PDA

View Full Version : Progression of Hip/Lower torso movement


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


HL1978
09-15-2011, 10:15 AM
I posted this in the Mifune thread, but figured this might deserve its own thread.

As others have said, if you have some experience you can see whether or not IS is being used. Lets look at the following 3 examples for a simple motion of turning the body from left to right.

1) The average guy on the street:
The average person on the street turns left to right by using their upper waist/torso, which pivots the upper body down to the knees. This is sort of top heavy if you use this motion to turn and propagate the motion on out to the arms.

Most people should be able to see this on a video.

2) The hips/koshi/inner thigh (Half IS?):

This guy turns left to right, by opening up the left hip and closing the right hip/inner thigh area. This is much more stable and strong for putting energy out into your arms. Some might call this IS, others might call it good martial movement.

Most people probably are not familiar with this movement, but could see it fairly easily if taught to see it in the matter of a few minutes.

3) Moving/iniateing with the middle (full IS?):

This person does number 2 (No Jokes Phi), but instead of initiating the movement solely with the hips and inner thigh, the iniate with the tanden and push/pull it towards the right which causes the motion to begin on out to the thighs.

this is a lot more difficult to see, particularily if the person has loose clothes on. I'm not sure if I would be able to see the difference between this and number 2, perhaps it is the scale by which the opponent is moved. Probably a lot more experienced person would recognize it (I'm no teacher) by watching.

Now how to use the middle for number three is probably a little bit more advanced. I'm willing to discuss how I am approaching it at the moment if anyone is interested.

Do people consider #2 to be IS or just good martial movement?

chillzATL
09-15-2011, 10:35 AM
I posted this in the Mifune thread, but figured this might deserve its own thread.

Now how to use the middle for number three is probably a little bit more advanced. I'm willing to discuss how I am approaching it at the moment if anyone is interested.

Do people consider #2 to be IS or just good martial movement?

First, #2. I wouldn't consider it IS. I've seen karate kata's with lots of similar movements and no hint of IS skills. I'd probably consider it signs of what was there (and could be again) more than anything.

#3. The way I learned it and how I practice it is to inflate the dantien/tanden area (inhale) and the push that ball of pressure from the ground to initiate movement. It is a much different feel than moving from the hips and it's something that allows you to move in situations where "move your hips" simply isn't possible. I assume as my breath skills increase the need for so much of an inhale will diminish. Currently if I spend some time just breathing before doing anything the need to do so decreases, but there's still some focus needed on that area.

chillzATL
09-16-2011, 07:05 AM
Now how to use the middle for number three is probably a little bit more advanced. I'm willing to discuss how I am approaching it at the moment if anyone is interested.



I am interested.

thisisnotreal
09-16-2011, 07:25 AM
Me too. And of hearing about any specific body changes or methods you used to make it happen..

Tim Ruijs
09-16-2011, 07:33 AM
Just so I can try and understand what you mean, please do elaborate.

When I make the comparision for mae ukemi (tachi) between a beginner and more experienced person, the big difference is in having some sort of tension in the body. The beginner often does not have this and 'craches' into the tatami. I would almost go as far to say does not have proper posture yet. Would this be the same/comparable difference between your proposed sit.2 and sit.3?

chillzATL
09-16-2011, 07:52 AM
Just so I can try and understand what you mean, please do elaborate.

When I make the comparision for mae ukemi (tachi) between a beginner and more experienced person, the big difference is in having some sort of tension in the body. The beginner often does not have this and 'craches' into the tatami. I would almost go as far to say does not have proper posture yet. Would this be the same/comparable difference between your proposed sit.2 and sit.3?

IMO, no.

looking back at example 1, think of it as someone turning their body by simply rotating the upper half, with no coordination/connection to the lower half, which would put them in all sorts of unbalanced positions. You see this in new aikido people ALL the time, constantly tripping over themselves as they turn.

#2 adds in some coordation between the two and probably some sort of physical connection in the body. You're aware of what doing #1 does to your balance so it's more coordinated and connected to the lower half in order to maintain strength and balance.

#3. your focus is on moving the middle/dantien/tanden. The movements in the arms/legs are a result of the connection of those parts TO the middle, not from the arms/legs moving the middle.

To some degree, I think there is some crossover in what you're saying. New people doing ukemi, while being told to relax, are usually limp noodles, where more experienced people are (hopefully), full and relaxed, but never noodly.

make sense?

Tim Ruijs
09-16-2011, 08:07 AM
Noodly :D :D :D must remember that one!

But yeah, I get what you mean.
I made the comparision because you can see the difference in how someone uses their body when taking ukemi especially with forward roll (at speed). More experienced students project their arms only after their center has started moving, while beginners often do the opposite.
In technique I think it is a timing issue. Many want to be fast, so start moving arms, legs first also giving away their intentions. Whereas first move your body and at the latest moment lift/project arms is more relaxed, maintains proper posture and is faster. But I get the feeling this too is not exactly what you are talking about?

phitruong
09-16-2011, 09:37 AM
I

Do people consider #2 to be IS or just good martial movement?

you are killing me, Hunter! you kept dropping stuffs like that and tell me not to make jokes. you might as well take out your sword and run me through and put me out of my misery. sheesh! :)

phitruong
09-16-2011, 09:45 AM
if you grab the person by one of their shoulder and ask them to turn,

#1 - would have some difficulty to turn
#2 - you can feel they power up with their legs and lower region
#3 - you won't feel them. one moment nothing then the next moment movement happen.

i am still mostly doing #2 and it's hard going and might need some more internal work around my hara area and fibre :D (sorry Hunter, can't help meself!)

HL1978
09-16-2011, 12:52 PM
you are killing me, Hunter! you kept dropping stuffs like that and tell me not to make jokes. you might as well take out your sword and run me through and put me out of my misery. sheesh! :)

I can't make it too easy for you, then you might get lazy!

HL1978
09-16-2011, 01:12 PM
Here are the things I have tried over the years with respect to number 3:

All of these would have me pressurize first with an inhale.

1) pushing down with the upper abs

2) from doing a bunch of reverse breathing I figured out how to "pull" with the kidney area, pulling away from the abs in the front which were pressurized. After a while I learned how to activate either kidney area. I then tried pushing down with the upper abs and pull up with the kidney area.

3) Got some feeling/awareness in the lower abs below the belly, tried using those in number 2.

4) Elongation only of the hip/inner thigh area.

5) try variants of 1-3, but without exhaling

6) variants of 1-3 with an exhale, or using an inhale to press against. While I might feel pressure in the hips/inner thighs, this didn't seem to really work for moving more pressure into the legs.

7) which is where I am at now. I do sort of combination of 2/4/6, but pull with the perineumn as I am pushing with the lower abs and pulling with the kidney area. If I try and move via a reverse breath its all in reverse: The perineum pushes up, abs push up, kidney area pulls down. For me right now the exhale version seems to work the best, but all the muscles in my middle are SUPER SUPER SUPER weak. I'm aware of them, and my partners can feel when I engage them, but they aren't nearly conditoined enough yet to really use them. I can seem to use it to push into one leg or another if I choose.

For both the #2/#3 of my original post, I can do either if I think about it, but my body isn't repatterned enough yet. While I have played with #3 for the past 3 years, I really only learned about how to do the open/close with the hips last summer at a Forrest Chang seminar.

It is really only the 7th variation with which I have had any success in really initiating movement from the middle. I figure at this point with more conditoining the middle will get stronger, but that I need to really work on initiating with the middle as well.

Given that Ark talks about there being 6 dantiens, I probably should have experimented with different combinations much earlier, but since I lacked the awareness of each one, it likely wouldhave been difficult to do so.

Michael Varin
09-17-2011, 04:12 AM
Sounds like too much "doing."

tombuchanan
09-17-2011, 04:36 AM
I think, at some point or another, I've tried most of the variations outlined above..

In addition, I've found a way to further complicate my own approach by varying the structure or system that I emphasize from one practice session to another.

In other words, day 1 might emphasize breathing and abdominal pressure. This is usually more 'work' and often ends up focusing on the core muscle groups. Day 2 might be devoted entirely to skeletal alignment. Day 3 could focus on fascial stretching and the elimination of internal friction or plugging the 'leaks.'

I've had the most success when I stumble on one of those methods that allows me to optimize the interactions between the various components. Not so much, 'oh, that's how this works' but instead, 'oh, that's how this works with that.'

chillzATL
09-17-2011, 09:36 AM
Here are the things I have tried over the years with respect to number 3:

All of these would have me pressurize first with an inhale.

1) pushing down with the upper abs

2) from doing a bunch of reverse breathing I figured out how to "pull" with the kidney area, pulling away from the abs in the front which were pressurized. After a while I learned how to activate either kidney area. I then tried pushing down with the upper abs and pull up with the kidney area.

3) Got some feeling/awareness in the lower abs below the belly, tried using those in number 2.

4) Elongation only of the hip/inner thigh area.

5) try variants of 1-3, but without exhaling

6) variants of 1-3 with an exhale, or using an inhale to press against. While I might feel pressure in the hips/inner thighs, this didn't seem to really work for moving more pressure into the legs.

7) which is where I am at now. I do sort of combination of 2/4/6, but pull with the perineumn as I am pushing with the lower abs and pulling with the kidney area. If I try and move via a reverse breath its all in reverse: The perineum pushes up, abs push up, kidney area pulls down. For me right now the exhale version seems to work the best, but all the muscles in my middle are SUPER SUPER SUPER weak. I'm aware of them, and my partners can feel when I engage them, but they aren't nearly conditoined enough yet to really use them. I can seem to use it to push into one leg or another if I choose.

For both the #2/#3 of my original post, I can do either if I think about it, but my body isn't repatterned enough yet. While I have played with #3 for the past 3 years, I really only learned about how to do the open/close with the hips last summer at a Forrest Chang seminar.

It is really only the 7th variation with which I have had any success in really initiating movement from the middle. I figure at this point with more conditoining the middle will get stronger, but that I need to really work on initiating with the middle as well.

Given that Ark talks about there being 6 dantiens, I probably should have experimented with different combinations much earlier, but since I lacked the awareness of each one, it likely wouldhave been difficult to do so.

Nice post Hunter. I would say that my progression was probably very similar, though I feel I may have had some boost in uptake on this from so many years of doing abdominal breathing and unconscious forms of reverse breathing. I don't know really, but I was able to feel that pressure down low pretty easily, though getting it exactly where I think it should be continues to be a work in progress, as expected.

One thing that I found that helped was doing the breathing exercises while seated, even if just sitting in my chair at the office. It seems to have the effect if clamping off the lower half of the body , so the sensations were easier to pick up on and didn't require so much forced tension to feel. Then it was just a matter of replicating that feeling while standing and then getting it pushed down lower and more relaxed. Maybe give them a try seated, if you're not already, and see what it does for you.

Currently the pressure is pretty low. If you put your hand on my lower back area, around the top of my butt, you can feel the expansion there. So I think I'm on the right track, for now at least.

HL1978
09-17-2011, 04:15 PM
Sounds like too much "doing."

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

From my experience there is a fair amount of experimentation involved, since you are chasing after various sensations and the resultant feedback. Its sort of like figuring out how to wiggle your ears. At least for me, I couldn't wiggle my ears until I learned how to activate those muscles. Given that IS work is supposed to take years of progress a lot of time spent "doing" is involved. Or at least thats what people seem to say ;)

This sort of thing requires you to learn how to use muscles that we don't inherently use as a prime initiatior of movement as well as a means by which to connect the limbs to the middle. That is to say you are conditoning yourself mentally to repattern movement, conditoining various muscles as well as support tissues. While I do agree that a "relaxed" mind is helpful, you have to spend a good amount of time thinking and analyzing. Mindless repetition only goes so far in terms of improvement.

Maybe one of the more experienced people can chime in on how much thought they see involved in learning these skills. I wouldn't mind some pointers too as I'm no IS guru.

chillzATL
09-18-2011, 10:32 AM
This sort of thing requires you to learn how to use muscles that we don't inherently use as a prime initiatior of movement as well as a means by which to connect the limbs to the middle. That is to say you are conditoning yourself mentally to repattern movement, conditoining various muscles as well as support tissues.

If only "don't use muscle" had been explained this way from the get go this whole thing might have met with less resistance.

Maybe one of the more experienced people can chime in on how much thought they see involved in learning these skills. I wouldn't mind some pointers too as I'm no IS guru.

can't speak on the "more experienced" part, but I honestly can't imagine my progression being any different than it would be for anyone seeking these skills so I'll share it.

Initially I was just repeating exercises that I had been shown by someone with demonstrable skill and trusting that I was doing what they had did and if I kept it up it would eventually start to make sense. Fortunately, it eventually did and some of the sensations started to click in me and I was able to take the things I was shown, the words used to explain them and apply them to myself. There were lots of "hmm, that's interesting" and more practice and then lots of "hmm ok, I think this is what he meant" and then more practice to confirm these things. Fortunately I have people near me who are clearly better than me and we meet up regularly enough to give me a source to validate my thoughts.

There is a base level of conditioning that, IMO, has to be reached at the beginning stages before you're really able to even wrap your brain around the stuff. Muddling along, doing 15 minutes here or there every week or something like that will not cut it. That base level requires a few weeks of consistent practice and thought. Again, this is just base conditioning where you're working with very low amounts of force and pressure so that the stuff that surrounds joints like the shoulder or lower back can get some direct conditioning without the more traditionally used, dominant muscle groups kicking in to do the job. Once you get that, then you can actually start to relax enough to really feel some of what's going on with those forces within your body and things should start to click.

