Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push [Archive]

chillzATL

01-24-2013, 10:18 AM

This is spawned from the "Internal Vs External" thread. I feel it would be more productive to take a simple, basic task and discuss how that same task is accomplished by someone with an internal focus vs. someone with a traditional, athletic, external focus.

Setup: The receiver stands with their feet roughly shoulder width apart, arm raised to the side and extended, palm facing out. Their goal is to receive/resist a push to the palm of that hand while maintaining their upright structural integrity.

External method: The typical way that everyone I've ever experienced, including myself, responds to this is by tensing the muscles of the arm and shoulder first. For a low force push, this is usually enough to resist it and remain stable and upright, but as the force of the push increases, so does the amount of muscle tension that's introduced to hold the frame together and keep it rigid. Once fatigue sets in or the amount of force surpasses what the persons muscles can handle, the integrity of the frame starts to break down and they will be bent, pushed over, or often times will start leaning into the push to counter the force acting against their frame, making them susceptible to being off balanced by removing that force. Someone with more muscle (aka, strength) can resist more force for longer periods of time before that frame breaks down.

Internal Method: On the surface and at its most basic level, the goal is to maintain the structure of the frame. Where the two methods differ is that normally a person will flex muscle to hold the frame rigid against a force. Someone with an internal focus will instead relax those muscles, which in essence allows the joints of the body to compress upon themselves to maintain the structure of the frame. There is a significant amount of conditioning that goes into allowing this happen, so initially you can't do this against a high level of force. The muscles of the body will instinctively kick in to hold the frame, but with consistent, low force repetition the joints of the body and those 'inner muscles" become conditioned to support those forces without the major muscles of the body kicking in to support the frame. Initially you might find that while you're able to keep the shoulder relaxed against a light force, you'll notice that other muscles, your lower back muscles for instance, are firing up to hold the frame. In my experience, there is a progression of relaxing the muscles, conditioning the joints and then noticing where the muscular tension has moved and then focusing on relaxing/conditioning those areas. The end result, regardless of the amount force one can handle, is that the solidity of the ground is presented through the person's body. So that when a force acts against that body, it is in effect pushing on the ground. This is the earth in heaven and earth. It also has a side-effect of naturally keeping a persons weight down.

Int Notes 1: This is meant to be a very basic view of this particular aspect of IP. At progressing levels, there are other things that come into play to augment those conditioned joints, provide additional structure to assist in handling/distributing those forces and to further remove slack from the body so that there is no movement or slippage in the body and those forces are cleanly conveyed to the ground. The tensing of muscle breaks that conveyance of force. Intent also plays a big part in both using those other structures and also manipulating and routing those forces through the body to the ground and elsewhere. Also, the point I made about the joints compressing in on themselves is meant to be the most basic of basic. With some conditioning the joints stop behaving that way and again, intent plays a big part.

Int Note 2: While this may seem to be just another trick or technique, which on some level it may be, it is meant to be a system for how one carries their body, a state of being. You always carry your body this way and focus on keeping it that way, so that anything that comes in contact with your body is essentially coming in contact with the ground without the need to ready yourself or react. It's "just there" in the same way that a steel pole buried in the ground is always "just there" waiting for you to hit it and bounce off it. The steel pole doesn't have to become ready. It is always conveying the solidity of the ground back at anything that acts against it.

I believe that the distinction between these two modes of body usage to accomplish the same task are pretty clear. Feel free to comment and compare, but please, keep the comments focused on the basics of what this example is meant to cover.

Lee Salzman

01-25-2013, 04:34 AM

Standard disclaimer applies - i.e. my understanding is still a work in progress and bla-bla, reading my crap is more likely to send you astray then help you, etc. etc..

I think it is important to note that the ground here and ground-reaction-force does not have to be special. That is, grounding force meets up here with the "balloon man" idea. If you are lightly expanded in all directions, then force can hit the surface of the balloon, ride the surface, and come out somewhere else. In the direct case, it can touch one side, and come out the other side. This is as opposed to creating a frame with specific lines through which stuff goes down, like the skeleton.

There is not relaxation, per se, so much as a light tonus that is induced by making the mind work to expand the body everywhere to support that balloon, the whole internal bit.

I think something I was trying to emphasize in the other thread when responding to Chris Hein, was that a simple push is almost never a simple push. The push may just look like someone pushing you from the front, but even as it boils down to physics, this applies all sorts of weirds torques and directions to the body. So just trying to set up a single pathway from the push to the ground rarely ever works out so well, and this is one of the reasons the whole balloon man thing seems to better account for all the variables - if only because your brain can't think through the micro-level physics of it - so rather than try to, just handle everything...

ChrisHein

01-25-2013, 02:31 PM

This is spawned from the "Internal Vs External" thread. I feel it would be more productive to take a simple, basic task and discuss how that same task is accomplished by someone with an internal focus vs. someone with a traditional, athletic, external focus.

Cool!

Setup: The receiver stands with their feet roughly shoulder width apart, arm raised to the side and extended, palm facing out. Their goal is to receive/resist a push to the palm of that hand while maintaining their upright structural integrity.

External method: The typical way that everyone I've ever experienced, including myself, responds to this is by tensing the muscles of the arm and shoulder first. For a low force push, this is usually enough to resist it and remain stable and upright, but as the force of the push increases, so does the amount of muscle tension that's introduced to hold the frame together and keep it rigid. Once fatigue sets in or the amount of force surpasses what the persons muscles can handle, the integrity of the frame starts to break down and they will be bent, pushed over, or often times will start leaning into the push to counter the force acting against their frame, making them susceptible to being off balanced by removing that force. Someone with more muscle (aka, strength) can resist more force for longer periods of time before that frame breaks down.

