistaken relation) "is" "Silk Reeling"? Don't buy it, Senator. You're no Morihei Ueshiba. Your big fallacy is surfacing again. Stick to tai chi, which you apparently know pretty well. Most people who become accomplished there are satisfied with that. Only the kichigai have the intense need to be recognized simultaneously as experts in JMA, and only the really kichigai pursue it so doggedly and in such insulting fashion to all others. Now you're bending your holy principles (that Chris couldn't possibly know) into something very simple. That's called kichigai.

Go back to my example of karate having kokyu and Aikido having kokyu.

You could have given an example of "how the earth is flat" and made as much sense and been just as true. Yes, both karate and aikido use kokyu, but they use it in virtually opposite ways. Karate uses kokyu in kiai while aikido uses the ura of kiai, which is aiki. And since you've shown previously that you don't understand kiai either, I don't expect that explanation to affect your walnut-sized brain in the least, but there it is.

There are karate people and Aikido people who have no idea what that means, so they take a superficial appearance, belief in their own style being unique, etc., and postulate to the world about the great "differences".... similar to what you're publicly doing. Yet, go ask Ikeda Sensei why he's discussing kokyu with the karate expert, Ushiro. Ikeda understands there's no real difference.

Have you had that discussion with Ikeda Sensei, yourself, or are you, like so much else you do, simply speculating from a distance. "Aha! I see that the sunrise is a golden color! Ergo, the sun is made of gold!!!! I shall take mys spaceship to the sun and return a rich man!!!"

.....yeh......

Reeling silk is just a variant of the same process and it does NOT come from the movement of Chinese silk makers, for chrissake. Your whole commentary about silk reeling and "refined Chinese principles" is a fignewton of your imagination.

No, it isn't. Since I am only one human being, able to study deeply in only a few subjects, I supplement my direct experience with extensive reading in areas where I cannot make direct explorations. And being interested only in the truth of those matters, I read only the best writers I can find. You, fortunately, are not among those. But what I have read is that silk reeling movement did develop from a local Chinese culture of silk making, based on the particular unique movement of the silk makers drawing out the silk thread and reeling it onto spindles or holding devices. Just as the Okinawans developed the oar and the kama into weapons requiring unique manipulations and therefore unique physical movements, the Chinese developed this silk reeling movement, "REFINED" it, evolved it and incorporated it into the major Chinese martial arts. The deep particulars of it are beyond my experience, but I trust my sources on that far more than I would trust you with my dog.

Who cares?

Someone must.

The movements in Aikido employ pulling silk, which is just a variant of ki/kokyu as is reeling silk.

Now, that is very interesting. I said "show me any Japanese art that uses silk reeling" and you said that "probably" some ancient ryu once used it. Then you told Chris that his koryu couldn't possibly employ it. And now you say that aikido does employ it.

Is there any reason you didn't give that answer when I first said, "Show me a Japanese art that uses it"?

Hadn't made it up yet, maybe???

OK, so all they have to do to respond to my side of the discussion is provide some details of how it works, right? Some people might just say, "I don't know", but that seems to be declasse' on this list.

Not with me. I've said it several times, haven't I? You are the one least likely to use that phrase, of all the many tinfoil-hat-wearing genius know-it-alls on the entire internet, Mike Sigman is THE #1 LEAST likely of all to admit "not knowing" something about any subject known to man. Here's your Internet Trophy, Mike.

Actually, a LOT of people now have "got" what Draeger and a number of the earlier martial-arts buffs didn't get in regard to this very narrow subject, but a very key subject... in a number of martial arts.

But the important point is that "you," Mike Sigman, esq., Lord of All He Surveys, King of All to whom He Speaks, Master of Every Subject Known, "got" what Donn Draeger didn't get as a menkyo holder in Katori Shinto Ryu, master of judo, founder of hoplology, veteran of decades in Asia and student of many, many great Japanese and Chinese martial artists. And you did it all inside your own, magnificent head........

That tinfoil really works, huh?

But that's called progress.

Are you saying they didn't have tinfoil in Draeger's day, or they hadn't yet learned to make hats of it? Or maybe you have just devised a superior type of hat from it???? Progress is a wonderful thing.

Unless you want to postulate that Draeger et al represented all there was to know about relatively shallow, technique-oriented Asian martial arts? Is that your position?

Well, at least we know "who" trained Draeger and "what" he learned, which we don't know about Mike Sigman. And from Draeger's hands-on experience with the breadth and depth of masters he knew (and since you, yourself, have lamented the decline into the modern day), I'm pretty sure that I'd much prefer to learn from Draeger than from thee.

You made the assertion. I questioned it. You devoted posts to denigrating me in response, trying to mask your lack of knowledge and to curtail questions.

Mike, the denigrating posts were entirely unrelated to the other questions, which I dealt with in other posts. I just felt that the denigrating posts needed to be made. They were related to the thread only to the degree that you needed to have your festering boils lanced. It's a messy, messy job, but it was just crying out to be done, so...I did it.

You're used to speaking unquestioned to a bunch of open-mouthed students, I suppose?

That's a laugh. Nobody believes anything I say. I was uchi-deshi to one of the earliest uchi-deshi to one of the undeniably most senior students of Sokaku Takeda. I know my skills and abilities and, most importantly, what my limits are. I sacrificed a huge portion of my time on earth to learning aikido from the best there was available at that time. And he told me that I "pretty well understand" or "pretty completely understand" (daibu wakaru) aikido. But no one listens to a thing I say.

And that's fine with me. I'd always rather be underestimated than fully understood....

Why not just accept that if you make a public assertion it's open to public question and that slandering the questioner is not generally the best response.

I'm fine with that. I just wonder why "you" don't take that attitude when your assertions are questioned.

And again, my critique of your posting style was neither 'slander' nor a response to your questions. It was just a dirty job that had to be done.

Best wishes.

David

Mike Sigman
07-03-2007, 10:24 AM
I think I'll let your posts speak for themselves, David. My only comment will be that my information on silk reeling comes from a number of experts over a number of years. The last person who discussed with me personally where it came from (the name, "silk reeling") was Chen Xiao Wang. Your information is wrong. But again... for the umpteenth time, instead of personal attacks, why not either try to physically explain things or simply say "I don't know"?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Upyu
07-03-2007, 10:49 AM
There you go again, George Bush. So silk reeling is "ONLY" "a form of movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu power." That's "all" it is, huh? Then "any" movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu (again, that mistaken relation) "is" "Silk Reeling"?

Not that it takes me to point it out, but that was never said...


And now you say that aikido does employ it.

"Pulling Silk" vs "Reeling Silk" dude.
Check it ;)
Theyre two different things and even I wouldnt pretend to have the slightest idea about all the requirements behind reeling silk.


And he told me that I "pretty well understand" or "pretty completely understand" (daibu wakaru) aikido. But no one listens to a thing I say.

The reason being you still havent, even since the e-budo days, come up with a competent description of the body mechanics we talk about.
Even though Ive never met Dan(though I finally met Mike) and both of them arent the best of friends here on the web:D, I can understand what they say perfectly...because they have the goods.
As far as these bodyskills are concerned it doesnt seem like you have them.
Explaining them in terms of Aiki is the Ura of Kiai etc is all fine and good, but if you have command of the body skills you should be able to describe them sans the "mochizuki" speak.

David Orange
07-03-2007, 11:44 AM
I think I'll let your posts speak for themselves, David.

Very good.

My only comment will be that my information on silk reeling comes from a number of experts over a number of years. The last person who discussed with me personally where it came from (the name, "silk reeling") was Chen Xiao Wang. Your information is wrong.

And he said it's in aikido? Or any other Japanese art?

But again... for the umpteenth time, instead of personal attacks, why not either try to physically explain things or simply say "I don't know"?

You don't explain them or say you don't know. Why don't you physically explain how it's part of aikido?

David

David Orange
07-03-2007, 12:10 PM
Not that it takes me to point it out, but that was never said...

Yeah, Mike said it in post #1169:
"Silk Reeling is a form of movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu-power. That's all it is."

"Pulling Silk" vs "Reeling Silk" dude.
Check it ;)
Theyre two different things and even I wouldnt pretend to have the slightest idea about all the requirements behind reeling silk.

Mike used it as an equivalent term. Otherwise, why even mention it? It's his effort at obfuscation....etc.

And you reinforce my point that Reeling Silk is a highly refined and developed Chinese concept that is not found in the Japanese arts. That's all I said. There was no reason to mention "pulling silk" if it isn't related, was there?

The reason being you still havent, even since the e-budo days, come up with a competent description of the body mechanics we talk about.

Edited addition:

If Mochizuki said I understood aikido "pretty completely," then no one else's judgment (based on comments on a message board) really impresses me. Only an idiot would imagine that he didn't understand aikido, so I have to think he meant something meaningful in that comment. Maybe the upshot of it is that you're discussing something "other" than aikido. (end of edited addition)

Well, I doubt that Mochizuki or Shioda would describe things the way that you (or especially Mike) do. I haven't read anyone's "competent description" of those mechanics--just vague references to bits and pieces along with occasional quotes that people claim support what they're saying. The aunkai website is getting better, but in our first encounters on e-budo, about the most "complete" description anyone was using was "this stuff" and "it has to be felt."

Explaining them in terms of Aiki is the Ura of Kiai etc is all fine and good, but if you have command of the body skills you should be able to describe them sans the "mochizuki" speak.

Well, your site and discussions revolve around rooting and the equalization of forces, front and rear, side-to-side and up-and-down. The old ways of training were a slow way to enforce those awarenesses throughout the body and to train them. The new ways, largely revolving around competition (for judo at least), destroy those balances by developing tokui to an extreme. One likely has a few good waza and he's likely good at those on one side only and in a randori context. The training I went through was always equal for left and right and it was oriented to eliminating a preference for the left or right. Even in sword work, we did suburi both right and left.

The kind of skills you describe are a study in themselves. They were never discussed in the old dojo except as a by-product of long-term training. Whatever I have developed of them (enough to easily do aiki age on a judo godan, at least) has come without even thinking of them as separate skills, so they would have developed without specific jargon or rationalizations.

"Ground path"? Who can accomplish "any" effort without grounding?

When has anyone talked about any kind of "qi development" without relying first and foremost on alignment of the body, grounding and tanren?

And none of what any of you describes really deviates from that. None of you describe it clearly enough to show that it's any different from that, either. Dan's descriptions come closer than most.

Still, when it comes to aiki and aikido, I don't see any need to discuss it in terms other than Mochizuki used. I don't see any need to accept a definition that's radically different than what he used. All I can conclude is that you are all doing something different that is "related" or "relatable" to aiki and aikido, and I have not attempted to discuss that.

So it's wrong to judge my statements on one subject by relating it all to another subject.

David

clwk
07-03-2007, 12:32 PM
Yeah, Mike said it in post #1169:
"Silk Reeling is a form of movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu-power. That's all it is."
Come on, David! All this banging and bashing is a lot of fun, but it starts to feel cheesy when you drop into such mistaken logic. A gin and tonic is 'just' a drink with alcohol, water, and carbonation -- but that does not make a 'rum and coke' a gin and tonic. But the point stands that a gin and tonic can be made from a variety of gins and a variety of tonics. You could even probably make a drink that was, *in spirit* essentially a G&T with an even wider range of ingredients -- but Coca Cola would not be one of them (even though it might be okay to use Pepsi in a version of 'rum & coke').

And you reinforce my point that Reeling Silk is a highly refined and developed Chinese concept that is not found in the Japanese arts. That's all I said. There was no reason to mention "pulling silk" if it isn't related, was there?
Why not just entertain the notion that there may be two related but non-trivially different styles of movement designated by the terms 'reeling silk' and 'pulling silk'? If you know that, then nothing Mike or Rob said seems at all incongruous. Your reactions have a somewhat paranoid tone which almost suggests that you are just unfamiliar with what they mean. That wouldn't have to be a problem, but it sets a poor precedent for discourse if you compound an understandable (and admitted) ignorance with unnecessary insinuations of linguistic foul play. It makes it sound as though you are *not* genuinely interested in information which *is* being communicated.

-ck

David Orange
07-03-2007, 12:33 PM
Quote:
David Orange wrote:
And he told me that I "pretty well understand" or "pretty completely understand" (daibu wakaru) aikido. But no one listens to a thing I say.

The reason being you still havent, even since the e-budo days, come up with a competent description of the body mechanics we talk about.