Anyway, sorry about the ramble. You asked about the amount of thought involved and I think to really progress it requires an equal investment in both doing and thinking. Repeating exercises will only get you so far. As Ueshiba said and I'm sure the various classics on these subjects support, there is a point where everything becomes practice. There was a point in time where I would read Mike and Dan talking about that sort of thing and I would just scratch my head, maybe one day that will make sense, but I honestly feel that I've reached a point where I can make most any physical activity into good practice. Whether it's more martial arts based stuff like suburi or just simple yard work and gardening. In a lot of ways, the hard physical yard work is better, IMO, because of the feedback it offers in the form of fatigue and sore muscles.

I wish more people would attempt to talk about this stuff. It's through discussing it that we improve our own ways of thinking about the things which in turn helps us be able to talk about it more clearly. This is a subject that really needs it. Considering the number of people out there supposedly working on this stuff now, you'd think there would be more interest in actually discussing it on a "this is what I feel" level. I know there are various factions these days and everyone thinks what they're doing is some big secret that can't be discussed, but the majority of this stuff is the same core skills and they can be discussed at that level. I don't know if people simply don't want to say something that turns out to be wrong later or if they don't understand what they're doing beyond repeating exercises, but talking about it, being wrong and then figuring out what right is is a pretty big way, combined with practice, of making progress in most anything.

Lorel Latorilla
09-18-2011, 11:26 AM
Sounds like too much "doing."

Yeah, martial arts/atheltics is all about being like water, flowing with floating Tao balls, surfing on the cosmic waves, and all that fun stuff that we associate with being one with the universe! God forbid we actually analyze body training methods for efficient movement!

gregstec
09-18-2011, 11:52 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by this?

From my experience there is a fair amount of experimentation involved, since you are chasing after various sensations and the resultant feedback. Its sort of like figuring out how to wiggle your ears. At least for me, I couldn't wiggle my ears until I learned how to activate those muscles. Given that IS work is supposed to take years of progress a lot of time spent "doing" is involved. Or at least thats what people seem to say ;)

This sort of thing requires you to learn how to use muscles that we don't inherently use as a prime initiatior of movement as well as a means by which to connect the limbs to the middle. That is to say you are conditoning yourself mentally to repattern movement, conditoining various muscles as well as support tissues. While I do agree that a "relaxed" mind is helpful, you have to spend a good amount of time thinking and analyzing. Mindless repetition only goes so far in terms of improvement.

Maybe one of the more experienced people can chime in on how much thought they see involved in learning these skills. I wouldn't mind some pointers too as I'm no IS guru.

IMO, there is a tremendous amount of thought used to first understand and grasp the concepts as they relate to you. And then an additional tremendous amount of intent type of thought to learn how to do - then absolutely no thought when doing :)

Greg

thisisnotreal
09-18-2011, 12:54 PM
lol @ lorel. well you told this fool about the tao and I laughed so it must be so.

on the other hand..
well;
i was thinking depends exactly on what you're doing.

1. if you're 'blasting' yourself; trying to flood neural connections/neural activation
2. if you're connecting up parts
3. if you're feeding/strengthening enriching the vascularized areas
4. developing coordination between disparate regions
5. etc. etc. etc.

that was interesting Hunter. thx.

mathewjgano
09-18-2011, 03:03 PM
If only "don't use muscle" had been explained this way from the get go this whole thing might have met with less resistance.


Of course, not knowing what I don't know, I can't know with much certainty how right it is, but I agree about the resitance issue. I remember asking one time how seiza ho might relate to "internals" and being told it doesn't. Later I saw someone ("vetted") describing how it can relate to internals. It's hard to know exactly what people are talking about, particularly at a cursory glance.

I wish more people would attempt to talk about this stuff. It's through discussing it that we improve our own ways of thinking about the things which in turn helps us be able to talk about it more clearly.
Me too, and while I'm at it I should thank you all for such a great thread! I've really enjoyed it and found it to be very illuminating. I was able to meet with one guy who is very involved in the "internals" approach and I think he summed it up very well when I appologized for not having much to offer in return. He said it was very useful for him to try and explain it; that it helped him organize his own study by trying to express it to someone else.
It seems to me that if we're to have a good mind-body balance, we probably should have, on the whole, equal parts thinking and doing...probably both at the same time, being fairly ideal.
Thanks again, folks!
Matt

Eric in Denver
09-18-2011, 10:07 PM
Of course, not knowing what I don't know, I can't know with much certainty how right it is, but I agree about the resitance issue. I remember asking one time how seiza ho might relate to "internals" and being told it doesn't. Later I saw someone ("vetted") describing how it can relate to internals. It's hard to know exactly what people are talking about, particularly at a cursory glance.


I am very much a beginner with the IS stuff. However, I think what complicates the kind of conclusions you are talking about it is that from my impression, pretty much anything can be done with IS, and anything can be done without IS.

Thus, one can take all kinds of exercises such as torifune, kokyu ho, furitama, ikkyo undo, walking, standing, waving your arms, and one can use them to train aspects of IS, but they all can also be just plain aerobics or stretching. Really depends on how they are used.

The real question then becomes which exercises can get someone on the right track early on and which ones should be held off for later.

So for example, to use the jin and suit paradigm, I can do some engagement with suit, just little slight movements that can sometimes get my arms to move a little bit. On a good day, I might be able to hold them in front of me for a second or two, or maybe get them to open a little. But there is no way I could lift up a bokken at this point using suit.

Thus, in my mind, figuring out how to lift my arms using suit (or ki) can be an IS exercise for me, but lifting a bokken is not. However, in six months or a year, if I can improve before I go insane from this:freaky:, trying to lift and swing a bokken will be an IS exercise.

Oops, none of this has anything to do with hip/lower torse movement. Sorry:D

Budd
09-18-2011, 10:41 PM
So, understanding that people are following different methods, at different places, etc. here's some thoughts:

From the perspective of hip/lower torso movement, you first have to relax the upper part of your body enough that the lower part is taking the full load.

While doing this you are also training to connect your insides so that when you push your foot from one side of the body you can reflect that power out the opposite side hand (or same side hand, or head, or elbow - ie. it's all connected and related), while remaining relaxed (important).

Then you have to work like hell to condition the body to be better at these things. It's hard work, tiring work . . a hint is that you should be building godlike strength in your legs and middle.

All the while doing "intention" type of work to mentally direct how your increasingly connected body manages the primary forces acting on it (ground pushing you up, gravity pulling you down).

The body basically either opens or closes as a single unit, if you're talking about whole-body-power. Funakogi is a good example of this, as is suburi - if you know what to practice, have some development to build from and are using it is a training exercise for building on the right kinds of strength and connection.

Then there's levels of development - different things people focus on, etc. But the stuff above is the basics.

mathewjgano
09-18-2011, 11:35 PM
A quick thought I had after thinking about seiza: I remember working on sinking my hips as low as possible between my legs (while practicing waza) and having such a "completely" stable feeling, as if my hips and spine were just resting on the ground. Eventually I could in fact touch the ground. I had such a distinct feeling of being under aite. It felt like incoming forces were easier to direct around me. It was harder to get the feeling while standing though. One of the things which was interesting too, and which I was happy to read about here, was the inflation of hara with breath. It helped me feel around my lower abdomen, "expanding" my base while in seiza.
While I was practicing with someone at the seminar I could recently attend, I inadvertantly started inflating my hara the way I used to. I tend to relax my abdomen which causes it to poof out (perhaps too much?), but think "down" with the pressure, and it seemed to do the trick. Not very well, but it seemed definite according to the person I was partnered with. As was mentioned earlier, the hard part was maintaining the pressure while exhaling and not making too much noise as my guts shifted around.
Not sure how worthwhile this all is, but that's what came to mind.
Thanks again for the great thread.

I think what complicates the kind of conclusions you are talking about it is that from my impression, pretty much anything can be done with IS
That makes sense...and I doubt I asked with a good question. I probably asked in a way that suggested simply doing seiza will give you "internals" while I was intending to simply ask how it could relate. I have had a bad habit of tossing out too many sideways thoughts, sometimes muddling the actual questions; too much of a shotgun approach to getting answers, I think. That's why i really like those folks who can say so much in so few words.
...oh is this thing still on!?
G'night folks.

Budd
09-18-2011, 11:59 PM
Okay, fine, here's how you really move correctly to develop internal strength:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spAGxMJz6iI&feature=related

mathewjgano
09-19-2011, 01:15 AM
Okay, fine, here's how you really move correctly to develop internal strength:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spAGxMJz6iI&feature=related

:D Good morning! Is this a metaphor for how it's hard to understand what is being said when different language sets are being spoken over the top of each other? Je ne le comprends pas.

Also, while I'm thinking about it: how does what I wrote fit/not-fit with what folks more well-trained than myself are doing?

Eric in Denver
09-19-2011, 08:09 AM
That makes sense...and I doubt I asked with a good question. I probably asked in a way that suggested simply doing seiza will give you "internals" while I was intending to simply ask how it could relate. I have had a bad habit of tossing out too many sideways thoughts, sometimes muddling the actual questions; too much of a shotgun approach to getting answers, I think. That's why i really like those folks who can say so much in so few words.
...oh is this thing still on!?
G'night folks.

Matthew, sorry, didn't mean to make the implication that what you said above was what you implied. :eek:

gregstec
09-19-2011, 08:44 AM
Okay, fine, here's how you really move correctly to develop internal strength:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spAGxMJz6iI&feature=related

I just got to get me a pair of those aiki boots he is wearing :freaky:

Greg

Patrick Hutchinson
09-19-2011, 10:50 AM
Dan actually showed up in an identical outfit last Saturday (he looked adorable), and is suggesting we all adopt it.
The only problem is that you have to lug around a telephone booth on your back (to change in), and geeky glasses.

Eric in Denver
09-19-2011, 10:50 AM
I just got to get me a pair of those aiki boots he is wearing :freaky:

Greg

If that is the secret, then I am all in.:dead:

DH
09-19-2011, 11:15 AM
1. From the perspective of hip/lower torso movement, you first have to relax the upper part of your body enough that the lower part is taking the full load.

2. While doing this you are also training to connect your insides so that when you push your foot from one side of the body you can reflect that power out the opposite side hand (or same side hand, or head, or elbow - ie. it's all connected and related), while remaining relaxed (important).

3. Then you have to work like hell to condition the body to be better at these things. It's hard work, tiring work . . a hint is that you should be building godlike strength in your legs and middle.

4. All the while doing "intention" type of work to mentally direct how your increasingly connected body manages the primary forces acting on it (ground pushing you up, gravity pulling you down).

5. The body basically either opens or closes as a single unit, if you're talking about whole-body-power. Funakogi is a good example of this, as is suburi - if you know what to practice, have some development to build from and are using it is a training exercise for building on the right kinds of strength and connection.

Then there's levels of development - different things people focus on, etc. But the stuff above is the basics.
Hi Budd
I basically agree with you on this. A couple of points:
#2. If you think that there is no difference between those two modes of movement that; it's all connected.... well then, I think I could show you the difference in about ten seconds, and you'd end up agreeing with me!
#5. True that the body basically opens and closes but it is more complex than that.
a. It is not all open or all close ...all the time.
b. There are relations of parts-one to another that can make cutting with power by closing...or opening. Stabbing with a spear by closing or opening. There are reasons it can and should be different.
c. And you left out the very common moving from the hips in three axis as opposed to center line moving from the waist.

Power is all the same
I am well aware of some teachers talking points that narrow the overall discussion down to their own personal views/ limitations/ understanding. These other methods produce power, but they are not all the same. These things are provable across platforms- most importantly with weapons. Anyone who thinks they are all the same is just simply ignorant of all the aspects to the issue. There is a reason more and more Koryu people shy away from certain methods and stay with ones that are consistent within their modalities.

Your #2. I am not surprised to continue to read that people assume they are the same. I will mention- that to my knowledge and review- no one else but me has ever even mentioned that particular mode of movement of utilizing opposite sides and upper lower as opposed to same side movement on the modern forums, much less explained the reasons it works or fails. Interestingly, that is also a debating point between some ICMA systems and JMA systems modes of movement.
All the best
Dan

HL1978
09-19-2011, 12:04 PM
#5. True that the body basically opens and closes but it is more complex than that.
a. It is not all open or all close ...all the time.
b. There are relations of parts-one to another that can make cutting with power by closing...or opening. Stabbing with a spear by closing or opening. There are reasons it can and should be different.
c. And you left out the very common moving from the hips in three axis as opposed to center line moving from the waist.


Dan, I assume you mean the front closing and back opening, or like the front pulling down and back pushing up?

thanks,

hunter

mathewjgano
09-19-2011, 12:29 PM
...that particular mode of movement of utilizing opposite sides and upper lower as opposed to same side movement...