This is correct, but a little misleading. If someone is pushing on me, and I have good alignment, they will always wear out before I do. Often when I'm showing this, I will talk effortlessly with the class, explaining the alignments, and forget about the person pushing on me. I have had Uke's fall down because they over exerted themselves. Once good alignment is achieved you can take a huge amount of force for a VERY long time.

In this set up, you need enough muscle tension to align the body. Once good alignment is achieved not much more tension is added to the muscles, because there is a clear channel to the ground.

Basically it's a matter of levers. The smaller you can make your levers, in relation to their fulcrums the less muscular tension you need. If you make very good alignment the amount of tension needed, as the incoming force goes up, doesn't increase Significantly.

Internal Method: On the surface and at its most basic level, the goal is to maintain the structure of the frame. Where the two methods differ is that normally a person will flex muscle to hold the frame rigid against a force. Someone with an internal focus will instead relax those muscles,

I start to see trouble when we say "relax the muscles". If we are talking about a relative relaxation, good athletics teach us the same thing. If we are talking about a total relaxation, what is holding the "frame" up?

which in essence allows the joints of the body to compress upon themselves to maintain the structure of the frame. There is a significant amount of conditioning that goes into allowing this happen,

What is being conditioned? Is it the muscles? If so, why/how? Is it the mind? If it's the mind, then what is the mind doing the work with?

so initially you can't do this against a high level of force. The muscles of the body will instinctively kick in to hold the frame, but with consistent, low force repetition the joints of the body and those 'inner muscles" become conditioned to support those forces without the major muscles of the body kicking in to support the frame. Initially you might find that while you're able to keep the shoulder relaxed against a light force, you'll notice that other muscles, your lower back muscles for instance, are firing up to hold the frame. In my experience, there is a progression of relaxing the muscles, conditioning the joints and then noticing where the muscular tension has moved and then focusing on relaxing/conditioning those areas. The end result, regardless of the amount force one can handle, is that the solidity of the ground is presented through the person's body. So that when a force acts against that body, it is in effect pushing on the ground. This is the earth in heaven and earth. It also has a side-effect of naturally keeping a persons weight down.

This is basically how I would hold this position. It's also how I believe most athletes who practice sports involving this kind of resistance would do it.

One of the things I think most 'internal' proponents don't understand, is that modern athletics is using all of the same good body mechanics that 'internal' people are.

chillzATL

01-25-2013, 03:50 PM

This is correct, but a little misleading. If someone is pushing on me, and I have good alignment, they will always wear out before I do. Often when I'm showing this, I will talk effortlessly with the class, explaining the alignments, and forget about the person pushing on me. I have had Uke's fall down because they over exerted themselves. Once good alignment is achieved you can take a huge amount of force for a VERY long time.

In this set up, you need enough muscle tension to align the body. Once good alignment is achieved not much more tension is added to the muscles, because there is a clear channel to the ground.

Basically it's a matter of levers. The smaller you can make your levers, in relation to their fulcrums the less muscular tension you need. If you make very good alignment the amount of tension needed, as the incoming force goes up, doesn't increase Significantly.

It's more than just good alignment. This example uses skeletal alignment because it's the easiest way to feel what we're talking about, but as mentioned elsewhere, alignment is not required. The point isn't simply replicating the trick over and over. The point is to feel that way all the time, still, in movement, from any direction or angle, so that the ground is always there. There is no localized muscle tension blocking the force passing through you to the ground cleanly.

I start to see trouble when we say "relax the muscles". If we are talking about a relative relaxation, good athletics teach us the same thing. If we are talking about a total relaxation, what is holding the "frame" up?

I went on to expand on that beyond simply "relax the muscles". The way you separate it from the rest of the sentence changes the context where it does not need to be changed. What I added to it, IMO, fairly clearly separates it from normal athletics.

What is being conditioned? Is it the muscles? If so, why/how? Is it the mind? If it's the mind, then what is the mind doing the work with?

In the beginning I think it's the muscles under the muscles, for lack of anything better. I can't say for sure though. There was a process of working that relaxed feeling in the various joints down through my body that took place, and "muscles" in those joints would get fatigued in the same way my quads would after working legs at the gym, but again, more in the joint. The mind plays a part, but in the basic example I gave, shouldn't really matter.

This is basically how I would hold this position. It's also how I believe most athletes who practice sports involving this kind of resistance would do it.

Again, it's not about simply replicating one trick, which is what you make it out to be. I completely disagree with your assessment that most athletes are going to do this too. Go to the gym and grab a few people, put them in this position and simply say "resist my push" and see how many of them respond as I described. I'm willing to say that 100% of them will respond by physically flexing the muscles of their body, the ones people commonly train, to resist a push, 100%.

One of the things I think most 'internal' proponents don't understand, is that modern athletics is using all of the same good body mechanics that 'internal' people are.

Do you honestly think that nobody who tries to discuss this stuff with you knows anything about athletics? Just you? That's really what this suggests.

ChrisHein

01-25-2013, 04:16 PM

I don't mean to sound like I'm the only one who understands athletics, sorry. However, when you sayd things like:

I completely disagree with your assessment that most athletes are going to do this too. Go to the gym and grab a few people, put them in this position and simply say "resist my push" and see how many of them respond as I described. I'm willing to say that 100% of them will respond by physically flexing the muscles of their body, the ones people commonly train, to resist a push, 100%.

It makes me have to state these things over and over. I am talking about good athletes, just like you are talking about good 'internal' people. If you go to an 'internal' seminar and did the same thing, most of the 'internal' people there would react poorly as well. Good athletes use there bodies correctly, bad athletes don't. Good internal people use their body correctly, bad internal people don't. It's just that I believe the 'good' ones on both sides of the fence are doing the same things, and you don't. So that's what we are discussing.

