PDA

View Full Version : Taiji Motion study


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


DH
04-24-2008, 09:08 AM
Interesting

http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/Qi_Press/TaiChi%20Stanford.pdf

Chris Parkerson
04-24-2008, 09:12 PM
Great article.

Thanks. I will pass it on.

wideawakedreamer
05-01-2008, 08:52 PM
Interesting article. Makes me want to take up tai chi. I wonder what they will find if they do the same test on an aikidoka.

aikilouis
05-02-2008, 07:07 AM
On the same note, I'd be very interested to read any publication made after Mike Sigman's collaboration with the University of Colorado.

Spencer Burns
05-02-2008, 06:17 PM
There is a video that was put together from that study:

http://move.stanford.edu/08/downloads.html

gdandscompserv
05-03-2008, 09:09 AM
An extemely talented martial artist.
Thanks for the link.

Thomas Campbell
05-11-2008, 06:18 PM
It's interesting to see that kind of acceleration up close and personal. Chen Xiang was in Seattle teaching in early May. He can move from standing still to full-blown fajin with frightening speed and relatively little store/release. A number of the top Chenshi taiji guys can (Chen Xiaowang, for example). Chen Xiang's movement seems more relaxed, perhaps a little looser. He's also a very open, pleasant person to work with.

Jim Sorrentino
05-12-2008, 10:27 AM
Direct link to the WMV file: http://move.stanford.edu/08/podcasts/08_Taiji_Package_07_subtitles.wmv

Jim

There is a video that was put together from that study:

http://move.stanford.edu/08/downloads.html

Mike Sigman
05-12-2008, 11:45 AM
Watch out... there may be a trojan downloader associated with that file. My AV software immediately started a quarantine of a downloader at the time the film was running, so I'm assuming that may be it.

Mike

Erick Mead
05-12-2008, 12:00 PM
Watch out... there may be a trojan downloader associated with that file. My AV software immediately started a quarantine of a downloader at the time the film was running, so I'm assuming that may be it. Even worse -- it may refer to a viral meme -- optimizing angular momentum .:D

Mike Sigman
05-12-2008, 12:13 PM
Even worse -- it may refer to a viral meme -- optimizing angular momentum .:DHmmmm.... you're sort of like Charlie Brown kicking the football with your "angular momentum", Erick. You keep kicking it and you keep winding up on your back.

If you take a look at what they're referring to in the "angular momentum" discussion, it's functionally no different than talking about a "hip twist" (to simplify) in a karate punch. All motion can be described, from some perspective, in terms of angular momentum. To say something is "angular momentum" is to say nothing. Or at the very least, there is no distinction by saying "angular momentum" in terms of "ki" or in terms of football.

The Stanford people did publish one thing that is true and important (I ain't sayin'... you figure it out), but they mis-read the force-vector directions. A little statics analysis would have cleared it up.

Still, I'm glad the study was done. Oh... I should note that the "famous Tai Chi master" they used is a student of Feng Zhiqiang whom Feng treats as his number two because this guy can fight and take challenges when they're made to Feng. But his initial training was in Bajiquan and it's very obvious that he uses the power mechanisms of Baji, rather than Taiji, in his power releases.

FWIW

Mike

Erick Mead
05-12-2008, 02:16 PM
Hmmmm.... you're sort of like Charlie Brown kicking the football with your "angular momentum", Erick. You keep kicking it and you keep winding up on your back. Looking, at my feet at this moment ... Yep, firmly planted on terra firma. C'mon, when's a tweak not in good fun ?

If you take a look at what they're referring to in the "angular momentum" discussion, it's functionally no different than talking about a "hip twist" (to simplify) in a karate punch. All motion can be described, from some perspective, in terms of angular momentum. A gold star to the guy in the front row... And all potential motion can be described, from some perspective, in terms of moment...

Aaah. ... Does realization truly dawn ? :p

Or at the very least, there is no distinction by saying "angular momentum" in terms of "ki" or in terms of football. Are you saying either a football, or, say, a noseguard -- has no Ki?? A good quarterback has a keen, (if highly specific) appreciation of the manipulation of the Ki of a football.

Next thing, I suppose you're going to scandalize the Japanese by saying that Hideo Nomo's fastball has no Ki ... ;)

Or that in the one case the football has its Ki manipulated, whereas the noseguard can learn (in theory, at least :hypno: ) to manipulate Ki. Some of them even manipulate the Ki of others as well as their own, rather intuitively, if haphazardly. (N.B. - I'd love to be in the lockerroom for THAT half-time lecture ... )

Which image should illustrate the point -- having a neutral, western reference does away with needless esotericism. The odd noseguard may be just as intellectually clueless, depending. But if it is in empirical terms he has at least heard tell of, he cannot then so cluelessly wave serious points into mumbo-jumbo territory. They get physics, if not math, generally speaking -- hitting somebody with a heavy chain is a concept the average noseguard might relate to with surprising ease ... ;) . Pinning 'em down or snatchin' 'em off their feet with related principles is not nearly so mysterious after that ...

To say something is "angular momentum" is to say nothing. Or, perhaps .. everything.

Mike Sigman
05-12-2008, 03:13 PM
A gold star to the guy in the front row... And all potential motion can be described, from some perspective, in terms of moment...

Aaah. ... Does realization truly dawn ? :p If you'll go back and check it, I long ago posted that your angular momentum explanation had not value because of that very reason. I also said there were a number of generalities that could be used to explain anything you wanted and that they were of no use to us, either. Are you saying either a football, or, say, a noseguard -- has no Ki?? A good quarterback has a keen, (if highly specific) appreciation of the manipulation of the Ki of a football.

Next thing, I suppose you're going to scandalize the Japanese by saying that Hideo Nomo's fastball has no Ki ... ;) I'm not getting into the silliness, Erick. It's obvious that you don't understand what ki means, once again. And once again, let me remind you that because you don't understand something that no one does and therefore any theory flies. Your problem is that you need some instruction. I previously suggested that you try to find someone who is still willing to show you and it's still a good suggestion.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Erick Mead
05-12-2008, 03:35 PM
If you'll go back and check it, I long ago posted that your angular momentum explanation had not value because of that very reason. I also said there were a number of generalities that could be used to explain anything you wanted and that they were of no use to us, either. I think that you will find that the levels of specificity that can be achieved in these terms at least as detailed as any of the terms you typically prefer to use to address them. In fact, I think we just watched a video to that effect, ... although mainly on the "what" not the "why."

It's obvious that you don't understand what ki means, once again. I would have expected better by now, but on little evidence for the hope, it must be admitted.

Tim Fong
05-12-2008, 09:55 PM
Erick,

Your methods can't explain the "how" either.

Tim

Erick Mead
05-14-2008, 10:01 AM
Your methods can't explain the "how" either. You mistake what I am doing. Ki as traditionally understood explains the how. Now we must explain Ki in other terms.

It is not like there is not a general sense that this needs doing -- look at Rocky Izumi's current (and laudable) effort toward that end. He is laying out principles in the form of what craftsmen call "rules of thumb" highly pragmatic rules of structure and execution. They are very valuable, and they also have a long tradition in technical crafts and even engineering (East and West). But there are other tools we have in physics, to do a similar thing, that East and West now equally share.