Just to clarify, my statement was in reply to Mike's statement that I am probably used to groups of open-mouthed beginners listening to and believing what I say.

And I said no one listens to what I say.

And that does not primarily refer to internet discussion groups. It applies to anyone with aikido exposure--especially those with some kind of stature in an organization. People who have been uchi deshi to some caucasian guy in the US, etc.

Those with some position in a hierarchy, etc.

And don't mistake it for a complaint. As I said, I'd far rather be underestimated than fully understood.

David

clwk
07-03-2007, 12:43 PM
As I said, I'd far rather be underestimated than fully understood.
Well, this is really just an aside, but I'm genuinely curious about that.

The logical implication of your statement is that you would *not* want to be both fully understood and properly estimated on that basis. In that case, you would actually prefer to confuse and obfuscate someone's perception of you -- in order to ensure that he continue to underestimate you. That is a conceptually coherent position, but it is a somewhat strange one to publicly profess. On the other hand, it seems *in itself* to help accomplish its twin goals, which is nice. Am I just misreading you?

-ck

David Orange
07-03-2007, 12:43 PM
A gin and tonic is 'just' a drink with alcohol, water, and carbonation -- but that does not make a 'rum and coke' a gin and tonic.

You know, I've made exactly that point with Mike. Sake is not vodka is not whiskey, but Mike says they're all essentially the same.

But the point stands that a gin and tonic can be made from a variety of gins and a variety of tonics. You could even probably make a drink that was, *in spirit* essentially a G&T with an even wider range of ingredients -- but Coca Cola would not be one of them (even though it might be okay to use Pepsi in a version of 'rum & coke').

Sure. But just movement and qi do not add up to reeling silk or aiki age or kokyu. Did you read Mike's detailed scathing of Chris earlier when he claimed that his Japanese koryu employs silk reeling? "Impossible," Mike (essentially) said. It has to be precisely the thing or you're fooling yourself.

Why not just entertain the notion that there may be two related but non-trivially different styles of movement designated by the terms 'reeling silk' and 'pulling silk'?

I accepted that Mike meant exactly that. It was Rob that pointed out that they are different things--though I've never heard of "silk pulling" as a concept in Japanese arts...

So maybe you're mistaking the one who differed on this point?

It makes it sound as though you are *not* genuinely interested in information which *is* being communicated.

Some communicate, but Mike tends mostly to self-glorify and my earlier post delineates the proportions of intent by which he goes about it.

I'm always interested in honest exchange. I've just never found it from Mike.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
07-03-2007, 12:47 PM
...you would actually prefer to confuse and obfuscate someone's perception of you -- in order to ensure that he continue to underestimate you...Am I just misreading you?

I have no intetntion to confuse or obfuscate, myself, but if someone wants to dismiss what I honestly say and engineer a diminshed image of me for his own self-satisfaction and self-glorification, that's fine with me. I would rather he underestimate me than that he fully expect my range.

Best wishes.

David

clwk
07-03-2007, 12:55 PM
Sure. But just movement and qi do not add up to reeling silk or aiki age or kokyu. Did you read Mike's detailed scathing of Chris earlier when he claimed that his Japanese koryu employs silk reeling? "Impossible," Mike (essentially) said. It has to be precisely the thing or you're fooling yourself.
I thought Mike was trying to be precise. I read him as saying that *based on his reading of Chris' past statements* he thought it unlikely that Chris was also already engaged in a full-blown 'silk-reeling' practice. He laid out a specific line of reasoning to back that assertion, and I saw no concrete challenge to that reasoning (from anyone). You seem to have called foul on Mike for 'even attacking someone who wanted to be your friend', but I just see a clinical dissection of mechanics. There is an actual dialogue about concrete mechanics underlying all this, and the politics and personalities are just a confusing overlay.

I accepted that Mike meant exactly that. It was Rob that pointed out that they are different things--though I've never heard of "silk pulling" as a concept in Japanese arts...
I read Rob as reminding you of what Mike had actually said. If you accepted that Mike had said they were different, why would Rob need to point it out to you?

So maybe you're mistaking the one who differed on this point?Maybe so, although I still don't see it. If you have always understood that both Mike and Rob were saying reeling & pulling are different, then where did the disagreement ever come into play. I only even spoke up because you seemed to be saying that Mike was using 'reeling silk' and 'pulling silk' as synonyms. It seems like you want to nail Mike for a false step, either in etiquette or terminology. Like I said, it's fun to watch the banging and bashing. I'm just offering a line call from my vantage point in the bleachers.

-ck

clwk
07-03-2007, 12:57 PM
I would rather he underestimate me than that he fully expect my range.
So you are talking about a 'fighting tactic' rather than a general principle of discourse, right? I think that answers my question, and I do not mean that snidely.

-ck

David Orange
07-03-2007, 01:28 PM
I thought Mike was trying to be precise.

Then why throw in the "silk pulling" reference at all? That just muddies the water.

There is an actual dialogue about concrete mechanics underlying all this, and the politics and personalities are just a confusing overlay.

And I see more of that from Mike than from Rob or Dan. (Far more.) As Chris said, Mike just seems to like to disagree. And Mike has basically admitted that more than once. He needs the human attention.

I read Rob as reminding you of what Mike had actually said. If you accepted that Mike had said they were different, why would Rob need to point it out to you?

No, I read that Mike had said that they were the same. Why would he bring "silk pulling" into a discussion of "silk reeling"? The whole question was whether Japanese arts use silk reeling.

I only even spoke up because you seemed to be saying that Mike was using 'reeling silk' and 'pulling silk' as synonyms.

No, I thought Mike was trying to pass off "silk pulling" as "silk reeling." It was a late comment in a series of exchanges over whether SR is part of Japanese arts and he came in and said "Aikido uses silk pulling." I still think he was trying to appear "right" when there was no basis for it. I maintain that silk reeling is a very highly refined Chinese method with a recognizable movement and that this "method" has never been used in Japanese arts. To which Mike replied, "Aikido uses silk pulling" with no indication that he means anything different by it at all.

It seems like you want to nail Mike for a false step, either in etiquette or terminology.

Well, Mike likes to pick nits and dismiss anyone's statement on the slightest ground, by twisting what you say if necessary, by restating what he has said so that your reply to what he really said doesn't apply to what he now says...

And he does this to everyone--except Rob, because he's afraid Rob's teacher will embarrass him. So he is always respectful to Rob. But he sees Dan as more on his level (though he would never admit that). At least he's afraid the readers of the forum will perceive Dan to be his equal and so he really has to work on that.

Me, he just thinks he can push around. Let him think it. Every front has a back.

Like I said, it's fun to watch the banging and bashing.

Well, it is all in fun, after all. I don't hate Mike. He's just so ...whatever you'd call him....I just have to give him a little trouble now and then.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
07-03-2007, 01:30 PM
So you are talking about a 'fighting tactic' rather than a general principle of discourse, right? I think that answers my question, and I do not mean that snidely.

Well, I'd just say I'd rather surprise someone by turning out to have more than they thought. For what that's worth.

Best to you.

David

clwk
07-03-2007, 01:41 PM
Then why throw in the "silk pulling" reference at all? That just muddies the water.
<snip>
No, I read that Mike had said that they were the same. Why would he bring "silk pulling" into a discussion of "silk reeling"? The whole question was whether Japanese arts use silk reeling.
Okay, you made me go back and look it up. Here's the quotation:
Who cares? The movements in Aikido employ pulling silk, which is just a variant of ki/kokyu as is reeling silk.
First, it seems self-evident from that sentence that Mike is distinguishing reeling and pulling. The phrase 'as is' gives it away.

Second, as to why: *if you read that a distinction is being drawn* then you recognize that Mike is making a statement about the mechanics he views to be operative in Aikido -- as well as making a precise statement about the relationship of those mechanics to the general discussion. It only 'muddies the water' if the waters are primarily a debate about who said what, rather than a debate about mechanics.

No, I thought Mike was trying to pass off "silk pulling" as "silk reeling." It was a late comment in a series of exchanges over whether SR is part of Japanese arts and he came in and said "Aikido uses silk pulling." I still think he was trying to appear "right" when there was no basis for it. I maintain that silk reeling is a very highly refined Chinese method with a recognizable movement and that this "method" has never been used in Japanese arts. To which Mike replied, "Aikido uses silk pulling" with no indication that he means anything different by it at all.
Even looking back at what he actually said, do you still hold this position? If this was -- from the very beginning -- an actual substantive comment and not the attributed foul debate tactic, would that change your analysis of the situation? If not, why not?

-ck

clwk
07-03-2007, 01:45 PM
Well, I'd just say I'd rather surprise someone by turning out to have more than they thought. For what that's worth.
Fair enough, and probably a sentiment many people share. I certainly understand why one would want to avoid the error of overplaying his hand (and therefore turning out to have less than represented). But what does surprising people have to do with making headway in a discussion?

-ck

David Orange
07-03-2007, 01:48 PM
Even looking back at what he actually said, do you still hold this position? If this was -- from the very beginning -- an actual substantive comment and not the attributed foul debate tactic, would that change your analysis of the situation? If not, why not?

I think he's blurring the differences to support his position that Chinese and Japanese arts are essentially the same. I don't know how long you've been following these discussions, but it goes way, way back. My position is that the JMA and CMA begin with the human body and nervous system and that they both developed into substantially different end states. Somewhat like saying AC electricity is "the same" as DC electricity or not. I say they have the same base, but that they're quite different in the end result.

Mike's basically saying they're identical.

So whatever he says is aimed at that end result, supported by the context of everything else he's been saying along this line for months and months on end. And I think in the silk pulling/silk reeling statement he's, again, blurring the ideas together to appear "right" on what he posits. That's just how I see it.

Thanks.

David

David Orange
07-03-2007, 01:50 PM
I certainly understand why one would want to avoid the error of overplaying his hand (and therefore turning out to have less than represented). But what does surprising people have to do with making headway in a discussion?

Assuming there's any chance of "making headway" in the discussion, there's no point to it. I'm just saying that if someone is determined to dismiss what I have to say based on my fairly long history and some pretty deep experience, then so be it. Let them dismiss it. You can't stop them from doing that. And if they have that kind of mindset, then I'd rather them keep an underestimation of me in case we should ever meet.

Clearer?

Thanks.

David

clwk
07-03-2007, 01:59 PM
Assuming there's any chance of "making headway" in the discussion, there's no point to it
Well, I for one would not even be reading it -- and certainly would not now be vaguely taking part in it -- if I thought there was no point at all. I would think a discussion only has 'no point to it' if there is *not* a chance of making headway. If there is no point, why be a part of the discussion?

-ck

David Orange
07-03-2007, 02:08 PM
If there is no point, why be a part of the discussion?

Assuming there's any chance of making headway in the discussion, there's no point in being underestimated.

Is what I was saying.

But when someone (and who could that be? Who could it be?...) has proven over time that there is no chance of ever making headway with him, I'd rather be underestimated.

Still, this is a bigger discussion than just that small aspect of it, so on it goes.

Best to you.

David

clwk
07-03-2007, 02:21 PM
Assuming there's any chance of making headway in the discussion, there's no point in being underestimated.

Is what I was saying.
Okay, I see what you are saying. What you wrote was genuinely ambiguous. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I'm glad I took the time to understand your actual intention rather than sticking with my first reading.

-ck

Mike Sigman
07-03-2007, 03:00 PM
. But just movement and qi do not add up to reeling silk or aiki age or kokyu. Did you read Mike's detailed scathing of Chris earlier when he claimed that his Japanese koryu employs silk reeling? "Impossible," Mike (essentially) said. It has to be precisely the thing or you're fooling yourself.But go back and look at what I said. You're misconstruing it. Chris posted on AikiWeb that he got caught out with a frontal-jin situation when he met up with Rob and Akuzawa. That tells me immediately what some of the limits to his actual jin abilities are (and BTW, when I met Rob, he showed me this frontal push thing, so I know exactly what Chris ran into a problem with). So the actual jin understanding wasn't there, regardless of anything else. To do reeling silk movement, jin has to power the movement as an essential cog that can't be missing or it's not reeling silk. That's inescapable and it's written in a lot of places, too, so it's certainly no personal take of mine.

So there are the factors. You tell me.... could Chris have really been doing "reeling silk" exercises, given the critical factors I just laid out? If so, how could that possibly be????

But the point was not to denigrate Chris... it was simply to caution him that a statement he'd made about doing reeling silk exercises already had to be logicially incorrect. I could have shut up and let it pass, but Chris seems dedicated enough that I thought I'd throw it out there. He took it badly, it seems..... but he's way ahead of the game for now knowing this datum, so I don't feel bad for telling him.