The idea/theory that you can make good alignment in all directions at the same time is an interesting one. But how are we going to do that? I think this is the question, and sticking point between us.

From my perspective, you describe good athletics, and describe that as being the beginning stage of 'internal'. But when I ask how it goes beyond this stage, I just keep seeing something like "it just does".

That's what I'm interested in talking about- how does it do that? Are we using some sort of internal air pressure, or some kind of hydraulic system? Are we using another kind of power, other then muscles? Or are we using mental imagery to create better use of muscles?

What is it that 'internal' does differently. When I ask that question I just get examples of results, and not explanations of how those results are achieved. I'm not trying to argue but I don't know how these things are suppose to work. And if no one else does, why make the assumption that something radically different is happening inside of the body?

ChrisHein

01-25-2013, 04:47 PM

tanthalas

01-25-2013, 05:22 PM

It makes me have to state these things over and over. I am talking about good athletes, just like you are talking about good 'internal' people.

I think one of the major points of contention comes from your attempt to take descriptions from the IP language and applying them directly to what athletes are doing... or at the very least, taking people's descriptions of IP movements and simply saying "Athletes do that too!"

Perhaps it might be helpful to attack it from a different direction -- that is: establish a baseline definition on what you think good athletes are doing using your own words, preferably using fairly neutral and mechanical terms.

From there, we might be able to do a reverse mapping of what good IP people do using more neutral terms as well (or we might not), and see if they match up.

To get the ball rolling, something along the lines of... "Describe how a good athlete would setup their body to resist a push of 5 lbs, 25lbs 100 lbs, 200 lbs... and so on."

HL1978

01-25-2013, 05:49 PM

I'm interested in hearing/seeing other examples of how this problem might be solved in an 'internal' way.

http://mikesigman.blogspot.com/2012/11/jin-energy-and-other-terms.html

Forrest's sink the chi Stupid Jin Trick is a representation of peng jin.

You can use what I was referring to in the other thread.

Structural alignment will eventually fail given enough force. When you are using jin, it doesn't quite work that way as the other person never can exert their full potential on you because they're always off balance.

ChrisHein

01-25-2013, 05:55 PM

To get the ball rolling, something along the lines of... "Describe how a good athlete would setup their body to resist a push of 5 lbs, 25lbs 100 lbs, 200 lbs... and so on."

Good idea.

So our problem,

We are standing there with our hand out to our sides, and a force is coming in, we want to resist this force.

If you were 'bad' at working with your body. I wouldn't call this athletic, or external or anything other then bad body use. You wouldn't change the structure of your body, you would simply let the force come in and use all the muscular tension you could muster to fight the force.

If you were 'athletic' facing the same problem. You would align your body to the force, activate only the muscle groups needed, and use your skeletal muscular body to the best possible results.

So that is how I would basically outline the difference between 'bad' body use and 'good' (athletic) body use in this situation.

ChrisHein

01-25-2013, 06:01 PM

http://mikesigman.blogspot.com/2012/11/jin-energy-and-other-terms.html

Forrest's sink the chi Stupid Jin Trick is a representation of peng jin.

You can use what I was referring to in the other thread.

Structural alignment will eventually fail given enough force. When you are using jin, it doesn't quite work that way as the other person never can exert their full potential on you because they're always off balance.

Okay, now I can get on board with this. However, we are talking about something other then 'personal body skill' here. We are talking about taking the other persons ideas, and intention into account. This is leaving the arena of body skill and becoming a human relational skill.

Things like the other person being off balance doesn't have to do with the way you are using your body anymore, and it now has to do with how you place yourself in relation to them. These are the kinds of things I think Ueshiba was talking about. But this is not what I have been lead to believe the main interest of the "IP" community is talking about.

Sy Labthavikul

01-25-2013, 06:46 PM

I don't know if "your partner is always off balance" automatically converts the interaction from a body skill to a "relational" skill.

Ever see a wobble board or bosu board? Google it if you haven't. Its a hard plastic disc, about 2 feet in diameter, with half of a squishy, wobbly ball stuck on one side. Its designed to introduce instability to exercises. If I were to hypothetically push horizontally, hands against hands, on my identical physical twin, we'd be in stalemate. Now if I were to put this wobble board between us, the rigid, hard side against my hands, but the wobbly, half sphere for my identical twin to push on - I've got a significant advantage.

To me, I'm pushing a solid object. I don't have to stabilize. To my partner, he's got to constantly adjust himself because his hands are moving and sinking into this wobbly thing.

Our relation to each other hasn't changed - I haven't dodged, or mentally tricked him. But my partner is constantly having to stabilize and balance and can't put the full force of his body behind his push. Pushing on people who do taiji pushhands feels like this - the inexperienced use big movements of their arms, spine, and legs to keep you from "setting yourself" - but the really experienced people barely move at all. It definitely is a body skill.

phitruong

01-25-2013, 07:34 PM

ChrisHein

01-26-2013, 02:26 AM

ChrisHein

01-26-2013, 02:27 AM

i believed one of the problem with using structure alignment to resist a push is the power of the push pins your body in place, which is not good if you want to be mobile afterward, as the push continues. as Hunter mentioned, structure alignment will fail with sufficient force, but that's the next stage. resisting a simple direction push is only part of the requirement, but we need to understand the bigger picture of this which includes mobility, manage increasing load, and multiple directional forces. so what we do for a simple directional push must fit into the larger picture later. we can't just do one thing for this and use different set of respond for others. see Vlad comment (second hand) in this post http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=322631&postcount=2

I agree, there are lot's of problems with using structural alignment to deal with force. The reasons you sighted are good ones.

But my question is, what else can you do? How can you better deal with strong force coming in? The way I described is the best way I know how (within the confines of 'taking' the force). If there is another way, what is that way?