An analogy: The first step, by the French Jesuits, later again Wades-Giles, and then again in the pinyin system was to transliterate the sound of Chinese for the benefit of the sound/symbol languages to enable them to "hear" it in writing, and then begin to associate concepts from the writings with the primary sense data of hearing. The second step was to take the "heard" writing and then make it accessible in terms of its concepts.

This is in hanzi:

一狗可以久在馬房睡覺但是他也不是馬的.

This is the same in pinyin:

Yī gǒu kyǐ jiǔ zi mǎfng shujio, dnsh tā yě b sh mǎ de.

A reader may not know what the first or the second things are saying (the same thing FWIW) but the reader is closer to it in being able to sound it out, and can memorize the raw sense data, and then find a Chinese speaker to explain it. But if all the reader has (to the reader) is meaningless stick figures, he is able to make NO sense of it at all, nor even know what to ask later when he finds a native speaker.

Hearing is the primary sense of language, and the primary sense is necessary to internalize it. That's why kids read out loud. Written images that are closest to the actual primary sense (in a given culture) are most effectively learned. Alphabetical languages are easily "heard"; a Westerner can more easily internalize the sound than the pictogram, because pictorial languages require much rote learning to internalize sound from the image. Alphabetics are analytic, and less foundational work is necessary to work it out. Ki, as a conceptual system, and physics have a similar distinction in their approaches to physical problems.

Aikido is a physical "language." Its primary sense is touch and movement. Touch and movement are no more directly perceptible in the written page than hearing is, but a representation of it can be made if the representation makes the primary sense datum accessible to the sense memory of the reader.

Two systems, physics and ki, may equally represent the primary sense data. They are not, however equally accessible in talking about or writing about the primary data, depending on culture. You may analogize what I am trying to do with the transliteration that various systems have attempted with the sounds of Chinese. Pinyin is NOT Chinese -- it is a Western point of access to Chinese.

Aikido, in western terms, is somewhere between steps one and two, above. For those that get it in traditional terms as those terms were meant (and not as fancifully imagined) they need no more. For those who do not easily get it in traditional terms some transliteration is necessary into a different system of understanding, to get it in terms they can use their own physical sense memory to access and internalize it.

And anyone who merely defaults to "you just have to feel this stuff" as an exclusive retort is simply complaining that "pinyin is not Chinese." While not wrong, it simply misses the point (apart from tending to be condescending and presumptive). It would be like saying that Shakespeare's written work is good for nothing but wiping up spills simply because it is not in its "intended" directly spoken form, as though people are incapable of "hearing" in the head when reading what is written.

Once you have access, have learned the alphabet and basic grammatic structure of the language you can start to puzzle out the place and meaning of essential words, and then in comparing what you hear and seeing what is written, you can get on to nuances of grammar, inflection and more elegant forms of expression.

Mike Sigman
05-14-2008, 10:12 AM
You mistake what I am doing. Ki as traditionally understood explains the how. Now we must explain Ki in other terms.
Nah, as has been repeatedly show, you don't want to "explain Ki in other terms", Erick, you want people to explain Ki in terms that must agree with your criteria. Period. In other words, you've set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is the correct way to explain something that you know nothing about. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

tuturuhan
05-14-2008, 10:31 AM
You mistake what I am doing. Ki as traditionally understood explains the how. Now we must explain Ki in other terms.

Hearing is the primary sense of language, and the primary sense is necessary to internalize it. That's why kids read out loud. Written images that are closest to the actual primary sense (in a given culture) are most effectively learned. Alphabetical languages are easily "heard"; a Westerner can more easily internalize the sound than the pictogram, because pictorial languages require much rote learning to internalize sound from the image. Alphabetics are analytic, and less foundational work is necessary to work it out. Ki, as a conceptual system, and physics have a similar distinction in their approaches to physical problems.

Aikido is a physical "language." Its primary sense is touch and movement. Touch and movement are no more directly perceptible in the written page than hearing is, but a representation of it can be made if the representation makes the primary sense datum accessible to the sense memory of the reader.

Two systems, physics and ki, may equally represent the primary sense data. They are not, however equally accessible in talking about or writing about the primary data, depending on culture. You may analogize what I am trying to do with the transliteration that various systems have attempted with the sounds of Chinese. Pinyin is NOT Chinese -- it is a Western point of access to Chinese.

Aikido, in western terms, is somewhere between steps one and two, above. For those that get it in traditional terms as those terms were meant (and not as fancifully imagined) they need no more. For those who do not easily get it in traditional terms some transliteration is necessary into a different system of understanding, to get it in terms they can use their own physical sense memory to access and internalize it.

And anyone who merely defaults to "you just have to feel this stuff" as an exclusive retort is simply complaining that "pinyin is not Chinese." While not wrong, it simply misses the point (apart from tending to be condescending and presumptive). It would be like saying that Shakespeare's written work is good for nothing but wiping up spills simply because it is not in its "intended" directly spoken form, as though people are incapable of "hearing" in the head when reading what is written.

Once you have access, have learned the alphabet and basic grammatic structure of the language you can start to puzzle out the place and meaning of essential words, and then in comparing what you hear and seeing what is written, you can get on to nuances of grammar, inflection and more elegant forms of expression.

Mr Erick,

I agree on many points. When I started teaching my daughters to read from "100 lessons for Teaching Your Children How to Read", by Haddux; I had an epiphany.

As the story goes, the guys who wrote the book in the late 1970's were IBM employes. They were concerned with the fact that "Johnny Couldn't Read". As such, they looked at the method of "teaching reading" in the schools. They found that teachers were in fact, habitualizing children to "never read" properly.

They created an alphabet that used phonics (learning to state the ABC's in fact becomes a barrier to reading words.) They used arrows to tell the children which direction to read in (teachers had assumed that kids knew to read from right to left). They placed dots at the bottom of her phonetic letter (to employ touch, with sound, with sight). Lastly, with the arrows they employed a method of "connected" sounds.

My epiphany was that "I was teaching martial arts" in this same way. I was using the modes of "data intake" (i.e. sight, sound, touch, taste and smell) to multiply the ability of my students to learn.) Lastly, instead of "particle" (1 separated by 2, separated by 3), I in my practice was teaching "wave".

I am curious. Do you have any videos of your practice? My opinion is that one's intellect should take root in one's body motions. More interestingly, one's body motions can add to the epiphany of intellect.

Sincerely
Joseph T. Oliva Arriola

Fred Little
05-14-2008, 03:32 PM
They used arrows to tell the children which direction to read in (teachers had assumed that kids knew to read from right to left).

There aren't too many languages that read right to left. Of course, maybe you're just making your point in a particularly dry fashion....

Best,

FL

Aikibu
05-14-2008, 05:15 PM
There aren't too many languages that read right to left. Of course, maybe you're just making your point in a particularly dry fashion....