Regards,


Mike Sigman

ChrisMoses
07-03-2007, 03:29 PM
I thought Mike was trying to be precise. I read him as saying that *based on his reading of Chris' past statements* he thought it unlikely that Chris was also already engaged in a full-blown 'silk-reeling' practice. He laid out a specific line of reasoning to back that assertion, and I saw no concrete challenge to that reasoning (from anyone).

Look, I'm not going to qualify every comment I make with a full exposition so that Mike Sigman can give me a pat on the head. I did point out that Mike has never seen my sword style, ever. I very well may be wrong, and I may not be in a position to make the statement that I did, but Mike is in LESS of a position to say that I am flat out *wrong*. He could have come forward and said something like, "Hmm, gosh Chirs I'd be shocked if you had progressed enough to have mastered silk reeling and even more shocked that a Japanese sword art would have the practice. I'd love to see it if it were true, but I'm pretty skeptical..." That would have been perfectly reasonable, and a reasonable place to begin a discussion. It was not my claim that I was a master of silk reeling or that what my sword line did was identical to silk reeling in all of its detail. Instead though, I am simply wrong. Now, for Mike to be able to state that with the certainty that he did, he would need to have some level of familiarity with my sword art. He does not, there are 12 of us in the US (only about 7 of us know the kata), and the kata in question are from our inside series that are not generally performed outside of the school. If what he meant by 'wrong' was not in a position to comment, that's different, and I did ask what he considered to be the minimum level of mastery over a subject he considered a minimum in order to comment, so far I have not seen a direct reply other than to offer my detailed description up for his vetting. I'm not going to play that game. Why? Because he gets offended when people take the same tactic with him (wrt his Aikido training or familiarity with Japanese budo, and I don't count karate in that) and it is suddenly a personal attack. Another reason? I have never seen anyone meet a level of clarity such that he conceded their point or acknowledged the legitimacy of their view, even when they are agreeing with his position. This is the kind of relationship I would expect in a teacher-student, master-disciple relationship. My teachers do this a lot in class, they ask someone what they are doing in order to gage their comprehension of that thing. I have no problem with it there, because we have a unified terminology and the benefit of tactile feedback and there is the possibility and expectation that you may be correct. I have never seen anyone (with the exception of the mighty Bruce) attempt to take that same tone with an entire forum. It is not acceptable. A lot of people have this same view, but are too scared or too classy to say anything about it on the forums (I know, because I get emails and PMs from people all over the country after these kinds of interactions thanking me for saying what I did). I have attempted to point out inconsistencies in what Mike expects of others and what he considers acceptable for himself, tried humor, I've even paraphrased him back to himself (I'm even wrong then!). I simply do not understand the rules of discourse he wants to use (except that of master-student, and I'm not willing to agree to those rules). I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest when I say that it's genuinely too bad. I like to learn, I like to discuss and I'm about as far from an Aikikai party-liner as you're likely to find, but at the end of the day, it seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

The fact that David is arguing on my behalf should tell you something, it's like when Greenpeace and the Teamsters were marching arm in arm against the WTO. ;)

gdandscompserv
07-03-2007, 03:51 PM
an Aikikai party-liner
lol
Never heard that before.

clwk
07-03-2007, 04:07 PM
Look, I'm not going to qualify every comment I make with a full exposition so that Mike Sigman can give me a pat on the head.

<snip everything>

Chris, since you're replying to me, I will respond -- even though I think your quarrel is with Mike.

What about just going back to the line of logic about "essential cog that can't be missing" in Mike's last post on the subject? I don't know you, and I have no reason whatsoever to have an opinion about your sword ryu, your knowledge of it, or your overall skill. I think Mike is trying to provide information about the scope and range of what he has referred to as 'reeling silk' in order to help you perform any such exercises which might or might not be in your abstract curriculum -- *from his perspective*. I thought he basically said, "I'll wait and see -- " on the basis that your descriptions of other things gave him pause.

All I was saying, in the post to which you responded, is that from my perspective Mike *is* trying to discuss mechanics rather than styles, schools, personalities, etc. Everything you just said notwithstanding, I still don't see you presenting a direct counter-argument. I don't know if you are 'right' or 'wrong' in this argument, but I certainly see the disconnect. I see why Mike's line of argument might annoy or even offend you; and I see why he might label your line of argument as avoiding what he claims is the meat of the issue.

The fact that David is arguing on my behalf should tell you something, it's like when Greenpeace and the Teamsters were marching arm in arm against the WTO.
Sure, 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' or something like that. What David and you arguing together tells me is that there is sufficient political motivation for two parties who fundamentally disagree to take the same side. You and David seem to disagree utterly on technical questions, so both of you disagreeing with Mike about this doesn't contribute any meaningful data one way or the other with regard to his technical correctness. It's not like you have some point of agreement beyond the opinion that Mike is behaving badly, do you? David says, "No silk reeling in JMA." You say, "Silk reeling in JMA."

-ck

David Orange
07-03-2007, 04:28 PM
So there are the factors. You tell me.... could Chris have really been doing "reeling silk" exercises, given the critical factors I just laid out? If so, how could that possibly be????

Well, to me it means that silk reeling is not part of his art and probably not part of any Japanese art, though I'd have to know more about what Dan learned.

But the point was not to denigrate Chris... it was simply to caution him that a statement he'd made about doing reeling silk exercises already had to be logicially incorrect.

I knew that, Mike. I was just joshing you a little...and otherwise.

Best to you and happy 4th.

David

ChrisMoses
07-03-2007, 04:29 PM
I think Mike is trying to provide information about the scope and range of what he has referred to as 'reeling silk' in order to help you perform any such exercises which might or might not be in your abstract curriculum -- *from his perspective*. I thought he basically said, "I'll wait and see -- " on the basis that your descriptions of other things gave him pause.

All I was saying, in the post to which you responded, is that from my perspective Mike *is* trying to discuss mechanics rather than styles, schools, personalities, etc. Everything you just said notwithstanding, I still don't see you presenting a direct counter-argument. I don't know if you are 'right' or 'wrong' in this argument, but I certainly see the disconnect. I see why Mike's line of argument might annoy or even offend you; and I see why he might label your line of argument as avoiding what he claims is the meat of the issue.


Tell ya what, I'll make a deal. When Mike describes why what we're doing in my kata isn't *like* silk reeling in full detail, I'll offer my full description. That's fair right? :) See what I'm getting at? Why is the onus always on everyone but Mike? I can't comment on silk reeling because I don't know enough about it, but Mike can comment on my ryuha even though he's never seen it? No, I won't go along with those rules. Mike always phrases things as if he's just trying to help, like saving me time? I still don't know what that's about, but when the opportunity comes, he doesn't actually offer very much *here*. I've heard he's terribly generous with information in person, but that doesn't do me much good here. I was entirely serious when I said that I didn't know how to communicate effectively with him.

clwk
07-03-2007, 05:04 PM
Tell ya what, I'll make a deal. When Mike describes why what we're doing in my kata isn't *like* silk reeling in full detail, I'll offer my full description. That's fair right? :) See what I'm getting at? Why is the onus always on everyone but Mike?
Well, in this case the reason is that you are the one making a positive assertion. Since neither of you has full information, the onus is on you to reveal enough information to substantiate your claim. From a cryptographic perspective, there is probably some challenge-response protocol you could go through to publicly and securely prove your point. I read Mike as basically saying that you haven't provided the right responses to prove your case *without revealing more information*. One could argue that Ueshiba's Doha are a sort of cryptographic indicator where he tries to spell out what he knows without actually giving away any practical information.

Incidentally, if you succeed in proving your case, you disprove David's -- which would, ironically, curtail your brief alliance.

I can't comment on silk reeling because I don't know enough about it, but Mike can comment on my ryuha even though he's never seen it?He's just repudiating your weak claim, not your strong one. The strong claim would be to show your cards and *then* have the discussion. You could explain exactly why you think your claim is true, and then he could agree or not. And then you could either accept or reject the basis of his assessment, and you could go back and forth until you had some kind of agreement or could agree to disagree. It doesn't have to be a pout-fest on anyone's side.

No, I won't go along with those rules. Mike always phrases things as if he's just trying to help, like saving me time? I still don't know what that's about, but when the opportunity comes, he doesn't actually offer very much *here*. I've heard he's terribly generous with information in person, but that doesn't do me much good here.
But those are two different issues. One is wanting to communicate *in order to learn*, and the other is not wanting to take the 'asymetrically lower position'. But that's implicitly the case when you ask a question.

I was entirely serious when I said that I didn't know how to communicate effectively with him.
Well, I'm not a relationship counselor by day, but I guess you could take him at face value:
While I am open to the idea (and probability) that some degree of six-harmonies movement remains (even vestigially) in Japanese martial arts, I'd question anyone that claimed them fairly closely in order to see whether they really knew them or not. It would be a breakthrough (in my explorations) to find someone in Japanese martial arts that really understood them because they're far more sophisticated than they appear on the surface. It would be social chat-level for me to just go "Oh, that's interesting" if someone made the claim.

I don't know if you followed the logic of what I said, but I'm pretty comfortable standing on it, Chris. If you want to probe it further, I can put you on the QiJin list provisionally and lay out the details. I'm not going to write that much just as an exercise for this forum, though, since it's not particularly of interest to most people doing Aikido.
You might not get to have it out 'here', but maybe that would meet the information-seeking and communication requirements your mentioned. I dont' know.

-ck

Mike Sigman
07-03-2007, 05:19 PM
I did point out that Mike has never seen my sword style, ever. I very well may be wrong, and I may not be in a position to make the statement that I did, but Mike is in LESS of a position to say that I am flat out *wrong*.
Chris, I put my exact reasoning, which is based on your own posts, in my previous comment. I say I am in an exact position to make the comment I made. Notice that I didn't carry on, as you and David do, with the personality stuff (I'm not sure where you get the idea that you are somehow different from David in this regard). I gave a precise reasoning. Answer it, if you can rebutt it. If you can't withstand simple frontal jin then you don't have much jin: ergo, you could not be doing "reeling silk" since it takes extensive jin skills to do it correctly. It's *possible* that DR has some silk-reeling in it, but I don't know that... I just know that you personally are not in a position to credibly assert that it does, based on your own testimony.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
07-03-2007, 05:27 PM
Tell ya what, I'll make a deal. When Mike describes why what we're doing in my kata isn't *like* silk reeling in full detail, I'll offer my full description. That's fair right? :) You seem to wilfully miss the point. If you'd told me that you do Chen-style Taiji and you do reeling silk exercises, I'd have told you the same thing. It's logically impossible for you to know how to do reeling silk exercises (as you claimed in your post) and also to have not been able to handle simple frontal jin (as you posted in another post). You can huff and puff all you want, but that's the logic.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

ChrisMoses
07-03-2007, 06:15 PM
There is so much that I would like to say to clarify this line of discourse, but I just can't bring myself to. I don't think I have ever had so much trouble communicating with someone else on any forum. Hope everybody enjoyed the show.

Mike Sigman
07-03-2007, 06:24 PM
There is so much that I would like to say to clarify this line of discourse, but I just can't bring myself to.
Odd. You and David don't seem to have any problem "bringing yourself" to do extended personality bashing.... suddenly when you're confronted with a very simple, factual question, you bail. If your contention now is that Akuzawa and Rob had nothing on you, as you're seemingly implying, and that it was just a matter of them getting you into odd positions, why not just state it. Then a quick shut down of my premise showing that you do indeed know how to do jin in "reeling silk" (which YOU claimed to do on this forum) would be nice. You do it and I'll simply say "I agree with you", as plenty of archived posts on this very forum will show you that I do when the occasion warrants it. As it stands, both you and David seem to bail and start name-calling when actual facts enter the discussion.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
07-03-2007, 07:11 PM
Odd. You and David don't seem to have any problem "bringing yourself" to do extended personality bashing.... suddenly when you're confronted with a very simple, factual question, you bail.

You're getting confused again, Mike. Just when I thought you had figured things out.

You get "personality bashed" because that's the way you act toward everyone. Geez, your own comments seem to be invisible to you, but you notice the pea beneath your pillow.

I dealt with every aspect of every question you laid out (which were all basically accusations rather than questions). I answered more than you do because you simply hint around. Again, I say, you need your boils lanced.

As it stands, both you and David seem to bail and start name-calling when actual facts enter the discussion.