Hi Dan,
are you talking about a tendancy for people to always keep same side hand and foot forward? Does this relate more to any particular phase of the engagement? From what little I've observed I can see how ai hanmi/gyaku hanmi always seem to follow the rule of same foot as hand forward (i.e. same side forward for upper and lower), but I know I've practiced techniques which transitioned into what I've heard described as, "cross-lateral," before the throw is happens.
I'd really appreciate anything you have to offer on this...of course, as it relates specifically to the hips and hara.
Take care,
Matt

DH
09-19-2011, 03:04 PM
Are you talking about a tendancy for people to always keep same side hand and foot forward?
No, not at all.
Does this relate more to any particular phase of the engagement?
Nope.
I'd really appreciate anything you have to offer on this...of course, as it relates specifically to the hips and hara.
Why bother.
Been there, done that.. no thanks. What is the real point in debating physical understanding with people who (while they can't do anything meaningful in person), love to debate things they are completely incapable of, then get upset when you told them the truth all along. It's always been that way in budo, right. So you have some competent people debating people who are nothing more than good writers, with a new venue...the internet.
I know a better way. Meet, compare and be nice to each other. Debate it, while you're trying to remain vertical in front of me. Then we will both know just who actually knew what they were talking about all along and no one is upset. Then, like before, we will laugh, have fun to boot and talk about how much we both still suck! :D
Seems a better way to "debate" physical movement is in person.


Here's is quote for you from 1925
Aiki and it mysteries can never be encompassed by the brush or by mouth. Do not rely on words to grasp it. Attain enlightenment through practice..... Ueshiba M.

Another more succinct one if from Taiji
I know them, but they do not know me...
Read as "I feel, sense and control their centers
But they cannot find mine."
How do you successfully debate that...in writing? Imagine those two guys (real experts) trying to debate with some of the folks on the internet.
All the best
Dan

DH
09-19-2011, 04:43 PM
Dan, I assume you mean the front closing and back opening, or like the front pulling down and back pushing up?

thanks,

hunter
Well that is only part of a more complex system of what bows and whether you think that bowing-out means power out and bowing-in means drawing in...all the time. For that matter a real concern is what moves with what and when and that all things move together. That in and of itself, can have a very profound affect on people trying to screw with your center.
You can train to bow all-in and all-out and load to release but it's a pretty dumb thing to do in fighting as CXW, CY, LCD, LCG, CZW, LDX have highlighted. CXW was pretty clear in an interview that you can train that way but no one would ever do that in a fight as the opponent can feel it coming. Issuing is more sophisticated than those simple releases and cutting and moving with Japanese weapons that way is retarded...demonstrably so.
You might want to explore what Ueshiba meant by one side spiraling in while the other spirals out in relation to shun and ni and think of opening/closing and bowing in that paradigm, why it is so effective, and why he and Takeda were called genius's with the sword. It good to do exercises, but you'd better know the difference between working some things and then how to actually use them in martial arts. What you can get away with in one venue does not vet the use in another. I think some people have a very innocent and naive idea of what actually works.
Cheers
Dan

Howard Popkin
09-19-2011, 06:30 PM
No, not at all.
?
Nope.

Why bother.
Been there, done that.. no thanks. What is the real point in debating physical understanding with people who (while they can't do anything meaningful in person), love to debate things they are completely incapable of, then get upset when you told them the truth all along. It's always been that way in budo, right. So you have some competent people debating people who are nothing more than good writers, with a new venue...the internet.
I know a better way. Meet, compare and be nice to each other. Debate it, while you're trying to remain vertical in front of me. Then we will both know just who actually knew what they were talking about all along and no one is upset. Then, like before, we will laugh, have fun to boot and talk about how much we both still suck! :D
Seems a better way to "debate" physical movement is in person.

Here's is quote for you from 1925
Aiki and it mysteries can never be encompassed by the brush or by mouth. Do not rely on words to grasp it. Attain enlightenment through practice..... Ueshiba M.

Another more succinct one if from Taiji
I know them, but they do not know me...
Read as "I feel, sense and control their centers
But they cannot find mine."
How do you successfully debate that...in writing? Imagine those two guys (real experts) trying to debate with some of the folks on the internet.
All the best
Dan

Hey Dan,

:D

chillzATL
09-19-2011, 07:22 PM
Why bother.

why? because YOU brought it up...

Which led to this gem...

been there, done that.. no thanks. What is the real point in debating physical understanding with people who (while they can't do anything meaningful in person), love to debate things they are completely incapable of, then get upset when you told them the truth all along. It's always been that way in budo, right. So you have some competent people debating people who are nothing more than good writers, with a new venue...the internet.
I know a better way. Meet, compare and be nice to each other. Debate it, while you're trying to remain vertical in front of me. Then we will both know just who actually knew what they were talking about all along and no one is upset. Then, like before, we will laugh, have fun to boot and talk about how much we both still suck! :D
Seems a better way to "debate" physical movement is in person.


Have a bad day today Dan? Mike hasn't been involved in this discussion, so you can put your internet claws away. We were having a civil discussion here, not an arguement. Nobody was challenging anyone or telling them they don't get it or are wrong. If you don't want to further discuss the ideas that YOU brought into the thread, then just say so. You're not going to hurt anyones feelings... Just don't go hiding your unwillingness to do so behind this whole "who's going to debate me" schtick. That tone didn't exist in the thread before you brought it with you.

Another more succinct one if from Taiji
I know them, but they do not know me...
Read as "I feel, sense and control their centers
But they cannot find mine."
How do you successfully debate that...in writing? Imagine those two guys (real experts) trying to debate with some of the folks on the internet.
All the best
Dan

Debate, especially the way you use it, has an unsavory tone to it. They could definitely discuss it Dan...

DH
09-19-2011, 07:57 PM
Have a bad day today Dan? Mike hasn't been involved in this discussion, so you can put your internet claws away. We were having a civil discussion here, not an arguement. Nobody was challenging anyone or telling them they don't get it or are wrong. If you don't want to further discuss the ideas that YOU brought into the thread, then just say so. You're not going to hurt anyones feelings... Just don't go hiding your unwillingness to do so behind this whole "who's going to debate me" schtick. That tone didn't exist in the thread before you brought it with you.
Well, that was an interesting way to aproach this.
The ideas, when offered, pretty much run contrary to the norm of most ideas of movement in budo. It has been pretty much proved that since the dawning of the internet that this has led to debate. Sometimes heated debate, from those who do not understand the tenets of this work. Oddly, that never happens in person.
Which led to this....
What is the real point in debating physical understanding with people who (while they can't do anything meaningful in person), love to debate things they are completely incapable of, then get upset when you told them the truth all along. It's always been that way in budo, right. So you have some competent people debating people who are nothing more than good writers, with a new venue...the internet.
I know a better way. Meet, compare and be nice to each other. Debate it, while you're trying to remain vertical in front of me. Then we will both know just who actually knew what they were talking about all along and no one is upset. Then, like before, we will laugh, have fun to boot and talk about how much we both still suck!
Seems a better way to "debate" physical movement is in person.
Can you point to number of threads where this type of material has been debated from discussions between those with an internal approach to movement with those from the external arts, where everyone walks away agreeing?

I think my points were both salient and clear; debating it has not been successful on the net. Awareness of it through hands on work is the best vehicle, and curiously it ends debates and it makes friends.

Debate, especially the way you use it, has an unsavory tone to it. They could definitely discuss it, Dan...
Hmmm....That was in reference to me talking about real experts showing up to debate your average external guy on the internet and why it would not be productive without prior vetting. And also why I said it was a waste to debate/ argue rather than just state things. You cannot argue this on its merits. The experts would not....waste much time discussing it before they walked away.

Anyway, you don't have my experiences nor have you experienced the debate/ the fall out / and the best methods for true progress in ending them and making friends...from my end.
Anyway, with the current discussion/debate, I'll leave you to your own devices. Sorry for butting in.
Dan

Budd
09-19-2011, 08:38 PM
Hi Budd
I basically agree with you on this. A couple of points:
#2. If you think that there is no difference between those two modes of movement that; it's all connected.... well then, I think I could show you the difference in about ten seconds, and you'd end up agreeing with me!
#5. True that the body basically opens and closes but it is more complex than that.
a. It is not all open or all close ...all the time.
b. There are relations of parts-one to another that can make cutting with power by closing...or opening. Stabbing with a spear by closing or opening. There are reasons it can and should be different.
c. And you left out the very common moving from the hips in three axis as opposed to center line moving from the waist.

Hi Dan,

I think you're extrapolating my words a bit too far. I'm talking about basic connection, not even going into movement at this point - I don't think that's too useful from an internal strength perspective until you've built up the basics a bit - in terms of my #2 anyways. Same deal with my #5 . . I'm not describing all the permutations in application, just the fundamental open/close bit as a training device to get people going. But I'm game to be shown and if I agree I'll def say so.

Power is all the same
I am well aware of some teachers talking points that narrow the overall discussion down to their own personal views/ limitations/ understanding. These other methods produce power, but they are not all the same. These things are provable across platforms- most importantly with weapons. Anyone who thinks they are all the same is just simply ignorant of all the aspects to the issue. There is a reason more and more Koryu people shy away from certain methods and stay with ones that are consistent within their modalities.

Your #2. I am not surprised to continue to read that people assume they are the same. I will mention- that to my knowledge and review- no one else but me has ever even mentioned that particular mode of movement of utilizing opposite sides and upper lower as opposed to same side movement on the modern forums, much less explained the reasons it works or fails. Interestingly, that is also a debating point between some ICMA systems and JMA systems modes of movement.
All the best
Dan

Like I said, I think you're misconstruing some things and adding your own assumptions about what I said, but to your later point, it makes more sense to wait until we meet up in person to see what we mean.

Would definitely be interested in vetting some more about the ICMA versus JMA systems modes of movement - why is it different, where are the differences, etc. But I don't know that the internet is the best spot for it.

Regards,

Budd

chillzATL
09-19-2011, 09:13 PM
Well, that was an interesting way to aproach this.
The ideas, when offered, pretty much run contrary to the norm of most ideas of movement in budo. It has been pretty much proved that since the dawning of the internet that this has led to debate. Sometimes heated debate, from those who do not understand the tenets of this work. Oddly, that never happens in person.
Which led to this....

Can you point to number of threads where this type of material has been debated from discussions between those with an internal approach to movement with those from the external arts, where everyone walks away agreeing?

I think my points were both salient and clear; debating it has not been successful on the net. Awareness of it through hands on work is the best vehicle, and curiously it ends debates and it makes friends.

Hmmm....That was in reference to me talking about real experts showing up to debate your average external guy on the internet and why it would not be productive without prior vetting. And also why I said it was a waste to debate/ argue rather than just state things. You cannot argue this on its merits. The experts would not....waste much time discussing it before they walked away.

Anyway, you don't have my experiences nor have you experienced the debate/ the fall out / and the best methods for true progress in ending them and making friends...from my end.
Anyway, with the current discussion/debate, I'll leave you to your own devices. Sorry for butting in.
Dan

I agree with more of what you said than I disagree. I've read practically all of the history on the subject here and lived the battles through it. The real extent of the "debates", lets call them arguements, have been people who don't know beans about IS telling mostly you and mike, that the stuff you're talking about is BS. For the most part, at least here, we're kind if through the thick of that. There are still doubters, but by and large there a big community of people who are both receptive and in some form or another, working on this stuff.

The other "debates" are mostly just you and Mike. Sometimes people who have taken a side wander in, but it's mostly you and Mike who can't talk to each other, which we can leave at that.

The rest of us, there's no reason we can't have those discussions now. Especially considering the number of people who are doing this stuff these days and should be getting a feel for it on a level that they can talk about it and want too. I think people should want to talk about it, it helps a lot IMO, especially for people who don't have the luxury of regular group meetups..The vocabulary for what everyone is doing is essentially the same. Once you've got a foot in the door it's not hard to understand, sometimes maybe by playing around with it, what the other guy is doing. IMO there is no right or wrong. If someone is doing something and it's working for them, but maybe it's just not what I want to do, cool. There's nothing that says we have to argue over it. Didn't Ueshiba award 10th dan to a Noh dancer? I doubt it was because he thought the dancer could kick ass. It was likely an appreciation of the shared vocabulary they had for using their bodies. Sagawa and Ueshiba didn't throw down when they met, though obviously not doing exactly the same things. We've had a few threads of late that suggest it is more than possible. Some say why, I say... WHY NOT?

Sorry if my post came off a little hot. HUGS.

Tim Ruijs
09-20-2011, 03:06 AM
You cannot make a person 'see' it your way, be it right or wrong.
There is no good or bad, only different.

Find opportunities to meet people and show what you do. Then they can decide for themselves if that is what they are looking for, or may have an interest in. In discussions relate to aspects (training, teaching, philosophical) you think they may have a problem with in their current style. That would make people wonder, perhaps build an interest.

So back on topic: would the difference between #2 and #3 not be focus? I have already made the comparision with mae ukemi. That had overlap but was not quite it.
What would need to change to arrive at #3?

DH
09-20-2011, 09:00 AM
You cannot make a person 'see' it your way, be it right or wrong.
There is no good or bad, only different.
With certain target goals in mind, this is simply not true. Demonstrably so. Further, while traveling about feeling the efforts of people who are training with various internal coaches; both amateurs and experts, there is a wide disparity with results. It appears the amateurs teach better, and it is obvious not all of them are teaching the same things. The rest can be the result of the laziness or intelligence of the student.
But I would NEVER say there is no good or bad. Give someone a bad compass and tell them to travel a thousand miles and ask them about good or bad.
Time and distance can be a killer to the best efforts.
Now add bad information at the outset.
Dan

mathewjgano
09-20-2011, 09:46 AM
No, not at all.
?
Nope.