Best,

FL

What is the point of all this...:D

William Hazen

Kevin Leavitt
05-14-2008, 07:11 PM
My son learned to read at about age 3. We taught him simply by reading to him everyday over and over again. He figured it out on his own simply through the direct experience of reading. We never had to tell him anything directly, or to break it down into small parts, or anything, he did it simply through the experience of reading.

Now because he can read, doesn't mean he can spell or write, or talk about the theory of how letters evolved or the mechanics of how words are formed in the brain as concepts from the transmission of the eyes to the optic nerve etc.

He simply reads.

I think martial arts work this way in many ways. You can learn simply by doing it over and over again until you simply can do things.

some can do, some can talk about it, some can do both.

but I am ultimately with Mr Hazen...what is the point of all this :)

tuturuhan
05-14-2008, 07:31 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Leavitt;206455]My son learned to read at about age 3. We taught him simply by reading to him everyday over and over again. He figured it out on his own simply through the direct experience of reading. We never had to tell him anything directly, or to break it down into small parts, or anything, he did it simply through the experience of reading.

Kevin,

The point is that my 10 year old is taking high school algebra and my 7 year old is in 5th grade math. Yes, they knew how to read at 3, also. But, we endeavored to teach them to "think about what they were given to read". We are teaching them to ask "why and how" which is beyond what, where and when.

The point is that the result of the theory and concept is in its utility. I study martial arts "theory and concept" to win in combat. I study it to win in life.

I talk about my children's "wins" because they are an extension of my family's values.

I judge a martial arts expert not simply on his natural ability. I judge him on the successes in his life. I judge him by not only his actions but by the way he thinks.

Perhaps, one day you and I will be able to "cross hands". Next, summer I will be in D.C. Perhaps then, you can judge for yourself whether or not my stuff is for real. However, surely I would hope you could see the extension of my expertise in all aspects of my life.

Sincerely
Joseph T. Oliva Arriola

Erick Mead
05-14-2008, 08:09 PM
Nah, as has been repeatedly show, you don't want to "explain Ki in other terms", Erick, you want people to explain Ki in terms that must agree with your criteria. Period. In other words, you've set yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is the correct way to explain something that you know nothing about. ;)Not my criteria. Bishop Berkeley, Sir Isaac, and one or two others you may have heard of. There is nothing to arbitrate except the correspondence of physical principles to physical actions. If one understands the principle one can see the action that corresponds or does not and make one's own judgment.

As to Qi, the terms of Qi are this:
The Supreme Harmony is known as the Dao...Because in it there are interacting qualities of floating and sinking, rising and falling, movement and quiescence, therefore there appear in it the beginnings of the emanating forces which [harmonize one another,] agitate one another, overcome or are overcome by one another, and contract and expand, one with regard to the other."
太和所謂道,中涵浮沈、升降、動靜、相感之性,是生絪縕、相盪、勝負、屈伸之始 :

The Supreme Void cannot but consist of qi; this qi cannot but condense to form all things; and these things cannot but disperse so as to again form the Supreme Void. The perpetuation of these movements in a cycle, is inevitable and thus spontaneous.
太虛不能無氣,氣不能不聚而為萬物,萬物不能不散而為
太虛。循是出入,是皆不得已而然也。

The Qi of yin and yang fills up the Supreme Void; outside this there is nothing, neither is there any gap. All heavenly phenomena and earthly shapes are within its boundaries.
陰陽二氣充滿太虛, 此外更无他物, 亦无間隙, 天之象, 地之 形, 皆其所范圍也。

In the life of man, heaven produces his energy, earth produces his form. These are combined and create a man.
凡人之生也,天出其精 地出其形 合此以為人。

With harmony there comes life, without harmony there is no life.
和乃生,不和不生。

Yin qi condensing forms quiescent matter, earthly shapes. Yang qi, dispersing becomes invisibly active energy, heavenly phenomena, all cycling from one to the other.

Mass, velocity, cycling around a center or mean 中.

That is angular momentum -- when yang phase is dominant.
That is moment (potential for angular momentum) -- when yin phase is dominant.

What's your problem with the correspondence in the traditions here?

Erick Mead
05-14-2008, 08:25 PM
... some can do, some can talk about it, some can do both.

but I am ultimately with Mr Hazen...what is the point of all this :) Simple. Both. China was dominated by scholars for 2200 years during which 80% of the population was illiterate and 20+% of the Chinese remain illiterate today, and for the same reason. It may be that the analytic way of doing things can be more accessible to those who have little foundation and little time to build one.

Whether it should be more accessible is a different question, and one that, based on his prior statements, and his holding of a closed nei-jia forum, seems to underlie some of Sigman's objections. But they should be asked separately, and I am simply laying some reasons for keeping them separate.

Ron Tisdale
05-14-2008, 08:29 PM
Whether it should be more accessible is a different question, and one that, based on his prior statements, and his holding of a closed nei-jia forum, seems to underlie some of Sigman's objections.

Oh please. Signal to noise ratio is the reasoning behind that forum's closed nature, not to mention not throwing pearls before swine (if you will pardon the expression). ;)

B,
R

Mike Sigman
05-14-2008, 09:05 PM
Not my criteria. Bishop Berkeley, Sir Isaac, and one or two others you may have heard of. I beg your pardon, but since when did Berkeley, Isaac Newton, et al demand that qi be defined in the (general) terms of physics? And to what degree of resolution? You're the one demanding certain levels of physics talk (which you seem to relish, the more complex you can make it) and you seem to want to constrain what is an acceptable level. None of those guys ever demanded the qi be defined by physics at all. As I noted several years ago, you could demand that riding a bicycle be confined to explicit physics in the areas you determine, and I would still suggest that it's a waste of time. Waste your own time with ki/qi and with bicycle-riding descriptions... no one else seems to be *demanding* how things are described, except for you. There is nothing to arbitrate except the correspondence of physical principles to physical actions. If one understands the principle one can see the action that corresponds or does not and make one's own judgment.

As to Qi, the terms of Qi are this:

Yin qi condensing forms quiescent matter, earthly shapes. Yang qi, dispersing becomes invisibly active energy, heavenly phenomena, all cycling from one to the other.

Mass, velocity, cycling around a center or mean 中.

That is angular momentum -- when yang phase is dominant.
That is moment (potential for angular momentum) -- when yin phase is dominant.

What's your problem with the correspondence in the traditions here?You just asserted a definition that is invalid and incomplete. These demands and assertions have gotten you nowhere in several years, but they have convinced the growing number of people that see/understand the effects that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Dan Austin
05-14-2008, 10:13 PM
but I am ultimately with Mr Hazen...what is the point of all this

The point is a couple of people thinking that all their posturing and verbiage fools anybody into thinking they know about internal martial arts compared to Mr. Sigman or the other obviously knowledgeable folks. Is it working on you? Me neither. ;)

Kevin Leavitt
05-14-2008, 11:02 PM
some can do, some can talk, some can do both.

I can do neither well.

Erick Mead
05-15-2008, 12:26 AM
since when did Berkeley, Isaac Newton, et al demand that qi be defined They never heard of it.