HL1978

01-26-2013, 07:24 AM

I agree, there are lot's of problems with using structural alignment to deal with force. The reasons you sighted are good ones.

But my question is, what else can you do? How can you better deal with strong force coming in? The way I described is the best way I know how (within the confines of 'taking' the force). If there is another way, what is that way?

The thing is, you never want to really let that force come in, because it will effect you. That is the inherent weakness in structure. If your structure is compromised, there are ways to fix it, but it is of course dangerous to you when you are trying to fix it.

You always want to redirect it in some other way, because if it starts to effect you, and the other guy is skilled/strong enough, you will loose. If they aren't all that skilled, then you might be able to recover, and the other person will feel it kind of switch from on-off-back on as you can re-establish within yourself.

If you are able to balance those forces within yourself, the other person won't be able to compromise you, unless you screw it up within yourself when you move.

ChrisHein

01-26-2013, 12:13 PM

The thing is, you never want to really let that force come in, because it will effect you. That is the inherent weakness in structure. If your structure is compromised, there are ways to fix it, but it is of course dangerous to you when you are trying to fix it.

You always want to redirect it in some other way, because if it starts to effect you, and the other guy is skilled/strong enough, you will loose. If they aren't all that skilled, then you might be able to recover, and the other person will feel it kind of switch from on-off-back on as you can re-establish within yourself.

Okay, again, this makes perfect sense to me. However this is different then body function, and gets into another area. I see these two important distinctions.

Area 1- How I use my body to do work.

Area 2- How I keep others from applying force to me.

Area 1, is a large avenue of athletic practice. The main idea is simply how do I most efficiently use my body to do work. This kind of body use should apply in many different areas where the body moves in the same way.

Area 2 is a more specific thing, that has to do with a specific situation involving you and an attacker. In this area how well your body can take loads and make force are not so important, however ways that you can keep others from making force on you is important.

If we have a problem with a heavy rock that we need to move.

'Area 1' can help us train to move that rock. We can improve the force and function of our body so that moving the rock is possible.

Study in 'Area 2' will never improve our ability to move the rock. The rock is inanimate, and simply sits there being heavy.

If our problem is winning a Judo match against a physically superior athlete.

If the athlete remains physically superior to us, no matter how powerful and efficient we make our body (we'll assume he is more genetically gifted and also trains his body constantly) further study in 'Area 1' will not yield improved results.

However, if our competitor is only working on making his body stronger, 'Area 2' may help us overcome him. If we learn methods that will not allow him to use is physical superiority on us, we can nullify his physical advantage.

I like talking about both 'Areas', but we need to keep them distinct and clear in this kind of discussion.

If you are able to balance those forces within yourself, the other person won't be able to compromise you, unless you screw it up within yourself when you move.

I see "balance the forces within yourself" quite a lot. I'm not sure what exactly that is suppose to mean.

If we were talking about taking force in, I can understand that. The idea being that force is exerted on you, and you 'balance' that force by letting it come into the ground through your body (within you). This would keep the force from doing anything via your alignment to the ground, 'balancing it'.

If you don't let the force come into you, but always more yourself so there is not much force coming in, I don't exactly see how that is 'within you'.

Rob Watson

01-26-2013, 12:59 PM

If we have a problem with a heavy rock that we need to move.

Recall the story about the rock as related by Saotome? Osensei didn't have time for silly things like levers and fulcrums - he just snatch up the rock.

RonRagusa

01-26-2013, 01:06 PM

Area 2- How I keep others from applying force to me.

To keep a force from being applied to you it's necessary to deny it a "resting" place within your body. So if someone is applying a push to your shoulder trying to stop the push at your shoulder will provide your partner with a point of application, a resting place, for the applied force. You need to let the force of the push flow through the shoulder and either ground it, redirect it, disperse it or cycle it around and return it to your partner. Alignment grounds, perpendicular forces redirect, angles disperse and capacitance cycles.

The same four principles are applicable whether you are stationary or in motion.

Ron

ChrisHein

01-26-2013, 02:05 PM

To keep a force from being applied to you it's necessary to deny it a "resting" place within your body. So if someone is applying a push to your shoulder trying to stop the push at your shoulder

While it might seem like this is possible, it's not. The shoulder isn't floating is space. The ground, through the body, is holding the shoulder up.

so no matter what, when force comes in, if it's not knocking the person over, it's making some kind of 'ground path'. Now, how efficient that 'ground path' is is another story. In an efficient model (one where we stand the best chance of resisting the incoming force), that path should be as simple as possible.

will provide your partner with a point of application, a resting place, for the applied force. You need to let the force of the push flow through the shoulder and either ground it, redirect it, disperse it or cycle it around and return it to your partner. Alignment grounds, perpendicular forces redirect, angles disperse and capacitance cycles.

The same four principles are applicable whether you are stationary or in motion.

Ron

So, because the shoulder is connected to the ground, via the body, always, there is a 'grounding' that happens when you are resisting incoming force.

Redirecting or dispersing is another kind of thing, more in 'Area 2'.

There is a really tricky point here that I believe you're outlining. The shape of the body receiving force is important. It determines how much force can act on the body.

For example: you have a surface that is angled to the incoming force, and you have a surface that is flat to the incoming force. The angled surface will receive less force because force not as fully contact the body.

This is a tricky issue when we are talking about alignment. Once the force has entered the body, we are talking about 'Area 1'. Before the force enters the body we are talking about 'Area 2'.

I would like to talk about both areas, but we must keep them clear.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cycling".

ChrisHein

01-26-2013, 02:06 PM

Recall the story about the rock as related by Saotome? Osensei didn't have time for silly things like levers and fulcrums - he just snatch up the rock.

I have also heard many stories about how muscled Ueshiba was. He must have been a fan of 'Area 1' and 'Area 2' training.