Ok wrong track then, thank you. I wasn't trying to debate you, just add to my understanding of the conceptual framework you were describing. I recently read a quote of O Sensei describing his "aiki...do" as including an intellectual componant and I see this forum as applying directly to that (what else can we accomplish here? Certainly not what anything might feel like...doing or receiving). I've learned a lot of ways on how not to make the proverbial "lightbulb" along with some interesting descriptions of how different facets work. Hell, it even promted me to try and go see what I gathered to be a pretty good example of one.

What is the real point in debating physical understanding with people who (while they can't do anything meaningful in person), love to debate things they are completely incapable of, then get upset when you told them the truth all along. It's always been that way in budo, right. So you have some competent people debating people who are nothing more than good writers, with a new venue...the internet.

That would be frustrating. Fortunately, of the things I don't know I don't know, knowing I suck aint one. You told me so in person...although, I was pretty sure of it already. :) Hopefully I'm a good enough writer to make that clear.
I really was just trying to engage the conversation, but it seems a bit above my pay-grade at the moment.
...and, yes, the internet is a little to convenient sometimes.
Take care,
Matt

Budd
09-20-2011, 12:30 PM
So, while I know this thread has been initially about hip-rotation and movement - I think it's turning into a useful debate on what kinds of discussions around "this stuff" are useful online versus what level of stuff has to be felt and vetted in person.

I would posit that for online purposes - there's a level of discussion you can have regarding one's "take", how it ties to traditional views of the subject, where you've made innovations, etc. Just in terms of internal strength. Even in that topic, I look at things from a baseline introduction, then conditioning, then beginning stages of application, since there's so much upfront work to do to rewire the body.

Where I expect some big disagreements, potentially, would be where you integrate the conditioning and skill building aspects of IS into applications, etc. I don't think disagreements in that subject area need to be mutually exclusive with the foundational "here's how it works" discussions. But there should be something of a sequential "Here's how it works at step 1 foundationally, once you achieve X checkpoint of skill/conditioning, you're ready to move into step 2, and so on . ."

But is the internet the right place to have that discussion past even checkpoint 1? I have my doubts. The great thing about the internet for me has been to get some seed info to see about who I can then meet up with in person. So far all have been positive experiences, regardless of my perceptions of their ability, style, system, etc.

But I'm also interested in seeing how far we can push the "how's it work" discussion, with intended follow-ups in person to compare notes, etc. The built in assumption is that people will be bringing their own agendas, assumptions, beliefs and that challenging them/changing them won't necessarily be the outcome - nor should it be, if we're looking at the skillset as "how's it work", "how's it trained", "how's it used/applied"? People will have the choice to buy into the info, then line that up against what they've gotten elsewhere.

Ultimately, words will only get you so far, what you are "shown" will also only get you so far . . you have to take the information in, filter it, practice it like a maniac and make sure the results are in line with your goals/expectations. Comes down to choices, commitments and taking responsibility for your progress.

YMMV

jzimba
09-20-2011, 01:03 PM
I have yet again been reminded that even the most simplistic terms can be misleading.

A couple of weeks ago, I was working with someone hands-on, and she said:

"Have you noticed that you keep your lower abdomin kind of tight and maintain a constant posterior tilt to your pelvis?"

To which I replied, "duhhh" because I couldn't tell. it felt perfectly reasonable to me.

So, after a few manipulations, I felt what it's like to really move the lowest part of my abdomin downward while inhalin and simultaneously slightly engagin my extensors. Suddenly my center of gravity moved forward and down ... The kinesthetic sensation was that my hips were down around my knees

Without unnecessary tension pulling my spine back and downward, I could feel the upward push of the bone chain from the balls of each toe going up my spine and to my skull. Quite an odd thing to fel taller and lower at the same time.

Now I have to re-think all of these issues, like where is my dantien, and what am I turning when ... and could I have been using wrong alignment for aikido-taiji, etc all of these years?

I'm pretty sure I can feel L5 turning in the pelvic cradle when I turn my waist now. very creepy sensation.

who'd'of thunk it.

Joel

chillzATL
09-20-2011, 01:39 PM
So, while I know this thread has been initially about hip-rotation and movement - I think it's turning into a useful debate on what kinds of discussions around "this stuff" are useful online versus what level of stuff has to be felt and vetted in person.

I would posit that for online purposes - there's a level of discussion you can have regarding one's "take", how it ties to traditional views of the subject, where you've made innovations, etc. Just in terms of internal strength. Even in that topic, I look at things from a baseline introduction, then conditioning, then beginning stages of application, since there's so much upfront work to do to rewire the body.

Where I expect some big disagreements, potentially, would be where you integrate the conditioning and skill building aspects of IS into applications, etc. I don't think disagreements in that subject area need to be mutually exclusive with the foundational "here's how it works" discussions. But there should be something of a sequential "Here's how it works at step 1 foundationally, once you achieve X checkpoint of skill/conditioning, you're ready to move into step 2, and so on . ."

But is the internet the right place to have that discussion past even checkpoint 1? I have my doubts. The great thing about the internet for me has been to get some seed info to see about who I can then meet up with in person. So far all have been positive experiences, regardless of my perceptions of their ability, style, system, etc.

But I'm also interested in seeing how far we can push the "how's it work" discussion, with intended follow-ups in person to compare notes, etc. The built in assumption is that people will be bringing their own agendas, assumptions, beliefs and that challenging them/changing them won't necessarily be the outcome - nor should it be, if we're looking at the skillset as "how's it work", "how's it trained", "how's it used/applied"? People will have the choice to buy into the info, then line that up against what they've gotten elsewhere.

Ultimately, words will only get you so far, what you are "shown" will also only get you so far . . you have to take the information in, filter it, practice it like a maniac and make sure the results are in line with your goals/expectations. Comes down to choices, commitments and taking responsibility for your progress.

YMMV

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Budd.

When I derailed the thread, the point I was trying to make was that I believe these skills, what we're doing to train them and our thoughts and ideas about them can be shared and discussed in a civil way. Whether you're doing what I"m doing or whether you're goals for it are the same as mine isn't really important. We can focus on the common ground, of which there are acres, and accept that not every routine or exercise or way of thinking about things fits everyone else. There are a lot of people out there who have been to a seminar or two and maybe don't have the luxury of regular groups to meet up with and such, but they're still doing things they were shown and are still struggling to come to a better understanding. There's no reason those people can't read a discussion about these skills and apply another persons perspective to what they're doing to increase their understanding. That stuff happens... everywhere, even on the internet, without becoming arguements. Where the arguements start is when people get so hyper focused in believing that what they're doing is the best way, the most powerful way, the only way and simply can't put that down long enough to appreciate the common ground that exists. I mean that type of interaction, exchange and acceptance sounds to me to be exactly what Ueshiba had in mind for his aiki-do. I believe that he also suggested that it is the ego that ruins it, to which I agree.

If you go into a gym, you'll find all sorts of people working out. They all have different motivations, different methods and different goals, but you don't see fights breaking out because the guy who wants to become as big and strong as possible is doing something different from the guy who just wants to put on some muscle and look better in his mankini. No, those guys could find common ground and discuss things about their approaches that each might find benefit in, regardless of the fact that they have completely different goals. It should be no different here. You could read my description of what I'm doing and my thoughts about it and offer suggestions "maybe give this a try" or "see how this feels". I get up and try it, maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't, maybe I feel it and say "damn, that's hot!" or maybe I say "yah, I see what you're saying, but I'm not sold just yet". That's discussion and that's something people can benefit from. It's no replacement for hands on time, but it's certainly a way for improving our thought processes about what we're doing which absolutely helps, especially when you factor in the different goals we all have.

Thanks again.

chillzATL
09-20-2011, 01:46 PM
I have yet again been reminded that even the most simplistic terms can be misleading.

A couple of weeks ago, I was working with someone hands-on, and she said:

"Have you noticed that you keep your lower abdomin kind of tight and maintain a constant posterior tilt to your pelvis?"

To which I replied, "duhhh" because I couldn't tell. it felt perfectly reasonable to me.

So, after a few manipulations, I felt what it's like to really move the lowest part of my abdomin downward while inhalin and simultaneously slightly engagin my extensors. Suddenly my center of gravity moved forward and down ... The kinesthetic sensation was that my hips were down around my knees

Without unnecessary tension pulling my spine back and downward, I could feel the upward push of the bone chain from the balls of each toe going up my spine and to my skull. Quite an odd thing to fel taller and lower at the same time.

Now I have to re-think all of these issues, like where is my dantien, and what am I turning when ... and could I have been using wrong alignment for aikido-taiji, etc all of these years?

I'm pretty sure I can feel L5 turning in the pelvic cradle when I turn my waist now. very creepy sensation.

who'd'of thunk it.

Joel

very nice, good description too! Were you physically corrected to help remove the tension or did you just work it out yourself?

Tim Ruijs
09-20-2011, 02:43 PM
With certain target goals in mind, this is simply not true. Demonstrably so. Further, while traveling about feeling the efforts of people who are training with various internal coaches; both amateurs and experts, there is a wide disparity with results. It appears the amateurs teach better, and it is obvious not all of them are teaching the same things. The rest can be the result of the laziness or intelligence of the student.
But I would NEVER say there is no good or bad. Give someone a bad compass and tell them to travel a thousand miles and ask them about good or bad.
Time and distance can be a killer to the best efforts.
Now add bad information at the outset.
Dan
Thanks for your comment. I see your point.
Would you not agree that the compass only proves good or bad, after the person experienced it himself/herself? You can try to convince the other person that your compass is right, but someone else can also offer a compass with the same pitch. How can the user of the compass know which is better (i.e good or bad)? On what ground would one decide which compass to use?
Agreed that once you know you got your bearing. But then there is no question anymore either, is there?

(a bit off topic: I think many believe that what they are doing is correct, because they have been taught that way. It takes effort to search beyond what you know, what you have been taught and become a master and judge for yourself what is good. Now while I know this, I am not saying I am able to, far from. I am struggling day to day to find my way. )

Erick Mead
09-20-2011, 03:15 PM
Hi Budd ...
to my knowledge and review- no one else but me has ever even mentioned that particular mode of movement of utilizing opposite sides and upper lower as opposed to same side movement on the modern forums, much less explained the reasons it works or fails.
All the best
Dan Ahem .... That is not entirely true.

It is explained in understanding these depictions of the mechanics involved. Whether this manner of explanations works for everyone or not -- it is explained by them.

The first one shows the static or stress relations that drive the dynamic in the diagonal spirals -- opposite side upper/lower.

http://www.aikiweb.com/gallery_data/526/Spherical_Shear_stress_color.jpg

The second shows the dynamic relation of the motions following those stress paths:

http://www.aikiweb.com/gallery_data/526/lissajous2.JPG

Now back to your regular programming. Move along. Nothing to see here. Enjoy your training.

:)

Lorel Latorilla
09-20-2011, 03:50 PM
Ahem .... That is not entirely true.

It is explained in understanding these depictions of the mechanics involved. Whether this manner of explanations works for everyone or not -- it is explained by them.

The first one shows the static or stress relations that drive the dynamic in the diagonal spirals -- opposite side upper/lower.

http://www.aikiweb.com/gallery_data/526/Spherical_Shear_stress_color.jpg

The second shows the dynamic relation of the motions following those stress paths:

http://www.aikiweb.com/gallery_data/526/lissajous2.JPG

Now back to your regular programming. Move along. Nothing to see here. Enjoy your training.

:)

Erick, seems like you have it all figured out. Plan to do any seminars soon? I would love to go where you are at and train with you.

thisisnotreal
09-20-2011, 04:12 PM
I agree. That is such an abstraction such that it ceases to be useful in any way. If you're going to argue your 'mission statement' please indicate how it has lead to a progression of hip/lower torso movement relevant to the thread.

DH
09-20-2011, 04:32 PM
Erick, seems like you have it all figured out. Plan to do any seminars soon? I would love to go where you are at and train with you.
That model is not what I am talking about. And it doesn't work.
No one knows of anyone who will vet Eric as having anything unusual by way of skill. The single member here who met him said he felt like your average Aikido-ka of similar rank.So, if and when you use his methods I guess you feel....like the average Aikido-ka.

I have no opinion other than to state again to Mat and others here....If your goal is IP/Aiki, If you think there is no right or wrong, bad or good, and you are looking for a method to get it, then why not go train Graham and Eric's methods? Tthey both state they understand ki and aiki and what we do. Train for ten years. And lets see how that works out against some other methods we know of.
Now...if you state ..."No I don't want to."
Please state, why not.

You guys can argue methods all day long, it is what it is. Your understanding is in your own hands and can be tested. And when it is- not everyone gets an "A." You would be wasting decades of time to think every method is equal and nothing is innately wrong.
Dan

Budd
09-20-2011, 04:38 PM
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Budd.