... no one else seems to be *demanding* how things are described, except for you. ... These demands and assertions have gotten you nowhere in several years, but they have convinced the growing number of people that see/understand the effects that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Really Mike, If I could just rely on your level of mind-boggling clairvoyance then I could dispense with physics. On the other hand, maybe not. "Proof" of physical skill (vice concept) by forum discussion -- I love it. Will you sip a mint julep through a DSL line next?

Demands? I demand nothing. I have a point of view and a line of thinking about relating things. You don't have to agree or disagree with it, take it for what it is or not as it suits you. I expect question challenge and even pushback on the merits. I try to respond in kind.

All I showed was the very basic elements of correspondnce for my line of thought from the most traditional understandings of Qi, as making essential correspondence with moment/momentum. And of course it is incomplete because the two systems are not completely correspondent, or at least not trivially so.

But. Why the acid? I've never challenged nor much care about your bona fides which are certainly not at issue. You seem to feel mighty free in slapdash judgment. I don't. I would not do that even if I had no basis to believe you were bona fide. This is a realm of ideas and ideas stand or fall on their own merits.

So, why the so routinely predictable attack on me with such unsupported judgment ? Not that I care -- and feel free to keep doing it. I just wonder why, that's all. Pretense about relating physicality here when we cannot agree on the language or grammar for representing that physicality is utter and complete nonsense. Even video is not sufficient because we cannot analyze it except by language means, so we are right back where we were. That is actually the point of the remedy I am working toward. Then you could insult and debase me in quantitative terms, and wouldn't that be fun ? ;)

Erick Mead
05-15-2008, 12:36 AM
The point is a couple of people thinking that all their posturing and verbiage fools anybody into thinking they know about internal martial arts compared to Mr. Sigman or the other obviously knowledgeable folks. Is it working on you? Me neither. ;)If I could fool anyone into actually thinking, I would have done a good service, without more ... are you not going to be fooled into thinking, then ...?

Mike Sigman
05-15-2008, 08:25 AM
Pretense about relating physicality here when we cannot agree on the language or grammar for representing that physicality is utter and complete nonsense. Even video is not sufficient because we cannot analyze it except by language means, so we are right back where we were. That is actually the point of the remedy I am working toward. Then you could insult and debase me in quantitative terms, and wouldn't that be fun ? ;) Erick, the party has been over for a couple of years, now. There are a number of Aikido people (and other styles) who understand the general area and function of these skills. Not by any coincidence, the skills easily and obviously agree with writings and sayings and actions shown in Aikido by some of the more prominent experts from the old days. And it's fairly common-sensical, once you get the initial idea. But once you get the idea and know generally what's going on, it fairly difficult for someone who doesn't know to dupe someone into believing he "knows" because there are too many basic mistakes and simple-things-misunderstood-in-conversation for it to be convincing.

And I'm not saying that the people who unrightfully claim the basic skills are evil or deliberate in trying to fool people. I think a lot of them are smart, self-absorbed people who think what they are doing is correct because they have great belief, faith, and focus in/on themselves.

If you think about it, having a growing number of fellow-practitioners who have a grasp of what the basics are is a *good* thing. It begins to enable a blocking action that keeps out the wannabe's who have in part been responsible for the slow progress that Aikido (and other arts) has made in these skill areas. That means progress is underway. Not for everyone, of course, but enough to start the next generation off reasonably well. That's good for Aikido and it's good for other arts.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Erick Mead
05-15-2008, 02:12 PM
Erick, the party has been over for a couple of years, now. Party's not over 'til the beer's gone. And we can get more beer ...

... too many basic mistakes and simple-things-misunderstood-in-conversation for it to be convincing. Quod erat demonstrandum. John Courtney Murray once remarked that "disagreement is a rare achievement, and most of what is called disagreement is simply confusion." As Winston Churchill said, the English and Americans are one people, divided by a common language. On these topics we have (at least) three peoples and three languages.

Terms of reference for things that are not common by definition -- as you admit -- are often very differently chosen by people, who understand them from very different histories and traditions. We both are native English speakers, you have a Chinese martial arts background, I do not; I have a Chinese philosophical background and training in the language (I have no idea whether you do or not). Yet even we can't settle on mutually acceptable terms. You are every bit as adamant about yours as you contend I am.

I don't care what you believe about me and I'll never prove anything objective to you here in your terms, which are explicitly subjective ("you have to "feel this stuff" etc etc.). Nor do I care to try as it is pointless. Only you can be the judge of your subjective appreciation, and only I can be the judge of my own. Nothing subjective can be objectively demonstrated, at least not directly. If I can see both green and red and you cannot, I cannot objectively prove to you my perception that there only green objects present on the table, and yet to both of us they look the same color -- and you may rightfully insist on your perception that they are all red. I can only demonstrate some objective difference by indirect mechanisms, which say nothing about my (or your) actual perceptions.

What I do care about is seeing that the ideas themselves are not confused and that the representations of ideas are placed in terms that can be more easily related with less, rather than more need for differing subjective interpretation.

Mike Sigman
05-15-2008, 02:29 PM
Terms of reference for things that are not common by definition -- as you admit -- are often very differently chosen by people, who understand them from very different histories and traditions. Well, there's Rob, Dan, Akuzawa, Tohei, me, and many, many more who all agree with a couple of general concepts that *define* what is going on. Then there's you. If you really understood the concepts, the general descriptions would have been obvious to you. You don't. You need lessons. Protesting that this is all a matter of terms and implying that you really understand it, yada, yada, yada, have gotten you nowhere. Most of all, to continue trying to argue that you do understand when you clearly don't is a waste of time. Most of all, it wastes yours. By implication, it wastes your students', too.

You think Chinese and Japanese would cavil over the terms, in the practical sense? Really?

http://www.neijia.com/0.jpg
http://www.neijia.com/backbow.jpg

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Erick Mead
05-15-2008, 05:27 PM
... You need lessons. ... I do what I do, I see what I see, I know what I know, and I express what I express. I make a living being told I am not only wrong, but embarassingly wrong about fifty times a week, so get in line, but somehow, despite all the wasted rhetoric, at the end of the day, it doesn't usually turn out that way, or I wouldn't stay in the fray in the first place.

You think Chinese and Japanese would cavil over the terms, in the practical sense? Really? Yes, really, and rather deeply. Since at least the mid-nineteenth century. Read Kojiki-Den, and any number of other Kokugaku writers from Norinaga, Atsutane etc. That text in particular has some importance to the Aikido side of the table, and has issues that need to be reconciled in light of their scholarship (and its influence, which are not always the same thing).

http://www.neijia.com/0.jpg
http://www.neijia.com/backbow.jpg Seems the Taiji figure in the second backbow illustration of the dynamic underwent a 180 degree rotation. What would one use to describe that dynamic in terms of the physics --- hmmm? Too bad we don't have a Western name for mass undergoing rotations or cyclic displacements or a tendency to do so... really too bad --- Oh wait, silly me, we do -- angular momentum and moments ...