RonRagusa

01-26-2013, 10:43 PM

The shoulder isn't floating is space. The ground, through the body, is holding the shoulder up.

so no matter what, when force comes in, if it's not knocking the person over, it's making some kind of 'ground path'. Now, how efficient that 'ground path' is is another story. In an efficient model (one where we stand the best chance of resisting the incoming force), that path should be as simple as possible.

That's what I mean by not providing a resting place for the incoming force. In order for the path you describe to be effective in grounding the force, the point of application of the force must be "open" in order for the force to travel along the path and be grounded. Locking up the point of application will prevent the force from flowing along the path resulting in a clash of forces at the point of contact.

Redirecting or dispersing is another kind of thing, more in 'Area 2'.

In the first diagram in the series you posted (link below) imagine that the outstretched hand is being pushed. The force will be strongest at the point of contact but will be dispersed and weakened at each angle in the arm; wrist, elbow and shoulder. Try it yourself. Stand in natural stance, feet parallel with your right arm outstretched and rigid, fist clenched palm down and have a partner push on your fist. The next time around rotate your fist 90 degrees clockwise and allow your wrist, elbow and shoulder to relax until they appear as in the diagram. Keeping unbenable arm, have your partner push again. With proper coordination of mind and body you should be able to resist a much more forceful push due to dispersal of the incoming force.

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1104&d=1359157247

There is a really tricky point here that I believe you're outlining. The shape of the body receiving force is important. It determines how much force can act on the body.

Of equal importance is the degree of mind/body coordination.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cycling".

Think of a capacitor. It stores energy and then releases the stored energy all at once back into the circuit. Metaphorically speaking, the same thing can be done with forces applied to the body. Interesting examples of this are found in videos of O Sensei and Gozo Shioda when they bounce ukes off hip, chest and back.

Ron

mrlizard123

01-28-2013, 02:15 AM

For this "resisting a push" problem, the best way I can think of to solve the problem is to create the smallest angle between the incoming force and the ground.

(click to enlarge)
1104

Nice pictures, they very much illuminate what you mean by the atheletic approach to receiving a push, but I'm curious as to how would you draw these again for the person in the diagram where the angle of force that will be applied is not known in advance of its arrival?

(Maybe draw a blindfold on the man so he can't see?)

I'm interested to see! (I'm leaving my blindfold off...)

chillzATL

01-28-2013, 07:21 AM

It makes me have to state these things over and over. I am talking about good athletes, just like you are talking about good 'internal' people. If you go to an 'internal' seminar and did the same thing, most of the 'internal' people there would react poorly as well. Good athletes use there bodies correctly, bad athletes don't. Good internal people use their body correctly, bad internal people don't. It's just that I believe the 'good' ones on both sides of the fence are doing the same things, and you don't. So that's what we are discussing.

What I"m describing should, on some level, be demonstrable by anyone chasing "internal". Good, great, horrible, doesn't matter. the intention and goal is the same. While top level modern athletes certain learn efficient body/muscle usage, they do NOT train and sculpt their body/muscles to the degree that they obviously do and then magically eschew the use of those very muscles that they spend so much time keeping honed and at peek condition. It just doesn't work that way Chris. As someone else said in another thread here recently, you don't spend your entire life learning to do things one way and then suddenly stop doing it that way with any level of success. You could go get Lebron James, physically, one of the most gifted and high level athletes on the planet, and put him in the scenario I gave and I'm still 200% confident he would respond exactly the same way as anyone else. Just go watch him play, watch him fight through a hard screen and you will see his body respond in a way that is congruent with the example I gave. That is, the flexing and tensing of those honed and sculpted muscles to solidify his frame while he drives through that screen. There is nothing about what he's doing that's different than what any athlete, high level or otherwise, does and none of that matches up with the mindset and goal of what I described in the demo/test.

The idea/theory that you can make good alignment in all directions at the same time is an interesting one. But how are we going to do that? I think this is the question, and sticking point between us.

Most likely we don't completely know why, but that's only a sticking point for you. Science doesn't always know why something happens.

From my perspective, you describe good athletics, and describe that as being the beginning stage of 'internal'. But when I ask how it goes beyond this stage, I just keep seeing something like "it just does".

I feel my example and the description of it were quite clear in separating internal from external, internal from athletics. I never intended the discussion of this to go beyond this most basic of examples.

What is it that 'internal' does differently. When I ask that question I just get examples of results, and not explanations of how those results are achieved. I'm not trying to argue but I don't know how these things are suppose to work. And if no one else does, why make the assumption that something radically different is happening inside of the body?

Because it just doesn't matter. Science often times has results long before they have an understanding of why that result happened. The point that is made to you and others over and over again is that an increasingly high number of people, most of whom have decades of experience in martial arts (aka athletics) and other more modern activities, feel it and know it's different. You don't have to be a peak level athlete to validate it as different. At some point you have to be interested enough to get out and experience it yourself and go from there because it's more likely that none of us are going to "know" on a level that will appease you.

chillzATL

01-28-2013, 07:33 AM

For this "resisting a push" problem, the best way I can think of to solve the problem is to create the smallest angle between the incoming force and the ground.

(click to enlarge)
1104

The greater the angle between the force and the support (the ground) the more muscular force it will take to resist the force. By creating the smallest angle possible we will use less force from the muscles by aligning the skeletal structure.The skeletal structure will take more of the force, requiring less muscle, and taxing the muscular/energetic body less.

This example cannot be done from all angles at the same time. It uses muscular force and skeletal alignment to work.

I'm interested in hearing/seeing other examples of how this problem might be solved in an 'internal' way.