When I derailed the thread, the point I was trying to make was that I believe these skills, what we're doing to train them and our thoughts and ideas about them can be shared and discussed in a civil way. Whether you're doing what I"m doing or whether you're goals for it are the same as mine isn't really important. We can focus on the common ground, of which there are acres, and accept that not every routine or exercise or way of thinking about things fits everyone else. There are a lot of people out there who have been to a seminar or two and maybe don't have the luxury of regular groups to meet up with and such, but they're still doing things they were shown and are still struggling to come to a better understanding. There's no reason those people can't read a discussion about these skills and apply another persons perspective to what they're doing to increase their understanding. That stuff happens... everywhere, even on the internet, without becoming arguements. Where the arguements start is when people get so hyper focused in believing that what they're doing is the best way, the most powerful way, the only way and simply can't put that down long enough to appreciate the common ground that exists. I mean that type of interaction, exchange and acceptance sounds to me to be exactly what Ueshiba had in mind for his aiki-do. I believe that he also suggested that it is the ego that ruins it, to which I agree.

If you go into a gym, you'll find all sorts of people working out. They all have different motivations, different methods and different goals, but you don't see fights breaking out because the guy who wants to become as big and strong as possible is doing something different from the guy who just wants to put on some muscle and look better in his mankini. No, those guys could find common ground and discuss things about their approaches that each might find benefit in, regardless of the fact that they have completely different goals. It should be no different here. You could read my description of what I'm doing and my thoughts about it and offer suggestions "maybe give this a try" or "see how this feels". I get up and try it, maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't, maybe I feel it and say "damn, that's hot!" or maybe I say "yah, I see what you're saying, but I'm not sold just yet". That's discussion and that's something people can benefit from. It's no replacement for hands on time, but it's certainly a way for improving our thought processes about what we're doing which absolutely helps, especially when you factor in the different goals we all have.

Thanks again.

Hi Jason,

The parts that are missing from above, and I generally agree - people are going to do their thing and trade notes, etc. based on some common understanding, are around: 1) What are you basing your understanding on? (a- were you taught b- did you come up with it c-some combination d-other) 2) What can you actually do? 3) Who can vouch for you?

Those things will mean different things in different degrees to different folks, but will be considerations to decide for discussion purposes, how you interpret their input and then how you filter interactions.

DH
09-20-2011, 05:09 PM
Dan Harden wrote:
Hi Budd ...
to my knowledge and review- no one else but me has ever even mentioned that particular mode of movement of utilizing opposite sides and upper lower as opposed to same side movement on the modern forums, much less explained the reasons it works or fails.
All the best
Dan

Eric States:
Ahem .... That is not entirely true.
It is explained in understanding these depictions of the mechanics involved. Whether this manner of explanations works for everyone or not -- it is explained by them.

Again you are telling me you understand what I am doing. No...you do not.
Your model is in direct conflict to what I am doing and as a method for attaining the skills we are discussing...fails.
Not only are you wrong again, but you are now using false information (the two are mutually exclusive), to try and place yourself as having the same level of understanding-which you do not and in a small way, call me a liar....nice. I've seen it before.
Secondarily, your whacky models came after my discussions any way and not before. What I said...which is unrelated to your model (equal to a total change of subject really) stands, and you Eric... have no part in it, by your own submission.
Dan

DH
09-20-2011, 05:11 PM
Hi Jason,

The parts that are missing from above, and I generally agree - people are going to do their thing and trade notes, etc. based on some common understanding, are around: 1) What are you basing your understanding on? (a- were you taught b- did you come up with it c-some combination d-other) 2) What can you actually do? 3) Who can vouch for you?

Those things will mean different things in different degrees to different folks, but will be considerations to decide for discussion purposes, how you interpret their input and then how you filter interactions.
Good Points.
Dan

akiy
09-20-2011, 05:51 PM
Hi folks,

Please stay away from directing your posts at the poster rather than the topic being discussed.

If you disagree with a post, please take the time to point out the ways in which you disagree rather than writing, directly or indirectly, that the poster is wrong.

Thank you,

-- Jun

Tim Ruijs
09-21-2011, 02:33 AM
You guys can argue methods all day long, it is what it is. Your understanding is in your own hands and can be tested. And when it is- not everyone gets an "A." You would be wasting decades of time to think every method is equal and nothing is innately wrong.
Dan

Again, like I said earlier, how can we judge which method is in fact the 'right/best' one? Everybody does their best. Some search harder...
Quality will emerge eventually. The problem is that might take a lot of time (everybody needs to invent the wheel). So a good teacher will help, but then we are back a square one: how to judge the teacher?

I gree with Jun here, when someone makes a statement and you feel different, make clear why you think it is incorrect, or how one can improve.

DH
09-21-2011, 07:38 AM
I agree with Jun here, when someone makes a statement and you feel different, make clear why you think it is incorrect, or how one can improve.
There is no requirement to address all the many theories though is there. It won't happen again. I will simply remain silent.

In the old days, people had to go a test and feel and waste incredible amounts of money and time to get thrown in the dirt over and over and over till when they woke up, they understood that there actually was a way to determine that not all methods are equal and some people know exactly what they are doing and talking about. You would think that there would be a better way. Maybe there isn't.

As an aside, I will tell you that there is a master class ICMA teacher who reads this forum regularly. He knows exactly who knows what...by what they write and has stated so to his students around the world.
You don't know any different, so you listen to everyone's theories as equal. I understand that mindset. I encounter it all the time on the mat.
Good luck in your training
Dan

Tim Ruijs
09-21-2011, 08:33 AM
I had rather not you stay silent...a more concrete motivation would certainly help.

Please do not mistake my respect for other opinions and trying to understand where they originate from with me regarding them as equal or even my own.
I value each and everyone's opinion when delivered with good intent and proper respect.
Perhaps I am simply ignorant and do not know left from right in Aikido.

DH
09-21-2011, 08:49 AM
I value each and everyone's opinion when delivered with good intent and proper respect.
That's an interesting comment. we are talking about movement, correct?
What would you think if a 5th kyu came here and said he is doing what a shihan is doing and argues that the Shihan doesn't understand the mechanics of what he himself is talking about?
What if different Shihan offered advice and that 5th kyu did nothing but argue that none of them understood what it is they were doing and that if they did, they would see he was doing the same thing...then, he refused all requests to meet?
Answer_______________________.

Tim Ruijs
09-21-2011, 09:10 AM
different frame of reference ;)

BTW the fifth kyu does not show proper respect nor good intent, but for argument's sake.

chillzATL
09-21-2011, 09:25 AM
Hi Jason,

The parts that are missing from above, and I generally agree - people are going to do their thing and trade notes, etc. based on some common understanding, are around: 1) What are you basing your understanding on? (a- were you taught b- did you come up with it c-some combination d-other) 2) What can you actually do? 3) Who can vouch for you?

Those things will mean different things in different degrees to different folks, but will be considerations to decide for discussion purposes, how you interpret their input and then how you filter interactions.

Well, I think that you can make some assumptions of someones understanding of the common ground shared between all these methods by how they talk about it. Does that mean you're not going to get some clown come along who slings jargon and talks good game? no, not at all, but if that person comes along and is making suggestions about what people should be doing or trying you know, you get up and try what they're talking about. That shared common ground, IMO, makes that possible. As for what they can actually do and who can vouch for them. If doing the above didn't set off anything for you, then you work to get some hands on time with said person and see what they're talking about, regardless if someone else vouches for them. If it's not making sense to you, based on your understanding and experience of that shared common ground, then you gotta get hands on, period. Which you should do any chance you can anyway.

I'm not suggesting online discussion as a replacement for that. You should always go for that option when it's there. I mean hell, I've made 11 hour trips to go see people and feel what they're doing, but doing that ALL the time isn't realistic for even me, much less others.

Again, the type of interaction i'm talking about, goes something like this:

Using this thread as an example, we start sharing our thoughts and things we're doing as it relates to hip.lower torso movement.

Someone pops in and says "nice thread, I've been doing this and feeling this, but when I do this, I feel something different" and we discuss it and hash it out and come to terms with what and why there's a different feeling there. Other people reading that thread may also be at similar points in their process and do the same and feel compelled to jump in as well and share their experiences.

Then Dan comes in and says "I see what you guys are saying, maybe try this and see what you think because in my experience this will get you over whatever hurdle you're discussing" and he gives some example to feel what he's talking about.

So we get up and try it. It may make sense, it may not, some may feel that difference, others may not. For the ones that don't, well, you keep plugging away and putting in some time and you know, you try to get hands on time with Dan or someone with more experience with what he's talking about when you can, because we all know that's ALWAYS the best.

There's nothing antagonistic about that exchange. The only thing it needs is people interested enough and willing to share their thoughts.

DH
09-21-2011, 10:04 AM
I value each and everyone's opinion when delivered with good intent and proper respect.
You can respect a person while arguing net worth of a theory. I don't value someones opinion because it is offered with respect. I value it on its merits.
How does delivery
add credibility
to their opinion.

I have been in front of too many expert teachers who..while really nice people, had no real credibility to their own arguments on physical movement when it came to this topic. But we are supposed to give every internet poster respect for opinions on movement that are inefficient and have been cast aside or will not work?
Otherwise what you are actually saying is that the those with no real understanding get to borrow the credibility of those who put in hard work and had true success with their efforts. You might as well start a thread where junior high school kids can argue Medicine with Neuro surgeons and then upbraid the surgeon for not respecting their opinion.
There are very real results for hard work and superior results.

Movement
These gross macro movement models do not address;
What to move, in consort with what. Ways to train to connect it, and the result of how that connection itself creates an effect on you and on an uke.
I haven't read anything about hip/lower torso here that comes close to relevant issues that will hold you back or move you forward, with a single thing I would consider truly relevant. There isn't even an adequate discussion of what a hip is and does and why there are some strikingly different ways to move that have been examined and abandoned by Koryu people, and why that is.

The whole does not equal the sum of it's parts
You could give people the exact information of what to move and how and they would still miss the real key to making the effect they are looking for in dealing with an uke with power and aiki in the first place.

The Chinese and Japanese did not have anatomy trains and western medicine but delivered real soft power and understanding. No traditional method I am aware of started like you guys are; with this hunger for anatomy and body part movement. There are more important matters. I give in here and there and try to help people understand with discussions of the body, but it's no wonder that when I do seminars and body workers and yoga people show up, they all know the exact anatomy of what am discussing, yet they are usually the worst people in the room. I had a friend, go off and do Yoga, two years after starting training with me...his power went down hill, all while he stood there telling me about all his internal feelings and body part movement.

It is interesting to me that when being tested by real experts, top dogs in the ICMA, there was a progression of testing and the body parts, came last. Mores the point, while they don't all agree either they have real power not imagined, hug yer neighbor and make him feel validated, power. There is actual worth to what they do.
Last I checked, people reserved their time and money for attending seminars with people who actually know what they're doing. Off the internet, they vote with their feet.
Dan

graham christian
09-21-2011, 10:20 AM
I had rather not you stay silent...a more concrete motivation would certainly help.

Please do not mistake my respect for other opinions and trying to understand where they originate from with me regarding them as equal or even my own.
I value each and everyone's opinion when delivered with good intent and proper respect.
Perhaps I am simply ignorant and do not know left from right in Aikido.

Perhaps you are simply wise.

Regards.G.

DH
09-21-2011, 10:28 AM
Well, I think that you can make some assumptions of someones understanding of the common ground shared between all these methods by how they talk about it. Does that mean you're not going to get some clown come along who slings jargon and talks good game? no, not at all, but if that person comes along and is making suggestions about what people should be doing or trying you know, you get up and try what they're talking about. That shared common ground, IMO, makes that possible. As for what they can actually do and who can vouch for them. If doing the above didn't set off anything for you, then you work to get some hands on time with said person and see what they're talking about, regardless if someone else vouches for them. If it's not making sense to you, based on your understanding and experience of that shared common ground, then you gotta get hands on, period. Which you should do any chance you can anyway.

I'm not suggesting online discussion as a replacement for that. You should always go for that option when it's there. I mean hell, I've made 11 hour trips to go see people and feel what they're doing, but doing that ALL the time isn't realistic for even me, much less others.

Again, the type of interaction i'm talking about, goes something like this:

Using this thread as an example, we start sharing our thoughts and things we're doing as it relates to hip.lower torso movement.

Someone pops in and says "nice thread, I've been doing this and feeling this, but when I do this, I feel something different" and we discuss it and hash it out and come to terms with what and why there's a different feeling there. Other people reading that thread may also be at similar points in their process and do the same and feel compelled to jump in as well and share their experiences.

Then Dan comes in and says "I see what you guys are saying, maybe try this and see what you think because in my experience this will get you over whatever hurdle you're discussing" and he gives some example to feel what he's talking about.

So we get up and try it. It may make sense, it may not, some may feel that difference, others may not. For the ones that don't, well, you keep plugging away and putting in some time and you know, you try to get hands on time with Dan or someone with more experience with what he's talking about when you can, because we all know that's ALWAYS the best.

There's nothing antagonistic about that exchange. The only thing it needs is people interested enough and willing to share their thoughts.
I can agree that going to meet people and testing them will help. You should strongly consider that:
1. Meeting someone with power does not mean they can teach or are willing, or will honestly tell you that.
2. That all methods are the same just because someone has power.
3. If they do not have power and you can walk through them I would walk away. If they cannot deliver, what makes you think you will ever be able to.
4. All things being equal even with people with power, there are complexities, some may do things well, but in the end this or that method is not really the best, others may not have developed a certain method to its full extant, but in the end that is actually thee best method for you to train. Others may be using power in a way that will not work in your own chosen venue (Classical weapons demands have all but eliminated one fellows methods).
5. Nothing will substitute for solo work and then hands on time...nothing. Talking is fun, and keeps up enthusiasm, but is all but useless unless you do the work and get hands-on.