And as to the first, it is a moment diagram -- upper lateral rightward moment received by taking up momentum in the spine torque (stored moment) and thus right/down rotation tendency at the top, equal left/up rotation at the bottom and dispose the undercarriage to let the left/upward rotation resolve through the arm receiving the input push -- the same 180 degree rotation of effective moment as the Taiji illustrated in the second diagram.

Got more?

Mike Sigman
05-15-2008, 06:01 PM
That text in particular has some importance to the Aikido side of the table, Frankly, given that you don't understand what ki and kokyu really are, what good does "that text" do you? As I've pointed out a number of times, it's a common theme among Chinese and Japanese that people who can read the common language do not have the background, knowledge of idiom, knowledge of folklore, etc., to read the old texts in the way they were meant. I also mentioned that it is very common in my contacts in the martial-arts world to see some rather ego-centric people who disregard the comedic value of the above scene and prance right ahead. ;) Seems the Taiji figure in the second backbow illustration of the dynamic underwent a 180 degree rotation. What would one use to describe that dynamic in terms of the physics --- hmmm? Too bad we don't have a Western name for mass undergoing rotations or cyclic displacements or a tendency to do so... really too bad --- Oh wait, silly me, we do -- angular momentum and moments ... And of course when I do a Taiji form I sometimes bend my knee. What you would see is your own "Aha, angular momentum!" frippery and miss, once again for the thousandth time, the jin/kokyu force resultant that is the important point. But frankly I'm tired of covering the same old ground. Your point seems to be an endless "I can't be wrong! I'm a lawyer! I'm a pilot! I'm a teacher! So let's argue until I'm proved right!". Not me.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Blake Holtzen
05-15-2008, 08:18 PM
I think this has turned into the Mike and Erick show. Hmmm...
What happened to the good Ki talk??

-Blake

Dan Austin
05-15-2008, 08:18 PM
If I could fool anyone into actually thinking, I would have done a good service, without more ... are you not going to be fooled into thinking, then ...?

I don't think you're trying to do any service at all. I think you and Arriola need to start How Do I Love Me, Let Me Count the Ways thread to keep you busy and let people listen to what the actual internal arts practitioners have to say. I don't consider killing threads that might otherwise be interesting as performing a service.

Erick Mead
05-15-2008, 09:06 PM
... let people listen to what the actual internal arts practitioners have to say. I don't consider killing threads that might otherwise be interesting as performing a service.I don't think that I have stopped anyone from saying anything. The same courtesy may not be reciprocated however. The thread title is "Taiji motion study" based on a motion-capture physics project. A diagram was just given and I gave a qualitative motion analysis by the method of moments (less the maths) - plain vanilla as that type of analysis goes. I am hardly out of bounds here. Even the earlier discussion was about how we can agree (or not) on terms of reference for the motion we are studying. Again not out of bounds of the topic.

The contention seems to be that it cannot be understood in western terms and this I deny without qualification. It has not been understood in western terms and this needs to be remedied. Which was what I thought was the point of this thread -- and why I joined it.

Mike Sigman
05-15-2008, 09:18 PM
The contention seems to be that it cannot be understood in western terms Cite?

Mark Jakabcsin
05-15-2008, 09:49 PM
Jun,
Perhaps we can take a page from the way ebay operates. After each successful transaction the buyer and seller get to rate and post about their experience with the other party. If enough negative information comes to light about an ebayer he/she is removed from the market place. Is there a way to incorporate this idea into a forum? Currently the forums I am familiar with rely on a moderator which places a great deal of responsibility on them to read every post, stay impartial and take action when needed. What a dreadful job! Having a self regulated board (more likely partially self regulated) might help remove some of the continuous chaff some insist on dispersing. When enough chaff is allowed to fill the skies no one can see the target and they go else where.....like what occurred on Aikido Journal.

Just a thought.

Mark J.

PS. The party is not over when the beer is gone. The party is over when the mead is gone. :)

Dan Austin
05-15-2008, 09:56 PM
The contention seems to be that it cannot be understood in western terms and this I deny without qualification.


Physics is always valid, but to really understand something you have to be able to teach it, and I don't think you can teach anyone to use the internal mechanics discussed by Dan, Mike, and Rob precisely because you don't know how to do them. You can analyze the physics of the Fosbury Flop from a video, but that doesn't make you a track and field coach or allow you to give one iota of useful advice on how to do it properly. The gentlemen whose discussions you inject yourself into claim that the mechanics are far harder to understand in the kinesthetic sense than a track event, and enough people have met them and confirmed the difficulty of learning it firsthand with repeated instruction. Your physics rants are useless and silly.

It has not been understood in western terms and this needs to be remedied.

As I've said before, once you actually LEARN this skill, then combining it with a purely Western explanation would be wonderful. Pigs will fly first - with sufficient angular momentum of course.

Ron Tisdale
05-16-2008, 08:44 AM
The contention seems to be that it cannot be understood in western terms and this I deny without qualification

That is NOT the contention, and it never has been. One more thing your own posts show you don't understand.

Post away though, it is an open board, and I like it that way.

Best,
Ron

Erick Mead
05-16-2008, 10:47 AM
Physics is always valid, but to really understand something you have to be able to teach it, and I don't think you can teach anyone to use the internal mechanics discussed by Dan, Mike, and Rob precisely because you don't know how to do them. Believe what you like about whoever you like. Einstein was a HORRIBLE teacher and basically got fired after a year on the job teaching high school, and was unemployed for two years, which got him stuck in a do-nothing job in the patent office, because his dad had connections. Good thing he didn't teach that well. On the other hand I do teach (well or poorly, as the case may be), so I guess I'm not that bright.

The contention seems to be that it cannot be understood in western terms and this I deny without qualification
That is NOT the contention, and it never has been. On your part, perhaps so, but from other quarters, well, -- maybe I am misreading this:
I'd say that even if someone has all the math and physics in the world at their disposal, if they don't know how to do it physically then all that math and physics is a waste of time and won't help them learn diddly-squat.

Budd Yuhaszs, to his credit, laid the real point out there -- some people demand in-person bona fides, which he terms a "moral authority" stemming from a certain proficiency, and which he addresses charitably. That is a fine standard for reserving personal judgment. I don't make arguments propositions or observations depending on any "moral authority" but on empirical fact and physical concept. So, quite intentionally, I do not proffer anything that will satisfy that "hands-on" preference, since it does not exist here and my points do not depend on that. Making negating reductive judgments based on a "hands-on" premise of proof while lacking any such basis for the demanded proof whatsoever, as is done by some (not you, Ron), is simply unproductive and self-contradicting. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I made a couple of points about the moments and momentum described in the diagrams. They are physically valid resolutions of the "push" illustrated, without direct "pushback" or "resistance" in any linear sense.

The reason why the concept of moments and angular momentum is powerful is because the anticipated action of an applied moment can be defeated by a free rotation (A.M.) of the system or part of the system in connection around an arbitrary center, and vice versa.

Changing choice of center redefines both moment and angular momentum in a system with more than one degree of freedom. A statically rigid pencil gets dynamically wobbly when its center of rotation is moving all over the place.