Again, I laugh at you, Mike. You are the #1 basher and name caller. I just give you back what you put out. Cry when you find the cow on your porch.

David

Thomas Campbell
07-03-2007, 07:46 PM
This post is offered for those on the forum unfamiliar with Chinese martial arts terminology, particularly taijiquan terms.

Louis Swaim is an accomplished translator as well as a long-time practitioner of Yang style taijiquan. He writes that "chousi" means the pulling or drawing of silk. Swaim translates some passages of taiji theory, particularly from Wu Tunan, that imply that "chousi" perhaps shouldn't be considered a specific type of jin, but refers more to the way in which the jin is trained, that is, slowly, evenly, maintaining a sense of internal connnection. In this view, there would not be a specific "chousijin"; instead, all jins (peng jin, etc.) could be trained in a "chousi" manner--internally connected, without a break.

"Chansi" is more commonly used in connection with "jin," referring to the coordination of the winding and twisting movements of the body in martial practice--and particularly noted in Chen style taijiquan, where chansijin is first described in the book written by Chen Xin in the 1910s (and published posthumously in the 1930s).

You can have chansijin practiced in a chousi-like manner. On the other hand, I can pick my nose with chousi . . . but it might not be advisable to perform the same action with chansijin.

Chousi (drawing or pulling of silk) is a term referring more to the quality of internal continuity of movement (of any kind), and chansi(jin) refers more to a specific type of movement.

Here are some remarks Louis Swaim offered on the topic of chansijin and chousi:

chansi (reeling silk) [and] chousi (drawing silk). Some taiji authorities claim that these are both the same thing, but some say that they are not. Wu Tunan was one authority who argued that chansi and chansijin were part of the Chen tradition, but that these terms have no early textual support in the Yang tradition. Wu pointed out that the conspicuous mention of “drawing silk” in the Yang corpus is the line in the Mental Elucidation of the Thirteen Shi: “mobilize jin as though drawing silk” (yun jin ru chousi), and that it is clearly a metaphor. The terms chansi and chansijin, on the other hand, have to do with specific practices in the Chen tradition, and likely made their first textual appearance in Chen Xin’s book written in the early 1900s.

and

Is the *term* chansijin proprietary to Chen martial arts tradition?

Do we have evidence of the term being used before its appearance in Chen Xin’s book, written in the early 1900s? It could well be that Chen was passing along terminology that was well established in oral tradition, but how can that be corroborated?

Is there any evidence of the terms chansi, chansijin, or chousijin being used in early Yang tradition? The written record seems to indicate a negative answer on all three. There is a text in the Wu Jianquan tradition, in Wu Gongzao’s book, that specifically elucidates the concept chansijin, but it was likely written after Chen Xin wrote his book, and may have been influenced by his writings.

In the earlier texts claimed as part of the Yang classical corpus, there is indeed the phrase “chousi”—used in a metaphorical way to describe a quality of movement. (As I have indicated in another post, “chousi” appears to be a well-established metaphor in usage beyond the realm of taijiquan.)

and

just to repeat Wu Tunan’s comments:

‘If you pull the silk abruptly it will break, when you pull it improperly, the silk won’t come out. This is a metaphor for training the energy (jin) of taijiquan. It cannot be excessively forceful, nor excessively fragile; it has to be just right. These kinds of metaphors are numerous, such as: “mobilize jin that is like well-tempered steel,” “as though drawing a bow,” and “issue jin as though releasing an arrow.” There are some people, then, who have illogically contrived to make the words chou si be regarded as a designation for a kind of jin, even mistakenly giving explanations of some sort of “chousijin.” We should ask, then, if it were possible to also have some sort of “releasing arrow jin,” or “well tempered steel jin”—wouldn’t that be laughable?’

I’ve seen other commentaries that use very similar explanations of the meaning of drawing silk, so I don’t think Wu was alone on that point.

Maybe this just muddies things, but the intent was to offer some clarification for the discussion.

Upyu
07-03-2007, 08:03 PM
Yeah, Mike said it in post #1169:
"Silk Reeling is a form of movement with qi/ki and jin/kokyu-power. That's all it is."

Chih already summed up what I have to say about this.
Youre missing the point and misunderstanding what I meant.
But if it helps Ill spell it out, Reeling silk is "a" form of kokyu/jin/qi use, there are others.


Mike used it as an equivalent term. Otherwise, why even mention it? It's his effort at obfuscation....etc.

No not really, actually he made the distinction before in several other posts here on Aikiweb, if anything hes been consistent in his definition


And you reinforce my point that Reeling Silk is a highly refined and developed Chinese concept that is not found in the Japanese arts. That's all I said. There was no reason to mention "pulling silk" if it isn't related, was there?

Its related so far as qi/jin/kokyu skills are related ;)


If Mochizuki said I understood aikido "pretty completely," then no one else's judgment (based on comments on a message board) really impresses me.

Well I dont think I need to say anything about that comment, it speaks for itself.
But beyond that, if you're going by that logic, the only person you could receive absolute affirmation would be Ueshiba, as far as Aikido goes anyways.

Anyways we could play that game all day.
In fact I could one up you by taking a couple quotes from Sagawa who said that anyone that described the skill of Aiki in philisophical terms as being "soft in the head" and "being so hoplessly stupid they could never dream to achieve aiki in 10,000 years."
Does that invalidate Mochizukis skill?
No.
But you should be able to understand whats going on in your body without relying on someone else's terms.
(Just my opinion on that matter)

You keep on dodging the question David...you wont describe the body skills in a coherent manner.


Well, your site and discussions revolve around rooting and the equalization of forces, front and rear, side-to-side and up-and-down. The old ways of training were a slow way to enforce those awarenesses throughout the body and to train them. The new ways, largely revolving around competition (for judo at least), destroy those balances by developing tokui to an extreme.

Unfortunately I understand the direction youre coming from and thats not it. It has nothing to do with being tokui, or not tokui, about training the sides equally in order to balance the body etc.
I could practice one side only and still develop the six directions.
Of course its wouldnt develop the otherside as much, but it would still be there. Youre discussing the neurological aspect more if you ask me.


Whatever I have developed of them (enough to easily do aiki age on a judo godan, at least) has come without even thinking of them as separate skills, so they would have developed without specific jargon or rationalizations.

Lets put it this way, if you understand the specific components that need to be worked on, maybe you could make the "next" leap in terms of skill.
All guys thatre accomplished and have these skills that ive met know exactly what theyre working on in their body.
JMA or CMA, doesnt matter.
Anyone that says, well I just do it without thinking about knowing what I was working on I call BS.
Its like a physicist saying, well I worked out xxx theory kind of naturally. I never really knew what I was working on, but as a by product I have complete mastery over it now.

It doesnt work that way.

Sure you might inately grasp some aspects of the theory but youll never be able to fully utilize or develop it.



When has anyone talked about any kind of "qi development" without relying first and foremost on alignment of the body, grounding and tanren?

I dunno, tanren seemed to be a pretty new idea to a lot of members on this board.

Anyways, hopefully youll be able to conjure up a decent response, sans the mochizuki nutriding and explain things in your own terms .

ChrisMoses
07-03-2007, 08:52 PM
Anyone that says, well I just do it without thinking about knowing what I was working on I call BS.
Its like a physicist saying, well I worked out xxx theory kind of naturally. I never really knew what I was working on, but as a by product I have complete mastery over it now.

It doesnt work that way.



Actually, that was my exact experience when I got my Physics degree, and a major factor in my decision not to go on to a PhD. In Chaos Theory, my teacher at one point wrote a massive formula on the board and said, "OK, I hope everyone can just visualize what this represents because I don't have any language for it. You either see it or you don't." Another handed out a one page hand written set of equations that we would, "need for the homework..." No explanation (and none on what he'd given us either, it was just a series of equations). That same quarter I was taking a 400 level applied mathematics class. We spent the first two months slowly building up to the first half of what my Physics professor wrote down on a piece of loose leaf paper and expected to be inherently obvious. Some people just do this stuff, and I think they are the worst ones to learn from because they cannot imagine what it is to not see it automatically.

ChrisMoses
07-03-2007, 09:04 PM
If your contention now is that Akuzawa and Rob had nothing on you, as you're seemingly implying, and that it was just a matter of them getting you into odd positions, why not just state it.

That has never been my contention, nor is it my implication. You were the one who brought up my being caught "flat footed" in Japan and I felt that warranted a response.

I can't make it any clearer than this: I mistook your initial comment to say that it was impossible that my ryuha (that you have never seen) has anything that could teach a silk-reeling *like* movement. I do not think you could say that without more information than I know you have. You later clarified what you were saying to the idea that there is no way I could possibly know enough about silk reeling to state what I had. You are probably right, I know what I feel when I'm *trying* it but I am no one to say if it's anywhere near right, so please disregard my comment. It *is* true that what *I* am doing internally when *I* practice the *very little bit* of silk reeling that I know is *very easily applied* to several kata from my ryuha. I however am not in a position to offer that as an example as I am simply not skilled enough at silk reeling to say. That last sentence should be read in all honesty, it was not sarcasm. Surely you don't have a problem with that?


As it stands, both you and David seem to bail and start name-calling when actual facts enter the discussion.


Perhaps then you'd like to demonstrate your personal distaste for name calling by admitting that perhaps it was rude to call the head of my ryuha stupid, or is that asking too much? Or if you'd like to explain how calling someone's teacher 'stupid' is not a personal attack that would be fine too. Or is my asking that another personal attack? It seems reasonable to me at this point.

David Orange
07-03-2007, 09:07 PM
This post is offered for those on the forum unfamiliar with Chinese martial arts terminology, particularly taijiquan terms.

Interesting, Thomas, and almost certain to draw some harsh criticism. Good luck with that.

In any case, having reviewed some videos of Chen stylists doing silk reeling exercises (including photos of Chen Xiao Want) and having read a good bit on this topic now, I am more convinced than ever that it does arise both directly and figuratively from literal silk reeling work. The silk reel is a wheel-like device and the movement of the Chen stylist was clearly compatible with a worker's turning that reel. And the whole-body movement allowed one to do so with the delicacy required in the taiji classics, warning "too fast and the thread breaks, too slow, it tangles," (paraphrased, lest Mike note a word out of place--the spirit is in place).

The repetitive references to physical silk threads and cocoons makes it clear that the movement is inspired by (ergo, "came from") the literal physical work of reeling silk.

Further, I find nothing at all similar in any Japanese art. Even though the Japanese, too, make silk, I've never heard of any reference to it in any relation to martial art and, likely, the physical way it is done is rather different than the almost peculiar way the Chinese do it, which yields tai ji.

Thanks again.

David

Upyu
07-03-2007, 09:17 PM
Actually, that was my exact experience when I got my Physics degree, and a major factor in my decision not to go on to a PhD. In Chaos Theory, my teacher at one point wrote a massive formula on the board and said, "OK, I hope everyone can just visualize what this represents because I don't have any language for it. You either see it or you don't." Another handed out a one page hand written set of equations that we would, "need for the homework..." No explanation (and none on what he'd given us either, it was just a series of equations). That same quarter I was taking a 400 level applied mathematics class. We spent the first two months slowly building up to the first half of what my Physics professor wrote down on a piece of loose leaf paper and expected to be inherently obvious. Some people just do this stuff, and I think they are the worst ones to learn from because they cannot imagine what it is to not see it automatically.

Let me see if I can be a bit clearer, I understand what you're saying, so lets see if were crossing wires.
What I meant to say is that with regards to these skills, anyone that develops it to a high degree knows exactly what they're working on internally (physically and mentally speaking).
I think if you pressed that particular prof he could come up with an explanation on his own terms to some degree.
Whether or not he could express it well would be a different matter (and I could also understand why he would simply give up and say, *here guys figure it out* in order to weed out the unmotivated)

Personally Ive always been more partial to what Feynman said, on how if you really understand the subject, you should be able to explain it *well* on your own terms.

David Orange
07-03-2007, 09:29 PM
Youre missing the point and misunderstanding what I meant.
But if it helps Ill spell it out, Reeling silk is "a" form of kokyu/jin/qi use, there are others.

Sure. And there are peculiarly Japanese forms of that as well, influenced by Japanese culture and work styles, and yielding the peculiarly unique Japanese arts as silk reeling produces the unique forms of tai chi.

No not really, actually he made the distinction (reeling silk and pulling silk--DO) before in several other posts here on Aikiweb, if anything hes been consistent in his definition

Didn't see those.

if you're going by that logic, the only person you could receive absolute affirmation would be Ueshiba, as far as Aikido goes anyways.