Dan

chillzATL
09-21-2011, 10:45 AM
I can agree that going to meet people and testing them will help. You should strongly consider that:
1. Meeting someone with power does not mean they can teach or are willing, or will honestly tell you that.
2. That all methods are the same just because someone has power.
3. If they do not have power and you can walk through them I would walk away. If they cannot deliver, what makes you think you will ever be able to.
4. All things being equal even with people with power, there are complexities, some may do things well, but in the end this or that method is not really the best, others may not have developed a certain method to its full extant, but in the end that is actually thee best method for you to train. Others may be using power in a way that will not work in your own chosen venue (Classical weapons demands have all but eliminated one fellows methods).
5. Nothing will substitute for solo work and then hands on time...nothing. Talking is fun, and keeps up enthusiasm, but is all but useless unless you do the work and get hands-on.

Dan

I agree across the board, especially in regards to doing the work. My ability to talk about it at whatever level I'm at is a direct result of putting in that time.

As for the hands on, for some odd reason it's hard to get people to come to Atlanta. I mean we're no Hawaii down here, but we've got good weather, nice people and no shortage of food and drink. Hell, we even have FISH, big ones... Sure they may not be capable of doing fancy non-fish things, but they're fish all the same and that has to count for something!

gregstec
09-21-2011, 10:59 AM
I agree across the board, especially in regards to doing the work. My ability to talk about it at whatever level I'm at is a direct result of putting in that time.

As for the hands on, for some odd reason it's hard to get people to come to Atlanta. I mean we're no Hawaii down here, but we've got good weather, nice people and no shortage of food and drink. Hell, we even have FISH, big ones... Sure they may not be capable of doing fancy non-fish things, but they're fish all the same and that has to count for something!

Fish you say! - I think Howard just may be booking his flight as we type :D

Greg

akiy
09-21-2011, 11:21 AM
Hi Dan,

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that nothing replaces hands-on training in budo transmission. If this is what you are saying, I, of course, agree with that. However, this is a discussion forum here. In my mind, simply pointing to hands-on training kind of defeats the purpose of having a discussion.

Similarly, people dismissing someone's thoughts by posting only a disagreement without taking the time to point out the ways in which that person disagrees does not amount to much of a positive contribution to a thread -- and neither does people directing their posts at the poster rather than the topic

I stand by my requests above.

-- Jun

DH
09-21-2011, 01:12 PM
Hi Dan,
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that nothing replaces hands-on training in budo transmission. If this is what you are saying, I, of course, agree with that. However, this is a discussion forum here. In my mind, simply pointing to hands-on training kind of defeats the purpose of having a discussion.

Similarly, people dismissing someone's thoughts by posting only a disagreement without taking the time to point out the ways in which that person disagrees does not amount to much of a positive contribution to a thread -- and neither does people directing their posts at the poster rather than the topic

I stand by my requests above.
Hi folks,

Please stay away from directing your posts at the poster rather than the topic being discussed.

If you disagree with a post, please take the time to point out the ways in which you disagree rather than writing, directly or indirectly, that the poster is wrong.

Thank you,

-- Jun
-- Jun
I very much agree with you, Jun. It's was pretty strange to see someone walk into a thread and attack the poster (me) by calling me a liar out of the blue and then not even addressing the topic, but by way of example changing the subject to something unrelated and not contributing to saying why.
It was very weird. Then he vanished.
No matter, I should have simply avoided/ignored it alltogether.

I think this was an attempt to get the thread back on track to the topic:
Dan Harden writes:
Movement
These gross macro movement models do not address;
What to move, in consort with what. Ways to train to connect it, and the result of how that connection itself creates an effect on you and on an uke.
I haven't read anything about hip/lower torso here that comes close to relevant issues that will hold you back or move you forward, with a single thing I would consider truly relevant. There isn't even an adequate discussion of what a hip is and does and why there are some strikingly different ways to move that have been examined and abandoned by Koryu people, and why that is.

The whole does not equal the sum of it's parts
You could give people the exact information of what to move and how and they would still miss the real key to making the effect they are looking for in dealing with an uke with power and aiki in the first place.

The Chinese and Japanese did not have anatomy trains and western medicine but delivered real soft power and understanding. No traditional method I am aware of started like you guys are; with this hunger for anatomy and body part movement. There are more important matters. I give in here and there and try to help people understand with discussions of the body, but it's no wonder that when I do seminars and body workers and yoga people show up, they all know the exact anatomy of what am discussing, yet they are usually the worst people in the room. I had a friend, go off and do Yoga, two years after starting training with me...his power went down hill, all while he stood there telling me about all his internal feelings and body part movement.

Dan Harden wrote:

I can agree that going to meet people and testing them will help. You should strongly consider that:
1. Meeting someone with power does not mean they can teach or are willing, or will honestly tell you that.
2. That all methods are the same just because someone has power.
3. If they do not have power and you can walk through them I would walk away. If they cannot deliver, what makes you think you will ever be able to.
4. All things being equal even with people with power, there are complexities, some may do things well, but in the end this or that method is not really the best, others may not have developed a certain method to its full extant, but in the end that is actually thee best method for you to train. Others may be using power in a way that will not work in your own chosen venue (Classical weapons demands have all but eliminated one fellows methods).

Dan

My own points were that "discussion of movement" is all but impossible on the net. Bearing in mind that I still try to do it and have hundreds of meaningful dialogues recorded here- entirely on topic- on what is being moved, I still recognize the limitations and difficulties. As Budd, Jason, Mat Lorell and others have agreed and are writing me in P.M. I would call that productive discussion.

Difficulties in discussion of correct movement
I am a member of two private forums and a mailing list of those who train with me. While it is easier to discuss these things there-even there- it is nonetheless just as problematic to go into great detail on "how to's." We do however recognize that there has to be an allowance for people being flat out wrong in their approach. We feel it's the only way to meaningfully move forward. We all like and respect each other, but have no issue with being told we are wrong on a host of different issues.

It is easier for us, in that we have all met and trained together, so there is no question going in of our respect toward each other. You have a much tougher job of it in this venue here with so many of us being strangers to each other. And we need to remember that.
That said, I guess I could just say "This is what I do." YMMV. :)
All the best
Dan

Tim Ruijs
09-22-2011, 02:01 AM
Dan,

Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that opinion brought respectfully does certainly not imply any credibility. I value the sharing of their opinion for sake of discussion of that opinion, be it right or wrong. I think that everybody that shares an opinion does so based on their experience, their frame of reference. It is interesting to understand where their ideas are founded on and whether or not that foundation is any good.
When that foundation is in fact weak, we can talk about it. Off course we are limited by words on a forum, but perhaps someone will take the concept to the tatami and continue his/her search. That would make me very happy.

I understand that some 'lower' levels of discussions are of lesser interest to more advanced people, but to these people the issues at hand is what they struggle with (or they would not have brought it up).
I also agree that going into the details of human anatomy to understand Aikido is way to much western thinking.

An example people might try (probably know)
We do an exercise with the jo. Aite holds the jo with one hand and the other end of the jo is positioned at the center of tori. Tori tries to move forward. This simple technique shows how to move with proper posture. Next step would be katatedori and tori does the same move (without arm muscle).

Anyways many thanks for sharing ;)

phitruong
09-22-2011, 08:10 AM
Off course we are limited by words on a forum, but perhaps someone will take the concept to the tatami and continue his/her search. That would make me very happy.

I understand that some 'lower' levels of discussions are of lesser interest to more advanced people, but to these people the issues at hand is what they struggle with (or they would not have brought it up).
I also agree that going into the details of human anatomy to understand Aikido is way to much western thinking.


i believed that's what Dan has been pointing out. folks go out and meet and exchange information through direct physical experience. i believed Mary mentioned something along the line of "you have the right to your opinion, but don't have the right to facts.". once you cross hand with someone, the fact is either your stuffs work or won't, no more opinion after that. there are the right ways of doing things and there are the wrong ways. in the old time, the wrong ways will get you kill and that was a simple fact. and those who were still hanging around teaching stuffs usually did the right things.

The eastern folks also spent lots of time discussing the details of human anatomy too, i.e. it's not a western thing.

Erick Mead
09-22-2011, 05:12 PM
I agree. That is such an abstraction such that it ceases to be useful in any way. If you're going to argue your 'mission statement' please indicate how it has lead to a progression of hip/lower torso movement relevant to the thread. Fair enough. Sorry, I had a sudden attack of work.

All structures are weakest in torsion -- and thus the most effective destructive action on any structure uses this principle. Torsion creates a complex shear stress in the body -- illustrated by the spheres and showing the component parts along with the actual torsional shear in the overlaid spirals. Those are the diagonal relationships as I perceive the opposite side upper lower applications that have been described, and as I employ them to better improve my own and other's training.

The sphere is simply a representative model of the whole body (if one has learned to integrate it) with discontinuities (poles) at the earth and the point of connection to the partner, respectively. It can also represent any portion of a body that has terminal discontinuities (the poles of the sphere) such as a limb segment with its two two end joints.

The places where the spirals cross are the points where the stress on one spiral can most efficiently be compensated by shifting it to the other spiral without changing the spatial dimension of the stress spiral being unloaded. These, cross-over points, not coincidentally, coincide with the upper, middle and lower dantien, or if you prefer -- the head, upper cross, and the pelvic girdle, and present the areas of greatest sensitivity to these actions, with the lower dantien being the most powerful, the upper cross second, and the head last.

Thus, you take a straight-line compression (push, for example) and convert it, shifting it at the dantien into a load in torsion, and relieving the load through stretching on the coordinate tension spiral axis, and NOT by resisting or returning push for push along the direct line of engagement. Hold that push steady in a loaded condition and then relieve it by stretching (developing tension) up and down along the coordinate tension spiral, at right angles, more or less, to the compression spiral.

If the attacker has engaged a push, the shears form a stress field that alters the attacker's structure as well through that connection. It is like untwisting the joint of a twisted balloon-animal (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/big-balls-o-aiki-water-fire-4146/), so that the two connected spheres become one sphere -- making his body steadily conform to that same spiral stress profile as well. Thus, as your structure progressively stabilizes, the attacker's structure progressively destabilizes as his push evaporates -- i.e. kuzushi, and then there is only one structure composed of the both of you -- and you in command of it.

The other thing is the Lissajous curve. The dynamics of aikido follow that profile for reasons tightly related to the stress profiles.

Lorel Latorilla
09-22-2011, 05:50 PM
erick, nobody understands you.

Janet Rosen
09-22-2011, 06:10 PM
erick, nobody understands you.

I'm so glad it's not just me... Erick, I can't dispute the veracity of ANYthing you post....nor am I in a position to tell you it hasn't helped your aikido...but the diagrams and the words you use to explain them are technical jargon from a field I've never studied and might as well be in some ancient codex. I'm glad they work for you.

DH
09-22-2011, 07:12 PM
I'm so glad it's not just me...
1. Erick, I can't dispute the veracity of ANYthing you post....
2 I am not in a position to tell you it hasn't helped your aikido...
3. The diagrams and the words you use to explain them are technical jargon from a field I've never studied and might as well be in some ancient codex
4. I'm glad they work for you.
Ahhhhh..
I finally get it...listen to this kiddo

Rule #1 You cannot say someone is wrong.
Rule #2 You cannot imply they are wrong.
Rule #3 You can only discuss the nature of the topic with them.

So how could you follow those rules and also make a plan to continually blow up discussions of IP/aiki and get away with it ....by the rules... without appearing disingenuous and leave no one an opportunity to challenge the credibility of whatever it is you want to say?


1. Interject yourself into discussions, present models and narratives (that no human understands) whenever the subject of internal power comes up
2. Tell the people teaching IP/aiki on Aikiweb that you are in fact doing what they do and you know what they know. You yourself don't say they are right or wrong, but it places the onus on them to say you are-which they are not allowed to do.
3. Tell them they can't even understand what they themselves do but it is in the model-so you must discuss the model. Which is impossoble to do.
See where this is going? Brilliant!

What happens?
4. You become immune from critique since no one can follow Juns rules and discuss your model on its merits-because it cannot be understood to have any relation to what it is we are talking about or we do.
5. You are free to blow up every thread at will-hoping for those people to leave. Or until someone sees through the ruse and outs you.
Makes sense?
Get it?
We are so dumb. I never saw that before. Sounds like something a good lawyer could dream up. It's brilliant.
Now, bear in mind I am not saying anyone is doing this, but wouldn't it be brilliant?

Dan

Walker
09-22-2011, 07:15 PM
Not brilliant. Just troll creation via natural selection. :straightf

mathewjgano
09-22-2011, 07:33 PM
I really wish I had maintained my physics lessons because I feel close to "getting" what Erick describes. Part of what he describes is a spiral-based balance of opposites, for example, but I'm not sure how it applies to the practice. I also get the sense that, like many mathematical models it describes an abstract ideal...except where he says "more or less," which seems to describe more of what it would really "look" like in practice (non-ideal/not-perfect), which, again, I'm not sure how to apply apart from "[use opposing spirals]." It's as if I'm hearing a description of all the parts of a car (and the correlating physical properties) in order to take driver's ed. Of course, online, it's kind of hard to take driver's ed. anyway. Still, the language is so outside the "normal" language set makes it hard for most people to apply meaningfully.
I feel like I could just as readily describe how sodium and potasium "cause" enlightening thoughts...if that makes sense.
...and of course, this depends on my actually having as much of a clue as I think I do, which I very probably don't.
Still, that's my effort.
Take care, folks,
Matt

DH
09-22-2011, 07:38 PM
Ah common Doug
Give him some credit. It's why none of us could ever make sense out of this. Think of it.
Read the rules, operate within them
Read the intent of the rules
Place the targets in a position to get booted at every turn.