Recognizing the basic cyclicity of the phenomena (which I pointed out in Sigman's off-the-cuff diagrams) means that rhythm and structure and energy all closely relate and have well-defined interactions. It brings resonance into the discussion with its low energy devastation. It brings phase-shifting into play -- which makes the interval concept of ma-ai come vividly to life. It lets action shift from one plane to another seamlessly and unexpectedly. In 90 degree phase differences (juji) it also eliminates the need for concerns of sente in kuzushi, because whether ahead or behind, once 90 degree phases connect, the timing and location of the combined peak energy shifts immediately from the point that was anticipated by the atacker. It gives a way to see how (suggestively, but more speculatively) involuntary stretch reflexes (illustrated by the medical reflex test called the Jendrassik maneuver) that connect between the arms/shoulder arc and the legs/pelvic girdle may be triggered or manipulated with a input pulse.

In short, when considering martial motion and its study, it doesn't hurt to learn THIS stuff either.

DH
05-16-2008, 12:07 PM
I don't make arguments propositions or observations depending on any "moral authority" but on empirical fact and physical concept. So, quite intentionally, I do not proffer anything that will satisfy that "hands-on" preference, since it does not exist here and my points do not depend on that. Making negating reductive judgments based on a "hands-on" premise of proof while lacking any such basis for the demanded proof whatsoever, as is done by some (not you, Ron), is simply unproductive and self-contradicting.....

Hi Eric
At it again huh?

To sum up your response
You just stated-again- no one should go to you to learn it hands on because you can't do it. Then tried to convince us that doing it isn't anecessary componant to understanding it.
You're a living model of a "dead end."
1.You cannot do what we do. I have asked you many times .
2. Then you go on to state what we do in physical models.

Reading comments about self-contradicting coming from you-in light of this is hilarious.

And what possible sense does this make?
In short, when considering martial motion and its study, it doesn't hurt to learn THIS stuff either.
For what reason? Why would anyone care what you think?
You can't do it, you can't teach it, yet you pontificate daily on what and how to do it.
That pretty much sums you up doesn't it?
All due respect. I think you're a waste of time. You lack credibility on both fronts. In the end what matters- what only matters- is if someone can actually do it, then if they can actually teach it.

I think the bleachers are the place for you Bud, with all the other non-participants. I mean...again nothing personal, I'm sure we would get along just fine in person, but wouldn't someone have to be sort of a damn fool to care what you think about something you can't do.

When we meet, you will fail. You will be unable to do anything to or with me. All of your applied models which you thinkg are immutable and irrefutable mechancis that simply work wil fail you as well. You will stand there, a failure, in what you know. A living model of a 'dead end."
If you're smart, on that day, you'll start asking questions and learning.

Fred Little
05-16-2008, 02:24 PM
Established in 1919, the Caltech Beavers (so named after "nature's engineer") cull players from one of the most rigorously selective, academically demanding universities in the world. These boys are quite literally rocket scientists or, more accurately, double majors in rocket science and applied math.

David Duchovny, who narrates this wry, good-natured picture with affable bemusement, informs us that Caltech lays claim to both the highest ratio of Nobel Prize winners to faculty and a men's basketball team that at the time of filming was distinguished by a record 243 consecutive conference losses dating to 1985. Mr. Greenwald follows the Beavers' try at breaking that losing streak during the final week of the 2006 season, while chronicling the handful of ups and many, many downs in the history of a team remembered less for its athletic prowess (or even competence) than for once including the father of modern computational fluid dynamics.

The name of the movie?
Quantum Hoops (http://www.quantumhoops.com/)

Coming soon to a theater near you!

Erick Mead
05-16-2008, 02:37 PM
Hi Eric
At it again huh?In good company in reiterating some things, it seems.

In short, when considering martial motion and its study, it doesn't hurt to learn THIS stuff either. For what reason? Why would anyone care what you think? Care? It's not about what I think or about what I am doing -- it's about whether you care about thinking critically and with an open mind about what YOU are doing. Only you can answer that question (and you may have just done so). Read Sagawa again. You quote him. How old was he when he wrote Clear Power? And still obsessing incessantly about training and thinking about the functional concepts underlying what he was training?

Never think that what you are doing is good. Also never become arrogant. The second you start thinking this way is the moment you stop to progress.
As long as you think you are good, you will stop to change. You must continually realize your own weak points and then try to rectify them as hard as you can.
I never stop to dally on any point. I continue to innovate. I continue to change. Technique is my life.
My skill since I was released from the Tokyo University Hospital at the age of 87, has increased so much as to be incomparable to what I have reached now at the age of 92. I'll let you or anyone else be your own judges of what it takes to conform to THAT standard. I've got, oh, 40+ years left to go if Sagawa sets the mark. For me, I've resolved I'm just going to keep trying to do the work, physical, mental and spiritual. There ain't no prizes in this.
To sum up your response... ... you would have had to relate something that I actually said.
When we meet, you will fail. You will be unable to do anything to or with me. I am glad you have such great confidence in light of Sagawa Sensei's admonition. Me personally, I doubt the outcome until first contact -- and then it doesn't matter, and I don't think anything more about it. I do know that I have no interest at all in doing anything TO you -- and if I did -- it would not be Aikido. Ueshiba's thought on that particular point is fairly clear. What I do with you, on the other hand, is entirely up to you ...

DH
05-16-2008, 02:42 PM
Hi Eric
I have to go out tonight, so I can't respond. I wanted to be clear that we disagree on a topic, but I bear you no ill will. Lets look at it like a puzzle to resolve from two different views. I think you are completely wrong. And I say it strongly, but i'll be the first to buy the beer hang out and tell war stories after with absolutely no grudges. I hope we can make it happen later in the year.
As far as you not doing anything to me but rather receving what I can and will do to you? Well that' my stock-in-trade bud. What you think you will be able to do to my force on you and how to stop it is interesting to me. Someone trying to stop me and use what they perceive as incoming force is the real fun. I adore anti-aiki and men that think they understand what aiki truly is and trying to pull it off and make it work in any real sense against someone who HAS aiki in their body. It' a whole different world for most I've met. From your writing all is made known. You don't even know what I'm talking about. But I'll demonstrate it.

For follks peeking in, We are not talking about fighting we're talking about a test of forces. So don't get all hot and bothered about a challenge. This isn't about that.
Eric
I am going to trust in that scientific mindset of yours that I like- to see this as friendly research. I think you desparately need a wake up call. And I think you'll love this and embrace it.

Don_Modesto
05-16-2008, 03:13 PM
My son learned to read at about age 3. We taught him simply by reading to him everyday over and over again. He figured it out on his own simply through the direct experience of reading. We never had to tell him anything directly, or to break it down into small parts, or anything, he did it simply through the experience of reading.How does he handle new words?

Does he understand systematic meanings like prefixes?

Just curious. Last I heard, Whole Language approaches--reading to your kid, e.g.--vault kids ahead in reading until about, IIRC, 5th grade at which point the Phonics-taught kids surpass them.

As we're off topic, glad to take this to PM's.

Thanks.