Of course. But Mochizuki Sensei was as close as I could get to Ueshiba and now he, too, is out of reach.

Anyways we could play that game all day. In fact I could one up you by taking a couple quotes from Sagawa who said that anyone that described the skill of Aiki in philisophical terms as being "soft in the head" and "being so hoplessly stupid they could never dream to achieve aiki in 10,000 years." Does that invalidate Mochizukis skill? No.

Of course not. He didn't use "philosophical terms" to approach aiki. If you mean "the ura of kiai," that's a purely technical description, like all that he did. He did give another description once: basically, "If you are attacked by surprise, you don't shy away from the attack, but enter it: aiki attacks the attack."

Of course, that could also apply to kiai, which is why it's necessary to differentiate that aiki is the ura of kiai and takes "the opposite" approach--which is????

But you should be able to understand whats going on in your body without relying on someone else's terms.

I didn't rely on any terms at all. I didn't try to explain what was going on "in my body" except that I remained upright and unmoved and the opponent lost his balance and posture and fell into my kansetsu waza. So I never thought about describing what was going on inside: I just went by the feeling and never tried to describe it as long as it worked.

You keep on dodging the question David...you wont describe the body skills in a coherent manner.

hmm....that's sounding philosophical to me--something I avoided. It seems...I don't know...soft-headed?

Lets put it this way, if you understand the specific components that need to be worked on, maybe you could make the "next" leap in terms of skill.

Well, I never said I couldn't improve or be improved or that no one was better. But someone earlier attempted to quantify my level by explaining that I was not on the third level (or the fourth???--sounded way philosophical to me), at which you move through the opponent as if he were not there--even so far as to have no tactile sense of his being there.

Later, I realized that that sounded a little like what I've experienced when breaking objects, like bricks. I go right through them and when I do it right, I don't even feel the brick: it just parts before my hand and I feel nothing. So maybe he missed the point. Not that I can't be improved, mind you. I do refer to the aunkai website and I'm interested in what it says and I do want to meet Ark and feel what he does. Sounds very interesting.

All guys thatre accomplished and have these skills that ive met know exactly what theyre working on in their body.

Well, again, you're talking "these skills" and I'm talking specifically about aikido.

Anyone that says, well I just do it without thinking about knowing what I was working on I call BS.

And to what level of judo can you tell them that? sandan? rokudan?

Sure you might inately grasp some aspects of the theory but youll never be able to fully utilize or develop it. I dunno, tanren seemed to be a pretty new idea to a lot of members on this board.

I've got a guy you should visit in Holland. He says tanren training is the underlying aim of all traditional budo training. See if you can push him around. He came up the traditional way.

Anyways, hopefully youll be able to conjure up a decent response, sans the mochizuki nutriding and explain things in your own terms .

And I'll be able to do that when I start using your terms? I didn't use any terms at all but to say that Mochizuki Sense said of me, "Anta wa aikido o daibu wakaru. (You pretty well understand aikido. or You understand aikido for the greater part.)"

I never said I understand what you do, but Mochizuki Sensei said that I understood what Morihei Ueshiba was doing: aikido.

David

David Orange
07-03-2007, 09:33 PM
Another handed out a one page hand written set of equations that we would, "need for the homework..." No explanation (and none on what he'd given us either, it was just a series of equations).

And the martial arts equivalent is that they just show you all these techniques without any kind of unifying principles (hardly) and it's up to you to work them out.

It's nice that there are people who are willing to give some of the underlying principles to martial arts, but the old teachers made you work out your own understanding on your own terms.

David

Upyu
07-03-2007, 09:47 PM
It *is* true that what *I* am doing internally when *I* practice the *very little bit* of silk reeling that I know is *very easily applied* to several kata from my ryuha. I however am not in a position to offer that as an example as I am simply not skilled enough at silk reeling to say.

Just to put it out there, I think there's a difference in how *Silk Reeling* is being defined here by the both of you.

Chris is basing it on the movements and instruction he recieved from Andy Dale. When meshed with the internal manipulation hes working on now hes found it to have direct application to the sword work hes doing in his ryuha. (Which is I think definitely valid)

Mike is saying that Silk Reeling is the direct manipulation of the jin in a specific manner and that the movement is a result.

Looking at it in that aspect I'd define it as what was learned in the Silk Reeling "Exercise" as opposed to understanding Silk Reeling "Skill," if that makes any sense.

Stating that, maybe we can restart the conversation.

And as for silk reeling in Japanese swordsmanship...my personal guess is that "pulling" silk skill was more prominent.
It makes sense anyways. -> Anyone else also feel free to comment on this.

Arks mentioned several times that empty handed/Toshu(free hands) bodyskill probably becomes much more complex than the skill required for weapons work.
Btw let me clarify it since that definitely could be taken the wrong way.
While the requirements to use a weapon are extremely kibishii(unforgiving/exacting), the exact bodyskill developed and used on the side without a weapon probably becomes more complex than the skill developed and used with a weapon.
Hence my guess that maybe "silk reeling skill" wasnt featured too prominently in japanese weapons work, if at all and that pulling silk is more likely.

(Btw I'm defining pulling silk as a more linear useage of Jin than Reeling silk)

Oh.
And my teacher is the bestest and can smash all y'all with his pinkie :D Nyah!

(when he's on the turkey ....:ki: powah! )

Upyu
07-03-2007, 09:59 PM
Of course not. He didn't use "philosophical terms" to approach aiki. If you mean "the ura of kiai," that's a purely technical description, like all that he did. He did give another description once: basically, "If you are attacked by surprise, you don't shy away from the attack, but enter it: aiki attacks the attack."


See, the problem is I don't see how thats a technical description.
It sounds to me more like a description of sempo/strategy.
What we're talking about is more along the lines of taijutsu.

Here's another description of Aiki, (just to show how many different explanations are running around there)
This comes directly from Sagawa via Takeda to one of his senior students.

"These days everyone argues about Aiki and what it is. The fact is, Aiki is simply the a state where both swordsman are in stalemate.
The term comes from Onoha ittoryu and implies that both swordsman are in a deadlock.
Aiki from Takeda implied that you were able to affect the other person even in this deadlocked state.
So in Aiki Age when you hold me down and I try to raise, we are in a state of Aiki, which I keep as I affect you."

The thread is about "Baseline skillset" unless you missed it.
We're trying to talk about the bodyskills implied.
Not the strategic or philisophical underpinnings.

David Orange
07-03-2007, 10:11 PM
See, the problem is I don't see how thats a technical description.
It sounds to me more like a description of sempo/strategy.
What we're talking about is more along the lines of taijutsu.

Put another way, kiai is the direct "plow them down, run them over, smash through them" approach. Aiki tailors its movement to the ura of the kiai movement. So while the ura of a punch would include "blocking" the punch with a forearm smash, that still conflicts somewhat with the strength of the punch and does not access the "pure ura" where the kiai leaves a void. Real aiki acts on the void part of the strength of the kiai (it goes where the punch has no power--typically, literally behind the punch). For as Ueshiba says, "I am already behind him." He uses "ura of kiai" only to refer to physical technique, which he never tired of discussing. He hated abstraction (when it came to budo) and he just brushed aside any attempt to explain technique as the workings of ki power.

"These days everyone argues about Aiki and what it is. The fact is, Aiki is simply the a state where both swordsman are in stalemate.
The term comes from Onoha ittoryu and implies that both swordsman are in a deadlock.
Aiki from Takeda implied that you were able to affect the other person even in this deadlocked state.
So in Aiki Age when you hold me down and I try to raise, we are in a state of Aiki, which I keep as I affect you."

I've heard that explantion of aiki as well. It's somewhat like, "When the attack comes by surprise, you don't shy away from it, but enter it."

The thread is about "Baseline skillset" unless you missed it.
We're trying to talk about the bodyskills implied.
Not the strategic or philisophical underpinnings.

Well, it goes hither and yon and one comment begets another. And one thing leads to another, so it has often verged onto aikido and even specifically to what "I" know or don't know, and the only way I have to address that is from my experience of body skills on the aikido mat and in real life. It goes into swordsmanship and that into strategy. Unfortunately, there's just no way to keep it terribly tightly restricted, so we end up covering varied ground.

Best wishes.

David

eyrie
07-03-2007, 10:47 PM
Unfortunately, there's just no way to keep it terribly tightly restricted, so we end up covering varied ground.
I disagree. Just as you wouldn't throw a beginner into the deep end and yell "Now swim!", I don't see why a discussion on baseline skillset should be anything other than baseline principles.

Likewise, when teaching someone a musical instrument for the first time, say a piano, you would start with middle C with correct fingering and work your way up from playing individual notes and then scales. All the time working with proper fingering and timing. You wouldn't give a beginner a classical piece and say "Now you play it" - not before they are familiar with individual notes, relaxed fingering, timing, and can play simple tunes before progressing to something a bit more advanced - based on the same basic skills acquired in the beginning.

So, how is a discussion on baseline principles in martial arts any different?

Mike Sigman
07-04-2007, 10:13 AM
This post is offered for those on the forum unfamiliar with Chinese martial arts terminology, particularly taijiquan terms.

Louis Swaim is an accomplished translator as well as a long-time practitioner of Yang style taijiquan. He writes that "chousi" means the pulling or drawing of silk. The last time I corresponded with Swaim, some years back, he was still translating "jin" as "energy". When I pointed out that resident Chinese experts (I sent him the URL to Andreas Graf's interview with Chen Jumin) state flatly that it's a physical skill, he began to tell me that "energy" is one of the acceptable dictionary translations. My point is one that I've mentioned a number of times before.... translators can get you in trouble and in fact, they've contributed to the mess in the West for many years.

Let me give a very crude and incomplete *illustration* (nothing more than that and not all that accurate except as an illustration) of pulling silk and reeling silk: Have someone grab 2 or 3 fingers of your extended right arm and right hand in their fist and hold them firmly so that you can pull back with your body (not your arm or hand). Pretend your arm and hand are nothing more than a towel or piece of cloth and move your torso backward slowly until you can feel the stretch in your fingers, hand, arm, shoulder, and across your back. Your partner holding your fingers is now connected to your middle via a slight tensile stretch. No connection, no way to control the fingers with your middle except with normal muscle, right? So somebody who "doesn't use that extension of the body" for dantien control is blowing smoke. OK, so that's a crude example of "pulling silk" or "chousi jin". If you want to pull the guy toward you (or push him away), you just move the middle and the connection to the hand is conveyed by the slight extension and your power from the ground/dantien/jin.... your ki and your kokyu power, generally speaking in regard to this example.

Now if you use this same connection above and twist/turn the waist, that slightly stretched connection will twist and shorten, also adding to any pull you make with the middle. But it's still the same basic "slightly stretched connection and movement with the dantien" that reaches the grabbing opponent. In other words, it's just an extension of the basic principle and whether it's worth all the time it takes to train, yada, yada, yada.

The point is that the same "extension/connection of the body" and the same jin/kokyu-power are being used, regardless of the variations. Karate uses variations, but it's still a Japanese art. Aikido, jujitsu and other arts all have slightly different approaches and variations (many of which turn out to be *exactly* like different Chinese variations of the principles)... but the core skills are identical across the board. Swaim translates some passages of taiji theory, particularly from Wu Tunan, that imply that "chousi" perhaps shouldn't be considered a specific type of jin, but refers more to the way in which the jin is trained, that is, slowly, evenly, maintaining a sense of internal connnection. In this view, there would not be a specific "chousijin"; instead, all jins (peng jin, etc.) could be trained in a "chousi" manner--internally connected, without a break. You know, Wu Tunan had this lifelong war against the Chen style and did everything he could to discredit the Chen style in favor of his own style. As a communist official, he was the one who insisted that his own style's "13 Postures" was the definition of Taiji and he made many other absurd claims. He famously lied about his age and claimed to be over 100 years old, but his ruse was sort of a joke in the martial-arts community... he died in his 80's, in reality. I.e. let's not use anything Wu Tu Nan says as credible. He was a liar and a charlatan.Here are some remarks Louis Swaim offered on the topic of chansijin and chousi:

chansi (reeling silk) [and] chousi (drawing silk). Some taiji authorities claim that these are both the same thing, but some say that they are not. Wu Tunan was one authority who argued that chansi and chansijin were part of the Chen tradition, but that these terms have no early textual support in the Yang tradition. Wu pointed out that the conspicuous mention of "drawing silk" in the Yang corpus is the line in the Mental Elucidation of the Thirteen Shi: "mobilize jin as though drawing silk" (yun jin ru chousi), and that it is clearly a metaphor. The terms chansi and chansijin, on the other hand, have to do with specific practices in the Chen tradition, and likely made their first textual appearance in Chen Xin's book written in the early 1900s.

and

Is the *term* chansijin proprietary to Chen martial arts tradition?