See attached. In my mind and body it's more like this. Via relaxation and mental intent you change the angles of the force and how it moves through you. It's something that has to be felt and practiced to really understand that it happens. I once heard someone use the term mentally directed force vectors and it sounded good, so sure, why not, but again, that's outside the scope of this thread, but what others have said about not giving the force anywhere to rest on you is perfectly valid. Muscle tension creates those resting spots. Oh and what you said about creating the shortest angle/distance from the force is also valid, but it's not done by using alignment.

phitruong

01-28-2013, 07:51 AM

That's what I mean by not providing a resting place for the incoming force. In order for the path you describe to be effective in grounding the force, the point of application of the force must be "open" in order for the force to travel along the path and be grounded. Locking up the point of application will prevent the force from flowing along the path resulting in a clash of forces at the point of contact.

Ron

almost forgot to chime in here. when you let the force going through you to the ground, eventually, with enough force applied, your body would loose its coherency. some of the experts have mentioned to not let the force come into your body. what if you bring the ground to uke's shoulders when he/she/it pushes on you? wouldn't that creates a backlash force within uke's body instead of you, and uke's applied power would push he/she/it away? just a thought.

i have experienced that expert folks can reach further than uke's shoulders.

RonRagusa

01-28-2013, 08:19 AM

what if you bring the ground to uke's shoulders when he/she/it pushes on you? wouldn't that creates a backlash force within uke's body instead of you, and uke's applied power would push he/she/it away? just a thought.

Yes. We call it extending Ki. Different metaphor same result.

Ron

Rob Watson

01-28-2013, 10:51 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAIDi5Nip64

Perhaps a clue can be found in the above video. External versus 70 year old CXW.

Rob Watson

01-28-2013, 11:41 AM

Forgot to mention the interesting part starts around the 20 minute mark ...

Bernd Lehnen

01-28-2013, 12:01 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAIDi5Nip64

Perhaps a clue can be found in the above video. External versus 70 year old CXW.

In my opinion CXW made him push into his strongest structure ( not that this is an easy feat against such a strong power) and the strongman didn't attempt to push upwards. If the strongman had handled a dead body like a fridge, he would probably automatically have thought of this and succeeded.

Thoughts?

akiy

01-28-2013, 12:11 PM

Hi folks,

As this thread resides in the "Internal Training in Aikido" forum, please keep your discussions explicitly connected to aikido training.

Thank you,

-- Jun

ChrisHein

01-28-2013, 12:42 PM

What I"m describing should, on some level, be demonstrable by anyone chasing "internal". Good, great, horrible, doesn't matter. the intention and goal is the same. While top level modern athletes certain learn efficient body/muscle usage, they do NOT train and sculpt their body/muscles to the degree that they obviously do and then magically eschew the use of those very muscles that they spend so much time keeping honed and at peek condition.

Yes you are right, they keep those muscles, because they use them constantly. You need to have strong muscles to make large amounts of force. I'm not saying that anyone ever stops using muscle, because they can't. You must use muscle to move the body, the more you have, the more force is possible, either giving or receiving.

Efficient use of that muscle is to goal. No one is changing systems.

You could go get Lebron James, physically, one of the most gifted and high level athletes on the planet, and put him in the scenario I gave and I'm still 200% confident he would respond exactly the same way as anyone else. Just go watch him play, watch him fight through a hard screen and you will see his body respond in a way that is congruent with the example I gave. That is, the flexing and tensing of those honed and sculpted muscles to solidify his frame while he drives through that screen. There is nothing about what he's doing that's different than what any athlete, high level or otherwise, does and none of that matches up with the mindset and goal of what I described in the demo/test.

There is something different he's doing, that's why he's one of the best athletes in the world. It's not just being strong, but how you use that strength.

Look, we all use muscle to move, internal, external, athletic and couch potato. No one on earth uses anything else to move. The more powerful your muscles the more power you can generate. That's the truth. If we can agree on that we can move on.

Being strong isn't all there is. There are also things like coordination of your muscles. How well can you use the muscles you've got? How well can you relax the muscles that don't need to be working, and create explosive contraction with the one's you've got. How balanced and agile are you?

Then after this we can move on to relational ability, and we move outside of what we are talking about now.

From what I read above, you are describing the difference between inefficient body use and efficient body use. And you are misunderstanding that top level athletes have to be both strong and efficient. Just because they are muscled, doesn't mean that they don't spend most of their time learning to use that muscle.

Most likely we don't completely know why, but that's only a sticking point for you. Science doesn't always know why something happens.

I'm not asking for a scientific study. I'd simply like to know how you think it works. If you don't have an idea of how it works, then why make such strong assumptions?

At some point you have to be interested enough to get out and experience it yourself and go from there because it's more likely that none of us are going to "know" on a level that will appease you.

I've spent lot's of time training in 'internal martial arts', I just have different answers then you do. If you keep an open mind maybe we'll find something new. I'm personally trying to keep an open mind (although it's getting harder and harder), so I'm looking for logical answers, to very simple questions.

ChrisHein

01-28-2013, 12:44 PM

Nice pictures, they very much illuminate what you mean by the atheletic approach to receiving a push, but I'm curious as to how would you draw these again for the person in the diagram where the angle of force that will be applied is not known in advance of its arrival?

(Maybe draw a blindfold on the man so he can't see?)

I'm interested to see! (I'm leaving my blindfold off...)

I'm not sure what this has to do with force once it's inside of the body? If you couldn't feel force, I would agree with you, but if you are moving around you can feel things.

I guess you're making a point about 'omnidirectional stability'. Which is an interesting concepts. How do we make that happen?

ChrisHein

01-28-2013, 12:48 PM

See attached. In my mind and body it's more like this. Via relaxation and mental intent you change the angles of the force and how it moves through you. It's something that has to be felt and practiced to really understand that it happens. I once heard someone use the term mentally directed force vectors and it sounded good, so sure, why not, but again, that's outside the scope of this thread, but what others have said about not giving the force anywhere to rest on you is perfectly valid. Muscle tension creates those resting spots. Oh and what you said about creating the shortest angle/distance from the force is also valid, but it's not done by using alignment.