Budd
05-16-2008, 03:47 PM
Erick - since you brought up my name, I'll chime in very quickly to say that I've gotten FAR more value from participating in this forum as a means to make connections to meet in person - as opposed to armchair discussions.

I think the notion of just trading ideas is fine, but ultimately very limited with regards to a skill that is made manifest physically through touch.

Erick Mead
05-16-2008, 05:11 PM
Erick - since you brought up my name, I'll chime in very quickly to say that I've gotten FAR more value from participating in this forum as a means to make connections to meet in person - as opposed to armchair discussions.

I think the notion of just trading ideas is fine, but ultimately very limited with regards to a skill that is made manifest physically through touch.As to your point, I would never say that it isn't. Every approach has it limits, but until I have bumped up against one and tested myself against any arguable limits and not made further progress, I will not impose an arbitrary limit myself.

The language analogy I mentioned applies, and the limits of imagery of sight and sound that are possible with black squiggles on a white backgrounds are larger than anyone has yet imagined. There is no rational reason why tangible sensations and motions are any different -- if we find the right vocabulary and set of concepts. Some don't want to bother with it -- and that is just fine, too.

This forum is by definition limited to discussion of concepts and methods, as well as making personal connections. It puzzles me, though, that discussion of methods and concepts is shut down or shouted down over a lack of physical contact the forum cannot possibly provide. It gets to be a little like watching a farmer beating the cat for not giving milk -- it's a cat -- not a cow. Since the "hands-on" aspect necessarily happens elsewhere and does not happen in this (non)place, I, quite emphatically, don't dwell on it, and choose to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.

I only mentioned you because your responses were bracketing one that I quoted. The distinction was remarkable, so I remarked on it.

Erick Mead
05-16-2008, 05:24 PM
I have to go out tonight, so I can't respond. I wanted to be clear that we disagree on a topic, but I bear you no ill will. Lets look at it like a puzzle to resolve from two different views. I think you are completely wrong. And I say it strongly, ... I am going to trust in that scientific mindset of yours that I like- to see this as friendly research. I think you desparately need a wake up call. And I think you'll love this and embrace it.Strong statements are no problem, and you don't know the half of what I often see. No offense taken. The rhetorical approach you take is not what I would choose -- but I've dealt with worse, and better, and in between (and totally off the wall). And, apart from all that -- that's why they make more than one brand of beer.
:)

Dan Austin
05-16-2008, 09:30 PM
Making negating reductive judgments based on a "hands-on" premise of proof while lacking any such basis for the demanded proof whatsoever, as is done by some (not you, Ron), is simply unproductive and self-contradicting. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Is this yet another intimation that you think you actually know how to do any of this? Yawn. Evidence of absence will be shown when you meet Dan I'm sure, which is why I'm also sure you will avoid that happening.

stan baker
05-17-2008, 07:37 AM
Is this yet another intimation that you think you actually know how to do any of this? Yawn. Evidence of absence will be shown when you meet Dan I'm sure, which is why I'm also sure you will avoid that happening.

Erick you should read this

Thomas Campbell
05-17-2008, 08:48 PM
At the risk of intruding on this lovefest . . . after watching, the actual movements Chen Xiang demonstrated were far more akin to and in tune with his foundational bajiquan training than his Chen taiji training with Feng Zhiqiang. The study was really more about the movement of baji than taiji.

cheers,

Tom

p.s. I know nothing of angular momentum.

Michael Douglas
05-18-2008, 02:21 PM
Sorry to get on-topic so abrupltly, but is it just me or are there any other people who object to how the narrator in this video http://move.stanford.edu/08/podcasts/08_Taiji_Package_07_subtitles.wmv
is trying to murder Newton's second law to imply that because master thingy is jerking his hand back in the air quickly, therefore in her mind he is making 'contact' with the 'target' for a very short time ... that means he is optimising his force ... ? There's a diagram of an equation too. She is saying the shorter the time of contact (imaginary contact with an invisible target too!) the greater the force of his 'blow'.

Newton's second law does not say nor imply that at all.
What is does say is that a force applied to a mass for a short time will accelerate it less than the same force applied to the mass for a longer time ... of course.

Let's see him hit something, then ... something would be worth discussing. (As long as a few other athletes hit something too)

From what I've seen in this video it is bad quack-science at best ... at worst it is intentionally misleading.

Mike Sigman
05-18-2008, 02:56 PM
Sorry to get on-topic so abrupltly, but is it just me or are there any other people who object to how the narrator in this video http://move.stanford.edu/08/podcasts/08_Taiji_Package_07_subtitles.wmv
is trying to murder Newton's second law to imply that because master thingy is jerking his hand back in the air quickly, therefore in her mind he is making 'contact' with the 'target' for a very short time ... that means he is optimising his force ... ? There's a diagram of an equation too. She is saying the shorter the time of contact (imaginary contact with an invisible target too!) the greater the force of his 'blow'.

Newton's second law does not say nor imply that at all.
What is does say is that a force applied to a mass for a short time will accelerate it less than the same force applied to the mass for a longer time ... of course. Hi Michael: Newton's second law is often represented by the equation: Force = Mass x Acceleration or F = m * a

But m * a can also be written as : m * delta-velocity/time since acceleration is the change (delta) of velocity. So we're still saying the same thing is we say F = m * dV/t

If both sides of the above equation are multiplied by the quantity t, a new equation results: F * t = m * dV

The concept of "Impulse" is normally written as F * t , so we can say that "Impulse" equals the "change in momentum". It's all still about the conservation of momentum, anyway you look at it.

The change in time application is fairly easy to derive but I'm running out of options with my keyboard. Go back to the original form of F = ma and understand that acceleration is rate of change of velocity. If a car goes from 0 to 60 (or from 60 to 0 in a crash) in the shortest amount of time, it's acceleration is greatest. So the "shortest amount of time" can indeed signal the greatest force in a punch, as long as the mass of the body (and/or the earth, if you know how to use it) is part of the punch.
Let's see him hit something, then ... something would be worth discussing. (As long as a few other athletes hit something too)

From what I've seen in this video it is bad quack-science at best ... at worst it is intentionally misleading."Quack-science". Hmmmmmm. :rolleyes:

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Demetrio Cereijo
05-18-2008, 04:53 PM
Let's see him hit something, then ... something would be worth discussing.

Newton's Third Law: Boards hit back.

HL1978
05-20-2008, 10:19 PM
Newton's Third Law: Boards hit back.

Its funny you say that since most people, at least in the striking world, don't pay a whole lot of attention to that. In particular how that effects their own body.

Analyzing how that impact effects your own body is a very interesting exercise which pays dividends in increasing ones own power (as in where that bounce back is felt, the shoulder? the lower back? etc).

Mike Sigman
05-20-2008, 10:39 PM
Its funny you say that since most people, at least in the striking world, don't pay a whole lot of attention to that. In particular how that effects their own body.

Analyzing how that impact effects your own body is a very interesting exercise which pays dividends in increasing ones own power (as in where that bounce back is felt, the shoulder? the lower back? etc).Great engineering point, Hunter.