Do we have evidence of the term being used before its appearance in Chen Xin's book, written in the early 1900s? It could well be that Chen was passing along terminology that was well established in oral tradition, but how can that be corroborated?

Is there any evidence of the terms chansi, chansijin, or chousijin being used in early Yang tradition? The written record seems to indicate a negative answer on all three. There is a text in the Wu Jianquan tradition, in Wu Gongzao's book, that specifically elucidates the concept chansijin, but it was likely written after Chen Xin wrote his book, and may have been influenced by his writings.

In the earlier texts claimed as part of the Yang classical corpus, there is indeed the phrase "chousi"—used in a metaphorical way to describe a quality of movement. (As I have indicated in another post, "chousi" appears to be a well-established metaphor in usage beyond the realm of taijiquan.)

and

just to repeat Wu Tunan's comments:

‘If you pull the silk abruptly it will break, when you pull it improperly, the silk won't come out. This is a metaphor for training the energy (jin) of taijiquan. It cannot be excessively forceful, nor excessively fragile; it has to be just right. These kinds of metaphors are numerous, such as: "mobilize jin that is like well-tempered steel," "as though drawing a bow," and "issue jin as though releasing an arrow." There are some people, then, who have illogically contrived to make the words chou si be regarded as a designation for a kind of jin, even mistakenly giving explanations of some sort of "chousijin." We should ask, then, if it were possible to also have some sort of "releasing arrow jin," or "well tempered steel jin"—wouldn't that be laughable?'

I've seen other commentaries that use very similar explanations of the meaning of drawing silk, so I don't think Wu was alone on that point.

Maybe this just muddies things, but the intent was to offer some clarification for the discussion.Yeah, well, the insistence that the Yang style used chousi jin was widespread until the late 1970's early 1980's and it's in a lot of books that way. Sometime in the 1980's someone in the Yang-style realized that if you claim only chousijin you're openly indicating that you don't have full and complete qi and jin because the full "natural" movement will always be with reeling silk, not the pulling silk. So the Yang family publicly stated that they use reeling silk, in the 1980's.

(Personally, I think that within the actual family, they always did. Originally, the Yang founder was not given permission to teach reeling silk, so the Yang style was always incomplete and only used the pulling silk).

But regardless, all of these things are always just variations of the basic ki/qi principles and the basic jin/kokyu principles. Always. The idea that somehow the Japanese arts and the Chinese arts are "different" is the sort of ignorance that continues to keep good western students in the dark.

Best.

Mike

Mike Sigman
07-04-2007, 10:26 AM
Of course not. He didn't use "philosophical terms" to approach aiki. If you mean "the ura of kiai," that's a purely technical description, like all that he did. How is "the ura of kiai" a "technical term? It's very common in Japanese to say things have an ura and an omote side... it just means more or less there's and obvious side and a "not easy to see" side. You could say that about just about anything and it's an observation, not a "technical description", for chrissake. It's like me saying that jin is "the concealed".... cool but that doesn't do anything but posture as "knowledgeable" and it conveys no real information. And I'll be able to do that when I start using your terms? I didn't use any terms at all but to say that Mochizuki Sense said of me, "Anta wa aikido o daibu wakaru. (You pretty well understand aikido. or You understand aikido for the greater part.)"

I never said I understand what you do, but Mochizuki Sensei said that I understood what Morihei Ueshiba was doing: aikido.
If you understood, you could explain. You cannot explain, and that has come up for several years, so let's just assume for the moment that Mochizuki was being nice and diplomatic with you until you're able to explain, shall we? I can tell you *dozens* of stories of people who thought their many-year teacher showed them everything and they didn't even know basics. And of course, they get extremely angry if anyone suggests that (many of them go right to personal attack and never have any facts to offer!).

The type of facts offered earlier in this thread.... that's what we're looking for. Not your assurances that you and Moch were tight.

Best.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
07-04-2007, 10:34 AM
I can't make it any clearer than this: I mistook your initial comment to say that it was impossible that my ryuha (that you have never seen) has anything that could teach a silk-reeling *like* movement. I do not think you could say that without more information than I know you have. You later clarified what you were saying to the idea that there is no way I could possibly know enough about silk reeling to state what I had. I didn't "later clarify" anything. You misread my first statement and took offense because of your misreading. You are probably right, I know what I feel when I'm *trying* it but I am no one to say if it's anywhere near right, so please disregard my comment. It *is* true that what *I* am doing internally when *I* practice the *very little bit* of silk reeling that I know is *very easily applied* to several kata from my ryuha. I however am not in a position to offer that as an example as I am simply not skilled enough at silk reeling to say. That last sentence should be read in all honesty, it was not sarcasm. Surely you don't have a problem with that? No problem at all. I'd like to see it. My caution was that you logically could not already be doing (as your post indicated) reeling silk. You personally. I thought it would just make you think, but I guess not. Perhaps then you'd like to demonstrate your personal distaste for name calling by admitting that perhaps it was rude to call the head of my ryuha stupid, or is that asking too much? Or if you'd like to explain how calling someone's teacher 'stupid' is not a personal attack that would be fine too. Or is my asking that another personal attack? It seems reasonable to me at this point.Who is the head of your ryuha and where did I say that he was stupid? I generally never call people stupid, although it's possible to call one of their actions stupid. You'll have to clarify...... but if this is going to get off on another endless tangent where no "baseline skillset" info is offered, let's just move on, please.

Mike Sigman

DH
07-04-2007, 10:38 AM
Hopefully the air is clear and the pissing contests are over.
This is certainly not what I'm doing. I am surprised at this, since it stilll only involves waist / stretched spine movement. The twist is fine, but there is a "more" complete aspect to that idea of twisting you have that will tie together and involve far more connections in the body. I think it is easy enough to think of just -what- are you twisting and just -what- is connected-to -what? Oddly enough it involves your breath (in/yo ho) and just what it is doing to those "held fingers"...way out there. It sure as hell aint to let your arm go and move your middle. Thats why I said earlier before all the crap hit the fan that there was a move invloved way to accomplish what I think you are trying to do. At least in my limited expereince. That idea or model won't come near to filling the arms and extremities or being near as powerful as it can be. The framework and structural aspects are fine and will certainly move and up-end many MA'ers. I suppose it becomes a question of -if person a. has that aspect reaally developed thay can kick butt, but it doesn't mean there isn't a way to add to it. There is a softer,( and much harder to do) ...yet more flexible and powerful way to add to that framework /stetched power. At least in my view.

ChrisMoses
07-04-2007, 11:51 AM
Let me see if I can be a bit clearer, I understand what you're saying, so lets see if were crossing wires.
What I meant to say is that with regards to these skills, anyone that develops it to a high degree knows exactly what they're working on internally (physically and mentally speaking).

Agreed.

I think if you pressed that particular prof he could come up with an explanation on his own terms to some degree.
Whether or not he could express it well would be a different matter (and I could also understand why he would simply give up and say, *here guys figure it out* in order to weed out the unmotivated)

Trust me, we pressed him. I had him for 5 separate 300+ level classes. I am convinced that it was simply the way he thought. His brain did not work like mine did.

Personally Ive always been more partial to what Feynman said, on how if you really understand the subject, you should be able to explain it *well* on your own terms.

Again I agree, but what happens when your *own* terms are some extremely complicated multi-dimension equations? Or, to bring it around to the martial topic, what happens when you *understand* internal dynamics by movements of deities through your body or strategies of budo by white lines of power? What happens if that is your own terms? The people who become really great teachers, are those with enough natural ability to do it, and an ability to transmit what they are doing to a properly motivated student *in terms that their students can understand*.

DH
07-04-2007, 12:21 PM
Again I agree, but what happens when your *own* terms are some extremely complicated multi-dimension equations? Or, to bring it around to the martial topic, what happens when you *understand* internal dynamics by movements of deities through your body or strategies of budo by white lines of power? What happens if that is your own terms? The people who become really great teachers, are those with enough natural ability to do it, and an ability to transmit what they are doing to a properly motivated student *in terms that their students can understand*.

Hi Chris
I can agree to a point. There are plenty of talented guys who can't teach but can do. But I have always maintained the following.
a. This stuff isn't natural. It's different.
b. The only way to get it is through mental accumen. You simply must know what you are trying to accomplish. and even then its stupifyingly difficult to burn in to your body.
c. No one can find it on their own. Its has to be shown. You can of course build from there. But to discover it? No, not really.
d. Some stuff is ridiculous in that you have to imagine it long before you can make it happen. Which defies finding it by chance
So in the end anyone who is doing it, had to get there by mentally formulating and following through on a set path to re-wire. And so they "know" what they are about.

gdandscompserv
07-04-2007, 12:31 PM
c. No one can find it on their own. Its has to be shown. You can of course build from there. But to discover it? No, not really.
Somebody found it on their own.

ChrisMoses
07-04-2007, 12:44 PM
Dan I agree with everything you're saying there. I'm stating what I think *is* rather than *what should be*. I train with people who have a similar view to my own, but I have been told by many in the Aikido world that the *only* way to 'teach' someone aikido is to let them find it on their own. Ikeda Sensei basically says as much in his own guidelines for instructors. But then, the fact that I don't agree with that premise is why I find myself where I am, training with a few guys in a smelly basement (conveniently located to several equally smelly bars!).

DH
07-04-2007, 12:56 PM
Dan I agree with everything you're saying there. I'm stating what I think *is* rather than *what should be*. I train with people who have a similar view to my own, but I have been told by many in the Aikido world that the *only* way to 'teach' someone aikido is to let them find it on their own. Ikeda Sensei basically says as much in his own guidelines for instructors. But then, the fact that I don't agree with that premise is why I find myself where I am, training with a few guys in a smelly basement (conveniently located to several equally smelly bars!).
Well hell I feel your pain. Its why I left martial arts wholesale for a very long time and only trained with a small group in an unfinished barn, willing to work this stuff with me.:D
After many years, when I went out again to some Dojos I remembered why I left in the first place. Most people will just never get it. It's just the way it is. But they're happy grabbin and rolling and "meeting energies" and having a support group at Dojo barbeque's. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I see many good things with that.
It just aint where I wanna be with my time.
Being left to "find aikido on their own" is just sooo Japanese and is everything that is wrong with aikido in one clear sentence.
Yet we see Ikeda seeking out Ushiro and particpating in a systema demo. So -he-is at least working on his own stuff.

ChrisMoses
07-04-2007, 01:00 PM
Who is the head of your ryuha and where did I say that he was stupid? I generally never call people stupid, although it's possible to call one of their actions stupid. You'll have to clarify......

Oddly enough, the original post seems to be gone from the boards, but you quoted yourself later, (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=170600&postcount=105) "Pooh. What you're saying implies that Mochizuki was too dumb to realize that you didn't get it." It could be argued that you didn't say "stupid", but I consider stupid and dumb to be synonyms. You could also say that I was implying that he was dumb, but that would be incorrect as well.

Mike Sigman
07-04-2007, 02:20 PM
Oddly enough, the original post seems to be gone from the boards, but you quoted yourself later, (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=170600&postcount=105) "Pooh. What you're saying implies that Mochizuki was too dumb to realize that you didn't get it." It could be argued that you didn't say "stupid", but I consider stupid and dumb to be synonyms. You could also say that I was implying that he was dumb, but that would be incorrect as well.Er..... that quote actually says the reverse of Mochizuki being dumb, so that's no good for an example, is it? Now back to the question... you accuse me of calling someone stupid. I asked for support.