Hey, I hate my attorney. I can hardly sit in a room with him, but man is he brutally effective.
I makes perfect sense now. Brilliant!!
Dan

DH
09-22-2011, 07:58 PM
I really wish I had maintained my physics lessons because I feel close to "getting" what Erick describes. Part of what he describes is a spiral-based balance of opposites, for example, but I'm not sure how it applies to the practice. I also get the sense that, like many mathematical models it describes an abstract ideal...except where he says "more or less," which seems to describe more of what it would really "look" like in practice (non-ideal/not-perfect), which, again, I'm not sure how to apply apart from "[use opposing spirals]." It's as if I'm hearing a description of all the parts of a car (and the correlating physical properties) in order to take driver's ed. Of course, online, it's kind of hard to take driver's ed. anyway. Still, the language is so outside the "normal" language set makes it hard for most people to apply meaningfully.
I feel like I could just as readily describe how sodium and potasium "cause" enlightening thoughts...if that makes sense.
...and of course, this depends on my actually having as much of a clue as I think I do, which I very probably don't.
Still, that's my effort.
Take care, folks,
Matt
I am sure there are three or four other guys here who are intrigued and think they can make that work. I think that you should spend a lot of time going for it. Really work it, Mat. Give it ten years or so and find some other engineer hobbyists who might want to model with you. You never know, you should treat all sources as equal. After all, what if it will help you.
Listen, you should NEVER go to vetted and established sources for material based on word of mouth. I think that Budo model, that has been around for thousand of years...is B.S.
Use Engineering models
Use unvetted source material and people
Re-invent the wheel
And learn body parts off the internet
That's my advice for you.

No right, no wrong,
Good luck
Dan

MM
09-22-2011, 08:27 PM
All structures are weakest in torsion -- and thus the most effective destructive action on any structure uses this principle.


Erick,

Your ideas are full of holes. Big enough to drive mack trucks through. While some people may not get it, that doesn't mean some of us aren't shaking our heads at the lack of information provided by you. You simply don't post enough science behind your ideas to sustain them. Perhaps if you took them to an actual professional or two and had them vetted, you might have some better foundational material for us. As is, though, it's fairly incomplete and so generic that it's almost not worth talking about. Almost.

For example, the above. You are missing some very key components of torsional structures that are completely solid. Perhaps if you did more research?


Torsion creates a complex shear stress in the body -- illustrated by the spheres and showing the component parts along with the actual torsional shear in the overlaid spirals. Those are the diagonal relationships as I perceive the opposite side upper lower applications that have been described, and as I employ them to better improve my own and other's training.


Perhaps they help you in your training, as you say. If so, that's great. However, there are various components of torsional movement that hinge upon spiral spheres interlaced by harmonic fluids which create orbital motion in microcosmic, harmonized localities that you just don't even touch on and that's kind of scary, really. If you understood this material as well as you say, I'd naturally assume you'd talk about them. Maybe you just decided to leave them out?


The sphere is simply a representative model of the whole body (if one has learned to integrate it) with discontinuities (poles) at the earth and the point of connection to the partner, respectively. It can also represent any portion of a body that has terminal discontinuities (the poles of the sphere) such as a limb segment with its two two end joints.

The places where the spirals cross are the points where the stress on one spiral can most efficiently be compensated by shifting it to the other spiral without changing the spatial dimension of the stress spiral being unloaded. These, cross-over points, not coincidentally, coincide with the upper, middle and lower dantien, or if you prefer -- the head, upper cross, and the pelvic girdle, and present the areas of greatest sensitivity to these actions, with the lower dantien being the most powerful, the upper cross second, and the head last.

Thus, you take a straight-line compression (push, for example) and convert it, shifting it at the dantien into a load in torsion, and relieving the load through stretching on the coordinate tension spiral axis, and NOT by resisting or returning push for push along the direct line of engagement. Hold that push steady in a loaded condition and then relieve it by stretching (developing tension) up and down along the coordinate tension spiral, at right angles, more or less, to the compression spiral.


Which really gets you nowhere. Converting the compression via shifting at the dantien only loads specific areas which have already been loaded by your seemingly cross spiral connections and have only induced extra load into an already weak system.

Rather than converting and shifting any load, instead, the micro framework of integrated circuits must be interconnected and be working both dependently and independently throughout the system. Thus when a load interacts with the system, there is no need for converting, shifting, or holding. It is seamlessly meshed in ... well, I won't bore you with the details. I'm sure you know this stuff as you post that you do. It's just ... well, your posts seem so general as to indicate a lack of a thorough knowledge of both phsyics, anatomy, biochemical processes, etc. Although I'm sure that it's just me not reading enough into your posts.


If the attacker has engaged a push, the shears form a stress field that alters the attacker's structure as well through that connection. It is like untwisting the joint of a twisted balloon-animal (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/big-balls-o-aiki-water-fire-4146/), so that the two connected spheres become one sphere -- making his body steadily conform to that same spiral stress profile as well. Thus, as your structure progressively stabilizes, the attacker's structure progressively destabilizes as his push evaporates -- i.e. kuzushi, and then there is only one structure composed of the both of you -- and you in command of it.

The other thing is the Lissajous curve. The dynamics of aikido follow that profile for reasons tightly related to the stress profiles.

Hmm ... stress fields, stress profiles, shears. Who was it that said there was no resistance (i.e. stress) in aikido? So, where are we, exactly, if we have to remove all the stress fields and stress profiles from these ideas?

It's also funny that you mention the Lissajous curve. You realize it has boundaries, right? That Ueshiba's spirals encompassed the Universe, right? Endless. Ever spiraling into infinity. Doesn't sound much like boundaries to me, but hey, I'm sure you meant that the curve be extrapolated into infinity, right?

Anyway, I found your ideas lacking in a lot of areas. If I were a professor at a university, I'd probably look for this kind of work from first year physics students. And then, if I were a professor in internal studies, I'd wonder why someone was just using basic, generic physics theories to try to explain complex motions that were covered by the areas of physics, anatomy, neurology, myology, etc.

So, I'm sure you just didn't give us everything that you know, right?

mathewjgano
09-22-2011, 09:07 PM
I am sure there are three or four other guys here who are intrigued and think they can make that work. I think that you should spend a lot of time going for it. Really work it, Mat. Give it ten years or so and find some other engineer hobbyists who might want to model with you. You never know, you should treat all sources as equal. After all, what if it will help you.
Listen, you should NEVER go to vetted and established sources for material based on word of mouth. I think that Budo model, that has been around for thousand of years...is B.S.
Use Engineering models
Use unvetted source material and people
Re-invent the wheel
And learn body parts off the internet
That's my advice for you.

No right, no wrong,
Good luck
Dan
If that's your advice to me, I'll take the advice given to others then!:D
I'm just doing my best (I know it's not particulalry good) to translate: mental gymnastics for a science lover. Others on this site who know physics better than me have expressed their frustration in trying to apply these models meaningfully so I'm really not trying to add any validation one way or another...well I take that back. I was critical of the usefulness of such models. I'd just as soon say "dual opposing spirals," and then go experience what that might feel like. I think the learning of martial arts is far more visceral than intellectual. People did IT before physics could describe torsion tubes and the like...and I suspect simple IS was exhibited before the invention of words. Manifesting the idea is not the idea itself. They are two very different kinds of understanding...and that's assuming the idea even meshes with the reality.
It is like trying to learn to drive from engineering models. You still have to get in the car and even then you still have no guarentee you'll be a good driver until you compare your driving with other drivers.
Like I also said, I can describe how synapses work, but this doesn't tell you that I can think well. Similarly, anyone who describes some of the mechanics involved doesn't necessarily know how to manifest aiki.
So to sum up, I'm not saying he is describing what you're describing. He's taking some of the ideas you've expressed and trying to apply them to his own understanding. If he's making claims of understanding what you understand, i don't see how that's possible considering I'm pretty sure you two have yet to meet.
People are allowed to be wrong. I'm not trying to say who I think is right or wrong; simply trying to work through the ideas presented and apply my own understanding, lacking though it is in both mechanics AND aiki...which probably makes me a bit of a fool.
Churchill once quipped it was better to have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. I disagree with him. I want people to know I'm a fool so they can help fill me in on the particulars. You've helped me with some of that.
At any rate, this is a pretty big tangent to a thread I told myself I wasn't going to add to, but I hope it holds some value.
Take care,
Matt

mathewjgano
09-22-2011, 09:42 PM
:D"See a doctor; get rid of it." Words to live by according to Navin Johnson.

akiy
09-22-2011, 11:35 PM
Rule #1 You cannot say someone is wrong.
Rule #2 You cannot imply they are wrong.
Rule #3 You can only discuss the nature of the topic with them.

I believe you are obliquely directing these above comments towards my requests. If this is incorrect, please feel free to ignore my clarifications below.

What I wrote was:

Please stay away from directing your posts at the poster rather than the topic being discussed.

If you disagree with a post, please take the time to point out the ways in which you disagree rather than writing, directly or indirectly, that the poster is wrong.

and:

Similarly, people dismissing someone's thoughts by posting only a disagreement without taking the time to point out the ways in which that person disagrees does not amount to much of a positive contribution to a thread -- and neither does people directing their posts at the poster rather than the topic

I can see how someone may interpret what I wrote in my first quote that "you cannot say someone is wrong." I probably should have written, "If you disagree with a post, please take the time to point out the ways in which you disagree rather than writing, directly or indirectly, only that the poster is wrong."

Disagreements and, in fact, pointing out flaws in other people's arguments are a welcome part of the discussions here -- as long as said disagreements and pointing out flaws is written towards discussing the topic rather than discussing the poster behind the topic. I would very much appreciate it if the whole of what I wrote could be taken to heart rather than small parts being taken out of context.

I have been a bit more active in putting in these kinds of requests within the threads because I have received more than a few pieces of feedback that the tone and rhetoric that people seem to employ here are negative, (passive) aggressive, and personal. These requests are an effort on my part to try to moderate the tone of what is being discussed.

So, please folks. I'm asking all of you to help make this website into a place where constructive discussions can take place in a positive manner.

Thank you,

-- Jun

Erick Mead
09-22-2011, 11:52 PM
erick, nobody understands you.Since I'm not selling anything -- that's --probably-- OK. I've lived 45 years in this condition so I'm used to it. I sought understanding of what I know and feel. I do not believe anyone contends it is trivial to describe what is done, or what can or should be be felt.

No one else has, in the five years I have been working on this topic, seriously worked out a mechanically valid description of things that I know work in aikido and related arts.The closest and due credit to him for using the traditional sources to that end is Sigman, but he feels the traditional chinese source concepts work in their own terms -- which I have no disagreement with, at all, they do, and they do quite well.

The other option seems to eschew concept altogether for "do... this, now do ... this" -- fine, that works , too, but we're leaving a big gap in our ability not merely to transmit knowledge but to develop it further in self-consistent ways and not just haphazardly

But those traditional terms are not OUR terms. We have internet discussion groups on all sorts of topics as arcane as you can imagine -- where the concepts in question have been carefully worked out so that they can be consistently discussed. We deserve to work these concepts out in a way that does not require that in depth traditional conceptual system as a first condition, nor yet that has no way to name in an objectively consistent way what is occurring and why when something is done, apart from being shown ".. this". Go look at your favorite threads and see how many get bogged down in trying to understand even traditional concepts because of conflcting and ambiguous terms of reference.

My development of concepts has been slow but each step builds on the last. At this point, I have not laid out a totally comprehensive description, although the main conclusions and the reasons for them are now perfectly clear to me. But the point in question in this topic was whether there was any discussion of a concept that explained the action in terms of opposite side upper/lower coordination, and my working out of these ideas led me precisely to that point in my own ideas and training.

I could try to be less piecemeal -- but the forum treatment does not lend itself to that , and the audience is not (necessarily) that patient. The blogs do allow more room to an extent, and I've worked on them over there. Somebody reads them.

But when you are working with a concept that BEGINS by breaking the more common western category boundaries in mechanics, you must work in terms of other mechanical concepts less common to the ordinary person. Mechanics requires a choice of conventions. Some conventions work for some applications and sometimes you require others.

I cannot find car keys you dropped in the dark two blocks back by looking under the lamppost here just because the light is better and you can more comfortably see. All the dissatisfaction in the world won't put the carkeys under the lamppost, until you first locate them in the dark and bring them there. I use the more murky terms out of recognition of their operation from my mechanical experience in aviation as well as aikido, and out of necessity -- not choice.

The goal is to take an accurate model and then make it useful -- not simply to work on mechanically useful things without understanding them in valid concepts. If I depend entirely on what is shown then I am limited by what I am shown. If I grasp the why of the thing, I am more likely to discover applications of the concepts that no one may have shown to any one yet, or see things in what I am shown that go beyond what is meant to be shown to me.