The ground?

Best.

Mike

eyrie
05-21-2008, 04:41 AM
Uh huh... that what makiwara for.... ;)

aikilouis
06-15-2008, 06:45 AM
Back to the topic.

Here is another article on the same experiments :
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/may7/med-taichi-050708.html

DH
06-17-2008, 08:06 AM
Hunter
You can see the same effect in any number of movies with stuntmen and actors. They'll shove someone-even someone smaller than themselves. When they shove; a fraction of the force goes into the person, a fraction goes back into the shover as he is launched back a bit himself, and the rest is dissipated.
We shove, and don't move back at all and the greater majority of force goes into the target with a far smaller portion dissipated.

I'd argue that less energy is dissipated martially with correct training and skills for reasons not readily seen. To use an example, I have had any manner of MAers try to connect with my center and I can feel how far off they are in direction. And how much slack they show in their own bodies. Therefore a percentage of force is wasted in a non-usable force misdirection, and another percentage in their own bodies absorbing slack. All of the culminates in their own broken structure and / or muscle chaining. They have lost so much before they even begin.

In a basic model, with proper alignment it is straight power path out, it instantly connects and controls with the center of their mass, and their is no slack exhibited in the body. The opponent either feels and instantly overwhelmed and very soft and controlling power, or a very fast and penetrating hit.

In a grappling sense its nice to have someone grab you and you know where there feet and balance is with your eyes closed. Over time the instant feel, makes instant reaction, makes it change-ups and flow on a better level than muscle ever would.
.

HL1978
06-20-2008, 11:22 PM
Hunter
You can see the same effect in any number of movies with stuntmen and actors. They'll shove someone-even someone smaller than themselves. When they shove; a fraction of the force goes into the person, a fraction goes back into the shover as he is launched back a bit himself, and the rest is dissipated.
We shove, and don't move back at all and the greater majority of force goes into the target with a far smaller portion dissipated.

I'd argue that less energy is dissipated martially with correct training and skills for reasons not readily seen. To use an example, I have had any manner of MAers try to connect with my center and I can feel how far off they are in direction. And how much slack they show in their own bodies. Therefore a percentage of force is wasted in a non-usable force misdirection, and another percentage in their own bodies absorbing slack. All of the culminates in their own broken structure and / or muscle chaining. They have lost so much before they even begin.

In a basic model, with proper alignment it is straight power path out, it instantly connects and controls with the center of their mass, and their is no slack exhibited in the body. The opponent either feels and instantly overwhelmed and very soft and controlling power, or a very fast and penetrating hit.

In a grappling sense its nice to have someone grab you and you know where there feet and balance is with your eyes closed. Over time the instant feel, makes instant reaction, makes it change-ups and flow on a better level than muscle ever would.
.

Dan,

I am in agreement. I had the opportunity to do some test cutting recently, and once again, it illustrated the concept that no matter what movement you are doing, you are training the same concept. When it came to test cutting, the feedback was identical to striking an air shield.

DH
06-21-2008, 07:31 AM
Dan,
I am in agreement. I had the opportunity to do some test cutting recently, and once again, it illustrated the concept that no matter what movement you are doing, you are training the same concept. When it came to test cutting, the feedback was identical to striking an air shield.
It is all the same, but only for those who train it to be so. As for test cutting-I cut through 3" trees, with Katana and naginata blades I forge myself. Men rightly criticize that you don't need that much power in a battle usage. While true, I do not do so by flexing or using any sort of overt directed energy. Further, there isn't a stop and reset mechanic in the body when done correctly. I have been also criticized that I was using too much power in Kata. What I kept saying is that while people (or trees) may feel a tremendous surge of power-I'm not using much on my part. In fact properly trained, we should be using far less energy to accomplish more, and control more, than a normally trained person doing the same thing-all while delivering more power.
I do not beleive that many men have the real ability to ge their center out to the tip of a naginata or bokken. They may be excellent at their kata, but they don't have the type of body usage, power or control I'm pursuing.

Neutral power
I had a guy once try to show me I was using dedicated power with my sword-too much so- and when he pulled his out of the way I just stood there neutral. He was expecting the katana to keep moving forward past the cut. He couldn't wrap his mind around the idea of power being a form of emanation that goes to neutral and is non-dedicated. But this is exactly where we should be all the time. The power is neutral and undetected until someone comes in contact and feels ground ascending, or descending. When they withdraw it is of course neutral again. In their limited view you are flexing or using power to come into them, because it is all their current understanding can account for. Of course it’s just nonsense to them-they don’t have a clue.

Hips and waist
Test cutting is an excellent means to demonstrate many things. If you can get a copy of "Budo the art of killing" you can see some veerry popular legends of Japanese Martial arts cutting with a katana and doing it all wrong. Embarrassingly so. Watch the video in stop action and look at the hip movement. They cut to the left-the hips go to the left, cut to the right the hips go to the right. Most men see it and think "No problem." Toward the end of the video you will two swordsmen running in a field cutting hanging rolled mats. Every time they cut they have to stop, re-engage their hips in a forward alignment just so they can move forward. That would be hilariously stupid in a battlefield. The whole "cut with the hips" idea has been morphed and quoted so often, by so many, who don't really have any serious consideration of body skills, or even a reflective mindset of what would have occurred on a battlefield that is has become standard Swordsmanship lore.
If you explore on the net you will find all manner of "big shot" Iai test cutters-some very well known-all more or less doing the same thing to varying degrees. As I said it, has become the norm. Just try and change their minds or critique their movement. Oy!!
Waist
When cutting the hips should be forward and the arms are "drawn" down; either hands-first in more of the city styles, or elbows-first in the more of the country styles. The hips stay aligned for natural forward movement and change of vector with the sword for multiple opponents. The waist makes the change. I have some great video of a master swordsman doing a freestyle (non Kata) cutting demonstration with a katana with all manner of cuts and his hips stay in line with the waist turning throughout all his movements. This is a much older man, blindingly fast and economical in movement. The Koryu of Japan have some truly extraordinary skill sets in them still. You just have to get to the right people.

Ron Tisdale
06-23-2008, 08:31 AM
Dan, I think I just learned more from this post than...well, you know...

Best,
Ron

Jim Sorrentino
06-23-2008, 02:47 PM
Dan,

I have some great video of a master swordsman doing a freestyle (non Kata) cutting demonstration with a katana with all manner of cuts and his hips stay in line with the waist turning throughout all his movements. This is a much older man, blindingly fast and economical in movement.

Would you please post this video? Thanks in advance.

Jim

Thomas Campbell
06-23-2008, 08:34 PM
This fellow isn't so bad . . .

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DE1ztcStQl4

DH
06-23-2008, 08:42 PM
Hi Jim
Personal training video...no can do.

Tom
You crack me up sometimes.;)

Jim Sorrentino
06-24-2008, 06:50 AM
Hi Dan,

Personal training video...no can do.

That's reasonable. Then how about, as an alternative, you post either an "unrestricted" video of someone showing proper cutting, or one of you showing it? Again, thanks in advance.

Jim