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
07-04-2007, 02:27 PM
Hopefully the air is clear and the pissing contests are over.
This is certainly not what I'm doing. I am surprised at this, since it stilll only involves waist / stretched spine movement. The twist is fine, but there is a "more" complete aspect to that idea of twisting you have that will tie together and involve far more connections in the body. I think it is easy enough to think of just -what- are you twisting and just -what- is connected-to -what? Oddly enough it involves your breath (in/yo ho) and just what it is doing to those "held fingers"...way out there. It sure as hell aint to let your arm go and move your middle. Thats why I said earlier before all the crap hit the fan that there was a move invloved way to accomplish what I think you are trying to do. At least in my limited expereince. That idea or model won't come near to filling the arms and extremities or being near as powerful as it can be. The framework and structural aspects are fine and will certainly move and up-end many MA'ers. I suppose it becomes a question of -if person a. has that aspect reaally developed thay can kick butt, but it doesn't mean there isn't a way to add to it. There is a softer,( and much harder to do) ...yet more flexible and powerful way to add to that framework /stetched power. At least in my view.Actually, I made it abundantly and redundantly clear that my illustration was only to give an idea and was not complete. However, you appear now to be saying something like "Oh year, there's stretch after all, it's just not done like in your example". I agree completely, but you didn't agree at first. Regardless of how you do it, there must be extension/stretch by some means or there can be no connection. Period. Knowing that, go back and look at your previous post where you blew such things off. You appear to be changing your position.

Incidentally, the "pull" in "pulling silk" is the same pull in "reeling silk" and that's the actual extension I'm talking about. "Silk" is often used as a metaphor for "fascia"... anyone who has looked at fascia, etc., can understand why.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

ChrisMoses
07-04-2007, 02:55 PM
Er..... that quote actually says the reverse of Mochizuki being dumb, so that's no good for an example, is it? Now back to the question... you accuse me of calling someone stupid. I asked for support.

Mike Sigman

Mike, you are amazing. How is, "What you're saying implies that Mochizuki was too dumb to realize that you didn't get it." the reverse of calling him dumb? Anyone? Does anyone see that?

jss
07-04-2007, 04:21 PM
Mike, you are amazing. How is, "What you're saying implies that Mochizuki was too dumb to realize that you didn't get it." the reverse of calling him dumb? Anyone? Does anyone see that?
Reductio ad absurdum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) [en.wikipedia.org]

Mike Sigman
07-04-2007, 07:31 PM
Mike, you are amazing. How is, "What you're saying implies that Mochizuki was too dumb to realize that you didn't get it." the reverse of calling him dumb? Anyone? Does anyone see that?
You're serious, aren't you? You don't understand that that sentence refers to someone else saying something that implied Mochizuki was dumb. I think I see the problem with why you and I continually miscommunicate, Chris.

Mike

Thomas Campbell
07-04-2007, 08:46 PM
[snip] I.e. let's not use anything Wu Tu Nan says as credible. He was a liar and a charlatan.Yeah, well, the insistence that the Yang style used chousi jin was widespread until the late 1970's early 1980's and it's in a lot of books that way. Sometime in the 1980's someone in the Yang-style realized that if you claim only chousijin you're openly indicating that you don't have full and complete qi and jin because the full "natural" movement will always be with reeling silk, not the pulling silk. So the Yang family publicly stated that they use reeling silk, in the 1980's.

(Personally, I think that within the actual family, they always did. Originally, the Yang founder was not given permission to teach reeling silk, so the Yang style was always incomplete and only used the pulling silk).

But regardless, all of these things are always just variations of the basic ki/qi principles and the basic jin/kokyu principles. Always. The idea that somehow the Japanese arts and the Chinese arts are "different" is the sort of ignorance that continues to keep good western students in the dark.

Best.

Mike

Well, Mike, I don't know what any tales that Wu Tunan may have told about his age have to do with his point about the historical use of "chousi" referring to the unbroken internal connection in movement rather than a specific type of rotational/winding movement like chansijin. I personally find the distinction helpful, in training and in understanding taijiquan theory. Wu's remarks quoted and translated by Louis Swaim don't relate to your historical depiction of Yang taiji's attempt to distinguish itself by claiming its distinctive practice of chousijin.

I also don't think that we know what the "Yang style founder"--I'm assuming you're referring to Yang Luchan--was permitted to teach, nor to whom.

I'd prefer to focus on commonalities and distinctions of training methods in the present moment. Your illustration is useful--as you said--as a starting point. Dan talks about the twisting, and says there is more to it than the spine and arm structure and extension, a "softer yet more flexible and powerful way," intimately tied in with the breathing. Now, to me, the logical way to make progress and encourage fruitful dialogue wouldn't be to talk about where someone was a year ago on an Internet forum and changes of position--but rather follow up and ask Dan to describe in a little more detail the connection between breathing and "adding to that framework/stretched power" . . . in his view. Which is what he started to offer there, I think.

This was after all originally a thread not about conceptual theology, but about how-to--the "baseline skillset."

DH
07-04-2007, 09:50 PM
Actually, I made it abundantly and redundantly clear that my illustration was only to give an idea and was not complete. However, you appear now to be saying something like "Oh yeah, there's stretch after all, it's just not done like in your example". I agree completely, but you didn't agree at first. Regardless of how you do it, there must be extension/stretch by some means or there can be no connection. Period. Knowing that, go back and look at your previous post where you blew such things off. You appear to be changing your position.

Well here they both are. My direct answers unedited. I didn't say "oh yeah there's stretch....... after all."
In fact I said "it is included" in my two replies.
I think my posts are clear enough and I haven't changed my mind one whit. I just think you misunderstood what I wrote in all the other hubub that was going on. Or maybe not..

Er...No. To me thats more or less framework. What I would show someone new to all this- day one. A straight, stretched posture doesn't play as big a part later. I am thinking more of eminating out from center, and pushing/following/pulling a facial chain throughout the body. To folks it feels flexible and feels rigid and at the same time remaining sensitive. And the breath (in/yo ho) has a lot to do with it. Its far more difficult then basic aiki-age, jin/kokyu framework you describe. I was surprised to hear a term "full" from a Chinese teacher. And it is good term for breathwork. From discussions I have had with Rob what I do is different from what he does. Slack is a difficult concept. There are any number of ways folks display it in movement. But stretching out-and using spine-work- while fine- is but a first step. A good one- but only one. I think there are other things to focus on. Honestly I think they're deeper things..

Seems to me you're on frame, posture and stretching out. Which is fine. It involves tendon/ fascia too. I am far more concerned with slack in fascia and breathwork.as a continuous pliable current throughout the body and mainpulated in the body for a sense of "fullness" as a friend would say. The spine and framework connections is fine, but I'll take the mass of the center connected to everything else. Funny, other then showing new guys I don't think much about force vectors in what I am concentrating on right now. It takes care of itself. Oh well, I don't do Chinese stuff or know how they train.
See ya

DH
07-04-2007, 10:03 PM
Hi Tom
Talking about details on the internet is not something I am interested in doing. I have left that up to many of you.
IMO It really doesn't seem to have been very successful. I am already pulling back, losing interest and going back to closed doors. I really don't have anything to gain, and the grief and wierd personalities really isn't worth my time.

ChrisMoses
07-05-2007, 10:19 AM
You're serious, aren't you? You don't understand that that sentence refers to someone else saying something that implied Mochizuki was dumb. I think I see the problem with why you and I continually miscommunicate, Chris.

Mike

OK, Mike, here's the deal. Let's agree that imply means one of two things: 1) to involve by logical necessity or 2) to express or indicate indirectly. The second definition would require some intention on my part. I can assure you that it was not my intention to imply that the head of my ryuha was dumb. So we're stuck with the first definition. Let's look at what was said, (linky (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=170396&postcount=56))

" Just last night while practicing the uchi no kata version of our ukenagashi, I was stuck by how the whole thing works the exact same body dynamics that Rob had demonstrated during part of his Seattle workshop. When I started using what I'd learned from Rob everything clicked, but to do the movement correctly became much harder (if that makes any sense). Now I don't believe Mochizuki Sensei held anything back from us when he taught us this kata. In fact, it was the very specific nature of his teaching that led me to make the comparison and feel confident that I was merely seeing what was already there, not adding some new component. He was not holding back from me, but rather making sure that the shell of understanding was in place, and it was up to me to fill in."

That was the entire amount of information available to you. It is impossible with that amount of information for it to be a "local necessity" that Mochizuki Sensei be "dumb". There are too many factors that you simply could not know. It was rude and a wild leap of ‘logic.' Interestingly, only 7 days later, you posted this, (linky (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=171007&postcount=4))

"It was only in retrospect (after I had a few of these skills) that I realized that my Okinawan karate teacher on Okinawa had shown me some of these skills. Since my perspective was based only on what I knew of the western understanding of strength, force, etc., I simply did not see what he showed me and hence I would have gone off and been a lost soul teaching external karate, if I'd chosen to go that route."

Now I ask you, do you think it is reasonable and *logically necessary* that your Okinawan karate teacher be considered "dumb" based on what you wrote? I don't. I called you on it there, and you felt it was so absurd when *I* said it, that you said, "I give up. I lose interest on these public forums."

Happy digging Mike, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some reason why it's OK for you to say what you do, and not OK for me. Prove me wrong man, and just admit that you were out of line.

David Orange
07-05-2007, 11:48 AM
I disagree. Just as you wouldn't throw a beginner into the deep end and yell "Now swim!", I don't see why a discussion on baseline skillset should be anything other than baseline principles.

Well, because aikido, specifically, has been mentioned repeatedly and many times the claim has been made that the specific body skills (which have never been specifically named) "are" aiki.

I say I keep my balance and cause the other guy to fall down. That's about as baseline as you can get but the criticism is that I don't explain "how" I do that.

On the other hand, the "explanations" given are not really more precise. So the topic naturally weaves around and I'm not the only one weaving it.

David

David Orange
07-05-2007, 11:58 AM
...the insistence that the Yang style used chousi jin was widespread until the late 1970's early 1980's and it's in a lot of books that way. Sometime in the 1980's someone in the Yang-style realized that if you claim only chousijin you're openly indicating that you don't have full and complete qi and jin because the full "natural" movement will always be with reeling silk, not the pulling silk. So the Yang family publicly stated that they use reeling silk, in the 1980's.

So...you're saying that because (as you said, "Aikido uses silk pulling," it's really not sophisticated to the same level as the silk reeling....

Interesting....since that's exactly what I said. The reeling silk is highly refined and sophisticated and it's not found in Japanese martial arts.

So we do agree.

What a surprise.

...all of these things are always just variations of the basic ki/qi principles and the basic jin/kokyu principles.

But above, you just said "...if you claim only chousijin you're openly indicating that you don't have full and complete qi and jin because the full "natural" movement will always be with reeling silk, not the pulling silk." So there is a major difference between the two and a lack of reeling silk in Japanese arts would necessarily be a major difference (precisely the kind of difference I described) between Japanese and Chinese arts.

...The idea that somehow the Japanese arts and the Chinese arts are "different" is the sort of ignorance that continues to keep good western students in the dark.

Or maybe it's "experts" who continually contradict themselves and will say anything to try to make others appear 'wrong'.

You take the cake, dude.

David

Thomas Campbell
07-05-2007, 12:56 PM
Hi Tom
Talking about details on the internet is not something I am interested in doing. I have left that up to many of you.
IMO It really doesn't seem to have been very successful. I am already pulling back, losing interest and going back to closed doors. I really don't have anything to gain, and the grief and wierd personalities really isn't worth my time.

hey Dan:

That is completely your choice, and I understand your position. My post wasn't specifically directed at you. I was just trying to suggest a more productive way that Mike S.--or anyone--might have carried on the dialogue at that point.

Thanks for responding.

cheers,

Tom

DH
07-05-2007, 01:42 PM
hey Dan:

That is completely your choice, and I understand your position. My post wasn't specifically directed at you. I was just trying to suggest a more productive way that Mike S.--or anyone--might have carried on the dialogue at that point.

Thanks for responding.

cheers,

Tom
Hi again Tom

We were just talking about this in the dojo the other day. It really does get weird here doesn't it. Over the years I most certainly have talked about things;both some of the ways to do certain things and some times the results and given descriptions. It's pointless to describe actual details that even folks who come and train here have difficulty with one-on-one. I can talk about lets say, central pivot all the day long. So what! I have yet to meet guys who can do it well after several trips here. I have discussed breath-power, I even have given some descriptions explaining --why- an internal mechanic works several times. Rob quotes one somewhere, that incorporates some of the attributes above; spine, connection through upper center, central pivot, etc. And thats the easier stuff. So why write it and have folks tell me "we do that too" when they turn out to "not have a clue."
I guess my point is David is wrong when he says Mike, Rob and I haven't made any attempt at describing things. Yes I tell people they don't get it. But there are ways to tell folks they don't get it, while being civil and respectful. If you want to. It's a difficult position to be in, because we are right. Period. But it sure is more pleasant knowing you're right anyway, and then choosing to be nice. Blunts OK too. But why not nice? I don't like making enemies, I'd rather make friends. Everyone who comes here-and this is written by every, single visitor- has enjoyed themselves and laughed through all the strain.
So why put up with all the noise here,
when its so much fun................ here.:rolleyes:

ChrisMoses
07-05-2007, 02:09 PM
But it sure is more pleasant knowing you're right anyway, and then choosing to be nice. Blunts OK too. But why not nice? I don't like making enemies, I'd rather make friends.