How does that happen? How can you take a force, and simply make it go into the ground without physically directing it?

That's a neat theory, and would be a good idea if it were possible. But I don't see how that can be done. Could you explain how this can happen?

ChrisHein

01-28-2013, 12:49 PM

some of the experts have mentioned to not let the force come into your body.

I agree too- getting out of the way is the best way to solve the problem.:D

Bernd Lehnen

01-28-2013, 01:09 PM

I agree too- getting out of the way is the best way to solve the problem.:D

But this wouldn't be resisting a push - neither internally nor externally.

phitruong

01-28-2013, 01:53 PM

I agree too- getting out of the way is the best way to solve the problem.:D

problem with getting out of the way. remember the youth, speed and strength? can't get out of the way with youth and speed, they will catch up with you eventually. then what? this is where you want to think about, what if i can borrow their strength and speed to use against them? what sort of problem i need to solve to be able to do that? especially, when i am older, weaker, and slower. we know the ancient said "four ouncse of forces to move a thousand pound", which meant they, more than likely, solved the riddle. we just need to figure out the answer from hints they left behind.

of course, if all else failed, we can always resort to thermal nuclear weapon or kimchi! :)

RonRagusa

01-28-2013, 02:37 PM

this is where you want to think about, what if i can borrow their strength and speed to use against them? what sort of problem i need to solve to be able to do that?

Uh... it's called Aikido Phi. :)

Ron

Chris Li

01-28-2013, 03:00 PM

Uh... it's called Aikido Phi. :)

Ron

That's what I said, but it got put in a seperate forum. ;)

Best,

Chris

Bernd Lehnen

01-28-2013, 03:03 PM

In my opinion CXW made him push into his strongest structure ( not that this is an easy feat against such a strong power) and the strongman didn't attempt to push upwards. If the strongman had handled a dead body like a fridge, he would probably automatically have thought of this and succeeded.

Thoughts?

(trying to connect this explicitly to aikido training):)

Tohei would hold against any push successfully and say it was ki training for aikido training.
Tohei would say he was simply extending ki and mention his rules for doing this.

Still, even a strong man like Tohei, with as much strength in one arm like some others in two, in an attempt to show the audience the working of ki, once, was simply tipped over onto his back like a fridge. His partner didn't play the game as expected.

Tohei is said to have successfully influenced the great Chiyonofuji and an other sumotori. So even they must have thought his training method was good.

mrlizard123

01-28-2013, 03:37 PM

I guess you're making a point about 'omnidirectional stability'. Which is an interesting concepts. How do we make that happen?

You're asking me the question I've asked you to illustrate. You've said quite clearly that you believe what people would call internal is merely an athletic skill, something which you understand. I'm looking for your input on how to achieve stability vs a push from any direction where the angle of the incoming force is not known in advance since this is something that a skilled internal practitioner, by your argument a skilled athlete, can demonstrate.

I would like more diagrams if you would be so kind, the other ones helped to show what you meant quite well.

Thanks in advance!

ChrisHein

01-28-2013, 04:10 PM

You're asking me the question I've asked you to illustrate. You've said quite clearly that you believe what people would call internal is merely an athletic skill, something which you understand. I'm looking for your input on how to achieve stability vs a push from any direction where the angle of the incoming force is not known in advance since this is something that a skilled internal practitioner, by your argument a skilled athlete, can demonstrate.

Ha, kind of flipping things around aren't we? I admire the attempt.

I've never said that ANYONE can achieve omnidirectional stability. I don't think anyone can. I can't even imagine how that could possibly happen. That's been one of my questions all along.

I do believe 'internal' people and athletes, both being at a good level, are physically doing basically the same things. I don't believe 'internal' people can do anything that athletes can't do. Good athletes feel the force coming in, and adjust to it as it does. This is also what I believe good internal people do. I don't believe that good internal people are simply always stable from every direction and they never need to adjust to new forces from different angles.

If they ('internal' people) can do this, my question is how? I do not suggest that athletes can do this, 'omnidirectional stability'.

I would like more diagrams if you would be so kind, the other ones helped to show what you meant quite well.

Thanks in advance!

I've made my diagrams. I made them to illustrate how I understand one can align with with incoming force. I have yet to see a logical argument for how 'internal' stability is different, so it would be impossible for me to make a diagram for this. If you explain to me how it's suppose to work, maybe I could make a diagram for you.

mrlizard123

01-28-2013, 05:49 PM

I can't even imagine how that could possibly happen...

I do not suggest that athletes can do this, 'omnidirectional stability'.

Ok, I think I'm done then.

I will leave you these diagrams as food for thought, each picture represents a different person (of hypothetical origin, not referring to any specific person) with a different degree of ability (displayed in ascending order) at receiving incoming force from any angle standing in a posture to receive the incoming push; a brief description of their level is below each picture.

Since the force vector is unknown I've left the arrows off the pictures (I'm also no artist!)

http://i47.tinypic.com/f1y7nc.jpg
"You Suck" ;)

http://i50.tinypic.com/2iiwtqt.jpg
"Minor skill"

http://i46.tinypic.com/347k6br.jpg
"Coherent stability"

http://i45.tinypic.com/30mmu4o.jpg
"Awesomesauce!" :D

I don't feel qualified to discuss the inner workings via an online medium so I'm going to resign from the discussion at this point; best of luck in your training.

Gary David

01-28-2013, 06:50 PM

Ha, kind of flipping things around aren't we? I admire the attempt.

I've never said that ANYONE can achieve omnidirectional stability. I don't think anyone can. I can't even imagine how that could possibly happen. That's been one of my questions all along.