There seems to be no easier way. It is hard to simplify an idea until it is completely developed. I post periodically simply to glean any useful comments to aid the effort from those who have reason to care. I am trying to find concrete models to speed the process of understanding with more intuitive simplicity. This one is accurate and descriptive -- whether it is useful for your purposes may remain to be seen.

Lorel Latorilla
09-23-2011, 12:06 AM
Since I'm not selling anything -- that's --probably-- OK. I've lived 45 years in this condition so I'm used to it. I sought understanding of what I know and feel. I do not believe anyone contends it is trivial to describe what is done, or what can or should be be felt.

No one else has, in the five years I have been working on this topic, seriously worked out a mechanically valid description of things that I know work in aikido and related arts.The closest and due credit to him for using the traditional sources to that end is Sigman, but he feels the traditional chinese source concepts work in their own terms -- which I have no disagreement with, at all, they do, and they do quite well.

The other option seems to eschew concept altogether for "do... this, now do ... this" -- fine, that works , too, but we're leaving a big gap in our ability not merely to transmit knowledge but to develop it further in self-consistent ways and not just haphazardly

But those traditional terms are not OUR terms. We have internet discussion groups on all sorts of topics as arcane as you can imagine -- where the concepts in question have been carefully worked out so that they can be consistently discussed. We deserve to work these concepts out in a way that does not require that in depth traditional conceptual system as a first condition, nor yet that has no way to name in an objectively consistent way what is occurring and why when something is done, apart from being shown ".. this". Go look at your favorite threads and see how many get bogged down in trying to understand even traditional concepts because of conflcting and ambiguous terms of reference.

My development of concepts has been slow but each step builds on the last. At this point, I have not laid out a totally comprehensive description, although the main conclusions and the reasons for them are now perfectly clear to me. But the point in question in this topic was whether there was any discussion of a concept that explained the action in terms of opposite side upper/lower coordination, and my working out of these ideas led me precisely to that point in my own ideas and training.

I could try to be less piecemeal -- but the forum treatment does not lend itself to that , and the audience is not (necessarily) that patient. The blogs do allow more room to an extent, and I've worked on them over there. Somebody reads them.

But when you are working with a concept that BEGINS by breaking the more common western category boundaries in mechanics, you must work in terms of other mechanical concepts less common to the ordinary person. Mechanics requires a choice of conventions. Some conventions work for some applications and sometimes you require others.

I cannot find car keys you dropped in the dark two blocks back by looking under the lamppost here just because the light is better and you can more comfortably see. All the dissatisfaction in the world won't put the carkeys under the lamppost, until you first locate them in the dark and bring them there. I use the more murky terms out of recognition of their operation from my mechanical experience in aviation as well as aikido, and out of necessity -- not choice.

The goal is to take an accurate model and then make it useful -- not simply to work on mechanically useful things without understanding them in valid concepts. If I depend entirely on what is shown then I am limited by what I am shown. If I grasp the why of the thing, I am more likely to discover applications of the concepts that no one may have shown to any one yet, or see things in what I am shown that go beyond what is meant to be shown to me.

There seems to be no easier way. It is hard to simplify an idea until it is completely developed. I post periodically simply to glean any useful comments to aid the effort from those who have reason to care. I am trying to find concrete models to speed the process of understanding with more intuitive simplicity. This one is accurate and descriptive -- whether it is useful for your purposes may remain to be seen.

I dont know what you are trying to say here, but really, I dont think your average lay person here will go out of his way to buy a physics book, take a physics class, just to understand your freaking posts. That money is better spent dropping money on an air ticket and going to a seminar with Sam Chin and getting hands on instruction.

Erick Mead
09-23-2011, 07:29 AM
I dont know what you are trying to say here, but really, I dont think your average lay person here will go out of his way to buy a physics book, take a physics class, just to understand your freaking posts. That money is better spent dropping money on an air ticket and going to a seminar with Sam Chin and getting hands on instruction.:sorry: I am sure he is wonderful. I tried to explain. I am not going to be selling a physics book, nor any book on martial arts. This is not a bookstore. But as you say -- nobody understands me. And that is the problem -- understanding. Understanding things of this nature seems in the usual case to come down in the end to personal attachments and a poorly,understood mode of action that leads to mystiques of power -- which-- you may note, also explains nothing. There is a long tradition of both modes of learning, And they can be quite effective in action -- but not necessarily in understanding. So I am NOT saying don't follow them if they suit you. I am simply not satisfied that those are our only options.

A conceptual understanding does not substitute for training, but training without conceptual understanding, means however effective one may become there is no simple way to articulate what you do, how and why. Rough analogy, metaphor and image become the only tools. Anyone reading the Doka can see what that leaves us to deal with when the interpreter of his own imagesis no longer around. And I say that finding great value and concrete guides to what I have studied in the Doka.

But the problem with that approach remains. Without conceptual understanding and objective terms there is no way to judge the relation between differing approaches-- without devolving into critiques of personal imagery or approach, at which most people take offense -- precisely because it IS PERSONAL. It devolves in the next layer of teaching into contests of loyalty and it (usually) ends constructive debate and becomes about the relative value of the person, clique, faction etc. whatever. The histories of both Aikido and DTR plainly show this.

Flying teaches you that "feel" and seat of the pants understandings of physical actions can easily get you killed -- because your senses will let you believe things that are not objectively true. Flying is equally about honing instinctive physical actions and interpreting what the sensory cues are telling you, but it is not always according to cues a lay person would understand. Pilots still feel the need to objectively understand the forces and senses they are exploiting, because ordinary assumptions are not necessarily applicable. The question is what the true assumptions are -- and why.

What we deal in is a similar kind of physicality in training. Bipedal human beings are closer tyo the mecvhnics of flying than to the mechanics of a pyramid. Like flying, we deal in dynamic stability -- not static stability. That difference changes the mode of mechanics you use to describe things, and lay understanding is generally pretty poor when it comes to concepts of dynamic stability.

Physical concepts, if objectively valid, have no loyalty, and no enmity. They are a bridge between such subjective approaches, however, and those approaches lead to problems that can be avoided.

MM
09-23-2011, 08:34 AM
But as you say -- nobody understands me. And that is the problem -- understanding.


That isn't true. There are people reading who do understand what you've written. But, at the same time, the ideas you've presented are at such a low level that they're almost not worth talking about.

For example, someone asks the questions, "How do I win the Indianapolis 500?"

And then someone answers, "you take a straight-line compression (push, for example) and convert it into a load in torsion, and relieving the load through stretching the leg on the coordinate tension spiral axis such that energy is redirected downward into the ground." A long way around to simply saying, "You push down on the gas pedal."

Technically, yes, you can win the Indy 500 by pushing down on the gas pedal. But it's such an extremely low level understanding of what's really going on that it's almost not worth building a conversation around. And not having actually driven a race car, let alone won the Indy 500, it's all simple theory. Everyone knows that theory is not reality.

I'm surprised you post these fairly simple ideas out there as I'm sure you're capable of much more involved studies dealing with the entirety of aspects covered such as, but not limited to, bones, muscles, ligaments, tendons, fascia, the chemical, electrical, and nervous system of the body, high level physics detailing motion in the human body, etc.

I'm really looking forward to your posts where you cover everything that's going on rather than strictly simple theoretical "push on the gas pedal" type posts.

Mark

gregstec
09-23-2011, 08:35 AM
:sorry: I am sure he is wonderful. I tried to explain. I am not going to be selling a physics book, nor any book on martial arts. This is not a bookstore. But as you say -- nobody understands me. And that is the problem -- understanding. Understanding things of this nature seems in the usual case to come down in the end to personal attachments and a poorly,understood mode of action that leads to mystiques of power -- which-- you may note, also explains nothing. There is a long tradition of both modes of learning, And they can be quite effective in action -- but not necessarily in understanding. So I am NOT saying don't follow them if they suit you. I am simply not satisfied that those are our only options.

A conceptual understanding does not substitute for training, but training without conceptual understanding, means however effective one may become there is no simple way to articulate what you do, how and why. Rough analogy, metaphor and image become the only tools. Anyone reading the Doka can see what that leaves us to deal with when the interpreter of his own imagesis no longer around. And I say that finding great value and concrete guides to what I have studied in the Doka.

But the problem with that approach remains. Without conceptual understanding and objective terms there is no way to judge the relation between differing approaches-- without devolving into critiques of personal imagery or approach, at which most people take offense -- precisely because it IS PERSONAL. It devolves in the next layer of teaching into contests of loyalty and it (usually) ends constructive debate and becomes about the relative value of the person, clique, faction etc. whatever. The histories of both Aikido and DTR plainly show this.

Flying teaches you that "feel" and seat of the pants understandings of physical actions can easily get you killed -- because your senses will let you believe things that are not objectively true. Flying is equally about honing instinctive physical actions and interpreting what the sensory cues are telling you, but it is not always according to cues a lay person would understand. Pilots still feel the need to objectively understand the forces and senses they are exploiting, because ordinary assumptions are not necessarily applicable. The question is what the true assumptions are -- and why.

What we deal in is a similar kind of physicality in training. Bipedal human beings are closer tyo the mecvhnics of flying than to the mechanics of a pyramid. Like flying, we deal in dynamic stability -- not static stability. That difference changes the mode of mechanics you use to describe things, and lay understanding is generally pretty poor when it comes to concepts of dynamic stability.

Physical concepts, if objectively valid, have no loyalty, and no enmity. They are a bridge between such subjective approaches, however, and those approaches lead to problems that can be avoided.

Erick,

The bottom line here is that you need to write to the level of the audience so your message gets through and not write to impress so everyone can see how smart you are - that is basic communications. I have a technical background and I can follow your stuff somewhat - but it does not have to be that difficult in a lay person forum. I understand that in the judicial environment you may want to dazzle folks with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit, but this is not the place for that type of stuff.

Greg

Lorel Latorilla
09-23-2011, 09:38 AM
:sorry: I am sure he is wonderful. I tried to explain. I am not going to be selling a physics book, nor any book on martial arts. This is not a bookstore. But as you say -- nobody understands me. And that is the problem -- understanding. Understanding things of this nature seems in the usual case to come down in the end to personal attachments and a poorly,understood mode of action that leads to mystiques of power -- which-- you may note, also explains nothing. There is a long tradition of both modes of learning, And they can be quite effective in action -- but not necessarily in understanding. So I am NOT saying don't follow them if they suit you. I am simply not satisfied that those are our only options.

A conceptual understanding does not substitute for training, but training without conceptual understanding, means however effective one may become there is no simple way to articulate what you do, how and why. Rough analogy, metaphor and image become the only tools. Anyone reading the Doka can see what that leaves us to deal with when the interpreter of his own imagesis no longer around. And I say that finding great value and concrete guides to what I have studied in the Doka.

But the problem with that approach remains. Without conceptual understanding and objective terms there is no way to judge the relation between differing approaches-- without devolving into critiques of personal imagery or approach, at which most people take offense -- precisely because it IS PERSONAL. It devolves in the next layer of teaching into contests of loyalty and it (usually) ends constructive debate and becomes about the relative value of the person, clique, faction etc. whatever. The histories of both Aikido and DTR plainly show this.

Flying teaches you that "feel" and seat of the pants understandings of physical actions can easily get you killed -- because your senses will let you believe things that are not objectively true. Flying is equally about honing instinctive physical actions and interpreting what the sensory cues are telling you, but it is not always according to cues a lay person would understand. Pilots still feel the need to objectively understand the forces and senses they are exploiting, because ordinary assumptions are not necessarily applicable. The question is what the true assumptions are -- and why.

What we deal in is a similar kind of physicality in training. Bipedal human beings are closer tyo the mecvhnics of flying than to the mechanics of a pyramid. Like flying, we deal in dynamic stability -- not static stability. That difference changes the mode of mechanics you use to describe things, and lay understanding is generally pretty poor when it comes to concepts of dynamic stability.

Physical concepts, if objectively valid, have no loyalty, and no enmity. They are a bridge between such subjective approaches, however, and those approaches lead to problems that can be avoided.

Erick, for you to presume that you have solved the problem and captured the essence of bodyskill is pretty grand. I would love to go to your seminars and touch hands with you and learn from you. I would rather do that than read your indecipherable descriptions of bodyskill. You ever gonna come out here to Japan soon and do a seminar?

Tenyu
09-23-2011, 10:01 AM
twisted balloon-animal (http://www.aikiweb.com/blogs/but-why-7854/big-balls-o-aiki-water-fire-4146/)

Erick,

In your spherical shear spiral figure, I assume the bottom pole refers to nage's feet. If so how does the sphere's one connection with the ground translate across nage's two legs and feet? Does this concentration of spirals you term as a discontinuity in your description imply resistance between nage and the ground?

Lastly, there is a kind fifth mode of action, and it also depends on this transitional mechanism -- which involves the rapid successive and continuous transition action between them, a shuddering, vibratory action shown in furitama/tekubi-furi and described as the "spirit of bees" in the Doka. Ark is well-reputed to use this mode to great effect as can be seen on various videos. I use it routinely in kokyunage throws without having to shift weight laterally.

Can you link a video showing this?

thanks,
Tenyu

akiy
09-23-2011, 11:15 AM
Thread closed.

Stop with directing your posts at the poster and not at the topic, folks.

-- Jun