Quoted for truthiness, mojitos are still on me whenever you make it out here...

jss
07-05-2007, 02:21 PM
I don't know why, but let me take a shot at writing what I think has been said/implied/whatever. (So disclaimer: this is my interpretation.)

It was only in retrospect (after I had a few of these skills) that I realized that my Okinawan karate teacher on Okinawa had shown me some of these skills. Since my perspective was based only on what I knew of the western understanding of strength, force, etc., I simply did not see what he showed me and hence I would have gone off and been a lost soul teaching external karate, if I'd chosen to go that route."
Now I ask you, do you think it is reasonable and *logically necessary* that your Okinawan karate teacher be considered "dumb" based on what you wrote?
Chris, you are right that this is basically the same thing as with you and Mochizuki, but let's make this about Mike and his teacher first. (And let's see if Mike sticks to his claim when it's about him, ok? ;))The teacher showed Mike something and Mike failed to understand. Afterwards there are two possibilities for the karate teacher:
1) He sees that Mike fails to grasp it, but doesn't do anything about it. He thinks: "You're not that important to me. I have been kind enough to show you some of the real stuff; if you don't understand, that's your problem. If you were my son and heir to my lineage, I'd actually do my best to give you detailed instruction. But since you're just some Western student, you're lucky I even showed you the real stuff."
2) The teacher is too dumb to see Mike fails to grasp it. And that's the reason no further instruction is given. The teacher thinks Mike understands and why teach stuff that is already understood?

So if Mike posted the story quoted above and claimes his teacher did his best to teach him everything (i.e. was not deceptive), the only conclusion would be that the karate teacher is dumb.
Now Mike doesn't believe that if his karate teacher is smart enough to figure out the internal body skills, it's possible he's too dumb to recognize these skills in someone else. So by reductio ad absurdum, the teacher is being deceptive. And that just happens to confirm plenty of other stories about the way the Asians teach their martial arts. Which is a second argument (apart from the reductio ad absurdum) for the thesis: the karate teacher is being intentionally deceptive.

Same thing with you and Mochizuki. You admitted there were holes in your knowledge, so there are three possibilites:
1) The holes cannot be taught. Not true: Rob can teach the holes.
2) Mochizuki chose not to teach you the holes. Confirms known facts about Asian teaching methodology.
3) Mochizuki thought he taught you the holes, but was too dumb to see he didn't. Impossible: you do not get that kind of skill without being able to recognize them in someone els.

IMO, this is Mike´s argument. And there are several ways to try to rebut it, so please be my guest. 'Cause judging by some of the posts you and Mike have made, such a discussion will prove to be quite interesting.

ChrisMoses
07-05-2007, 02:45 PM
Same thing with you and Mochizuki. You admitted there were holes in your knowledge, so there are three possibilites:
1) The holes cannot be taught. Not true: Rob can teach the holes.
2) Mochizuki chose not to teach you the holes. Confirms known facts about Asian teaching methodology.
3) Mochizuki thought he taught you the holes, but was too dumb to see he didn't. Impossible: you do not get that kind of skill without being able to recognize them in someone els.



Sorry, but there are a lot more than three possible explanations. Particularly when you consider that I don't study directly under him, and have only seen him on 3 separate occasions. The first two times I spoke only a smidgen of Japanese, the last time (the time in question) was the only time when I both knew the basics of the kata in question and spoke *some* Japanese, barely enough to mostly get by and I was the person with the best English to Japanese skills. We worked on the kata (with 4 other people from my dojo) for 20 minutes total. Now, this is all information that was not available to Mike when he made his comments. His comments, like many others, were made with huge assumptions, and constitute faulty logic. This is not a case of reductio ad absurdum, this is a case of being rude and jumping to conclusions. Unless Mike feels that anyone who could not communicate detailed intricate internal mechanics to someone else in 20 minutes through pantomime should be considered "dumb." Do you feel that's a reasonable expectation? No, for something to really imply something else, the way Mike is using the word, it must be the *only* logical explanation, not a possible explanation of many. If I say that I am holding less than 10 items in my hand, I do not imply that I am holding 2 cookies, that is an assumption, and I would be foolish to jump ahead that far even though, logically I *could* have two cookies in my hand, given what I said. It is far from the *only* logical conclusion that one could come to.

Mike Sigman
07-05-2007, 03:12 PM
Well, Mike, I don't know what any tales that Wu Tunan may have told about his age have to do with his point about the historical use of "chousi" referring to the unbroken internal connection in movement rather than a specific type of rotational/winding movement like chansijin. I personally find the distinction helpful, in training and in understanding taijiquan theory. Wu's remarks quoted and translated by Louis Swaim don't relate to your historical depiction of Yang taiji's attempt to distinguish itself by claiming its distinctive practice of chousijin.
Hi Tom:

Well, I've seen, heard, and read about Wu, what's he's written, etc., etc., over many years. I'm very familiar with him. He's one of these guys that, because of a focused partisanship, cannot be trusted to tell you the truth, even if he does so occasionally. So I simply filter Wu Tu Nan out of reasonable consideration. He was known to make up a lot of things, so it just becomes impossible to assign "truth" or "fiction" to whatever he says. I know hundreds of anecdotes about Wu and I don't have any partisan like or dislike to him.... it's just not worth the time to spend the time trying to figure out which part of his remarks are accurate and which are fiction. I also don't think that we know what the "Yang style founder"--I'm assuming you're referring to Yang Luchan--was permitted to teach, nor to whom. According to Chen Xiao Wang, Yang LuChan was an indentured servant to the village drugstore owner. (This is pretty much agreed to by everyone). Yang LuChan was allowed to study Taiji, even though he was an outsider and he became the #3 student of his generation, under Chen Qing Ping. When his "owner" came into his 80's (Yang was in his 40's) the owner decided to set Yang Lu Chan free because the owner's health was failing and he didn't think it would look right to leave a household in which there would be 4 wives and one male manservant. Yang was set free and given the OK to teach Taiji in order to make a living (Yang was illiterate and had no viable commercial skills). However, his master told him that silk reeling could not be taught to outsiders.

Interestingly enough, if you read Wu Tu Nan's books, there is a quite different story which includes the idea that Yang's Taiji does not come from Chen's Taiji, and there are many other comments that differ with the story above. Unfortunately, Wu's accounts have been decimated in the last decade or so by the actual Yang family publicly admitting that Yang's Taiji is taken directly from Chen's Taiji. So all those stories told by Wu and the others in an effort to set the Yang style (Wu Tu Nan did the Wu style, but at one time it was actually considered to be completely under the Yang domain).... all those stories now do nothing but discredit the tellers, including Wu Tu Nan. I'd prefer to focus on commonalities and distinctions of training methods in the present moment. Your illustration is useful--as you said--as a starting point. Dan talks about the twisting, and says there is more to it than the spine and arm structure and extension, a "softer yet more flexible and powerful way," intimately tied in with the breathing. Now, to me, the logical way to make progress and encourage fruitful dialogue wouldn't be to talk about where someone was a year ago on an Internet forum and changes of position--but rather follow up and ask Dan to describe in a little more detail the connection between breathing and "adding to that framework/stretched power" . . . in his view. Which is what he started to offer there, I think.

This was after all originally a thread not about conceptual theology, but about how-to--the "baseline skillset."I don't disagree with you, Tom. My point, which I considered more important for the nonce, is that people need to get over this idea that there are different principles involved in Japanese arts, Chinese arts, Okinawan arts, Indonesian arts, and so on. It's important because knowing that all of these arts, despite their variations, are part of a whole picture. That means that ALL of these arts give us information, not just a select few. Once people realize they have a wide source of information rather than just a limited, restricted, secretive, single source... they're miles ahead and to the good.

Insofar as what Dan was hinting at, I know generally what he's trying to hint at and I'd just say "there's even more to it than that" with a wink and a nod...... but I think the more complex aspects are way outside of the purview of a basics discussion. The point I made that a slight extensive connection is basic and necessary.... even a neophyte will know that's true if they watch the erect posture of meditating priests, skilled Aikido experts (notice how straightly they hold themselves and move), and many other clues like spreading the fingers and so on.

Best.

Mike

Mike Sigman
07-05-2007, 03:19 PM
Happy digging Mike, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some reason why it's OK for you to say what you do, and not OK for me. Prove me wrong man, and just admit that you were out of line. Prove you wrong? I asked for proof of the assertion by you that I called your ryuha guy "stupid" and you can't come up with it. You've been proved wrong. Period. Now you're trying to make some extended wasted conversation that interprets what was meant versus what was comprehended... about something else. You've already been proved wrong but you can't just admit it and move on.

Mike Sigman

ChrisMoses
07-05-2007, 03:27 PM
Prove you wrong? I asked for proof of the assertion by you that I called your ryuha guy "stupid" and you can't come up with it. You've been proved wrong. Period. Now you're trying to make some extended wasted conversation that interprets what was meant versus what was comprehended... about something else. You've already been proved wrong but you can't just admit it and move on.

Mike Sigman

I rest my case. If anyone else thinks that Mike has proved me wrong here, please clue me in. I don't see it. Unless he'd like to split hairs between "stupid" and "dumb" (they are listed as synonyms however, so that would be a pretty thin case).

Mike Sigman
07-05-2007, 03:31 PM
That is completely your choice, and I understand your position. My post wasn't specifically directed at you. I was just trying to suggest a more productive way that Mike S.--or anyone--might have carried on the dialogue at that point.
So, several post dedicated to simple personality attack by David (and this goes back to the beginning on E-Budo with David initiating exactly the same crap) aren't worth mentioning, but "productive ways that Mike S." could do things better are worth an off-topic post and mention of my name again?

Mike Sigman

David Orange
07-05-2007, 03:34 PM
If anyone else thinks that Mike has proved me wrong here, please clue me in. I don't see it. Unless he'd like to split hairs between "stupid" and "dumb" (they are listed as synonyms however, so that would be a pretty thin case).

Chris, I don't see where Mike said that your teacher was dumb. He said that your statement implies that your teacher is dumb. He wasn't critiquing your teacher, but your statement:

""Pooh. What you're saying implies that Mochizuki was too dumb to realize that you didn't get it."

FWIW.

David

David Orange
07-05-2007, 03:40 PM
So, several post dedicated to simple personality attack by David (and this goes back to the beginning on E-Budo with David initiating exactly the same crap) aren't worth mentioning, but "productive ways that Mike S." could do things better are worth an off-topic post and mention of my name again?

Mike, the whole thing with you and me started because you came into the conversation on e-budo in your inimitable know-it-all-and-I'm-also-better-than-you attitude and started making comments about me. Otherwise, I would never have addressed you. Your name meant nothing to me then, so why would I even have addressed you?

You are really the only person on these boards that I get pretty harsh with anymore--some because they quit posting, but others because they became more diplomatic and mostly because I prefer give-and-take conversations on the whole. My approach is to address people the way they address me--usually a little nicer and more patiently than they address me--until they prove that they're intent on being donkies. But as many, many people (apparently on many, many message boards) have noted, you just like to start crap with people, so you never run out of snappy responses to your statements. You do seem to take it a lot harder than you think other people should take your statements, too.

David

DH
07-05-2007, 03:42 PM
Deleted for being useless!

ChrisMoses
07-05-2007, 03:53 PM
Chris, I don't see where Mike said that your teacher was dumb. He said that your statement implies that your teacher is dumb.

Exactly why I brought up the definition for "imply". For what I said to have actually implied that Mochizuki was dumb, there could be no other reasonable explanation for the scenario that I presented. I do not feel that anyone could make that argument, there simply was not enough information available.

David Orange
07-05-2007, 04:00 PM
Exactly why I brought up the definition for "imply". For what I said to have actually implied that Mochizuki was dumb, there could be no other reasonable explanation for the scenario that I presented. I do not feel that anyone could make that argument, there simply was not enough information available.

Well, it seems to me he wasn't attacking your teacher, but you.

David

ChrisMoses
07-05-2007, 04:04 PM
Well, it seems to me he wasn't attacking your teacher, but you.

David

No, that's impossible, he doesn't do that sort of thing. ;)