I do believe 'internal' people and athletes, both being at a good level, are physically doing basically the same things. I don't believe 'internal' people can do anything that athletes can't do. Good athletes feel the force coming in, and adjust to it as it does. This is also what I believe good internal people do. I don't believe that good internal people are simply always stable from every direction and they never need to adjust to new forces from different angles.

If they ('internal' people) can do this, my question is how? I do not suggest that athletes can do this, 'omnidirectional stability'.

I've made my diagrams. I made them to illustrate how I understand one can align with with incoming force. I have yet to see a logical argument for how 'internal' stability is different, so it would be impossible for me to make a diagram for this. If you explain to me how it's suppose to work, maybe I could make a diagram for you.

Chris
I don't remember anyone of the named "internals" talking about omnidirectional stability all the time and every time. To me at my low level of understanding the goal for me is directional awareness leading to some level of directional stability that incorporates some level of skill that allows me to re-establish stability quickly no matter the direction it comes from. I believe that it is possible at some level of varying force, and one changing directions, to establish what appears to be so stable that one is not moving. The level of awareness in the receiving person is so keen the the response to the incoming changing forces happens so smoothly that it nullifies the incoming changes almost before they happen. To make this possible one needs to bring into play all of their tools.....mental, physical, spiritual, patience.......and on and on..... to finally reach some level of competency.

The difference here is the training methods, some of which seem of have been around on a limited basis for sometime. There are keys to the puzzle that are in these "internal" methods that up the skill levels.....but won't shorten the training time. These could improve most of the solo drills currently part of Aikido. For years I thought the practice of placing your hands palm up on the underside of the arms of the individual pushing on your chest was to physically drop then come back up under that pusher to lift them up on their toes..... this is correct, but it is only the beginning level....and we never got any more than that. We never got out of this frame. The next stages should have the pushing person coming off their feet without you seeming to do anything. How do you get there is the question and the needed training. Please don't ask for illustrations as I can do them.

I have been asking these questions for 30 years, getting a hint here and there.....resources and doors to open are few and hard to find......and easily lost.

Good luck with your training.

Gary

RonRagusa

01-28-2013, 06:53 PM

I've made my diagrams. I made them to illustrate how I understand one can align with with incoming force. I have yet to see a logical argument for how 'internal' stability is different, so it would be impossible for me to make a diagram for this. If you explain to me how it's suppose to work, maybe I could make a diagram for you.

Your diagrams (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1104&d=1359157247)

I'd say that from an Aikido standpoint, of your 5 diagrams the first one represents the ideal way to meet an incoming force using dispersion. Diagram 2 illustrates the least desirable body configuration. Diagrams 3 and 4 show body configurations that would effectively ground the force provided the wrist, elbow and shoulder joints are not locked out. The drawback to the position in diagram 4 is that movement from that position is difficult and time consuming due to the excessive proportion of body weight placed on the front foot. Diagram 5 would work well for Spiderman (I know you included it for illustrative purposes only, but I couldn't resist).

Grounding, dispersion, redirection and cycling can be trained individually but in practice are rarely used in isolation.

Chris, what role does mind assume when it comes to your Aikido training? It's been my experience that there's a marked difference in performance of the "push" exercises when one performs them with and without mind and body coordinated.

Ron

phitruong

01-28-2013, 08:50 PM

Uh... it's called Aikido Phi. :)

Ron

it is? hot damn! and nobody told me about this? you meant my skirt actually worth something after all? sorry, i couldn't resist. :)

ChrisHein

01-28-2013, 10:11 PM

To me, it sounds like there are many different people calling what they do 'internal', yet they all have hugely different ideas about what is going on.

Some people believe you do use local muscles groups. Some people think you don't. some people think you start with local muscle groups but then stop using them. Some people seem to think that connective tissue is producing force. Some people think that they can be stable in all directions at once, some people don't. It goes on and on.

Until there is a general consensus about what is meant by the word 'internal' it's silly to keep talking about it. We should just be talking about the problem, as simply as possible, and work our way out from there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem:
Force is coming into the body. How do we best deal with that force once it's in the body?

What things help us, what things make it harder to deal with the force?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My theory on solving this problem:
I believe, that aligning (see diagram (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1104&d=1359157247)) your body to the force makes for the best possible solution. It requires the least amount of muscle, by letting skeleton to take some of the force.

To me, not using good alignment to the force (see diagram (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1104&d=1359157247)) would require more muscle then not aligning to the force.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further questions:
If you don't align to the force, how are you not using more muscle?

If you align in some way that isn't using skeletal alignment, how are you doing that?

Do you believe there is something inside of your body that is capable of making force that is not a muscle?

Chris Li

01-28-2013, 10:57 PM

Until there is a general consensus about what is meant by the word 'internal' it's silly to keep talking about it. We should just be talking about the problem, as simply as possible, and work our way out from there.

I guess we better stop talking about Aikido too, because there's no general consensus there, either. :D

OTOH, looking through through the thread I see that the great majority of people participating have a basic consensus about what there're doing, but are expressing that with varying degrees of success (I'm not saying that I would do better).

And that's my drive by for the day.

Best,

Chris

Mert Gambito

01-29-2013, 02:46 AM

Good athletes feel the force coming in, and adjust to it as it does. This is also what I believe good internal people do. I don't believe that good internal people are simply always stable from every direction and they never need to adjust to new forces from different angles.

Chris,

Dan Harden, for example, can demonstrate exactly what you stated above that you don't believe is possible. Dan, in introductory workshops, covers Tohei's one-point model as a representation of foundational/rudimentary six-directional IP/IS training then adds to the foundation until the demonstrations involve fure-aiki (which has been discussed at length in the past) in a conditioned body (his) that inherently cancels forces regardless of their incoming vectors.

It is not athletics, and no amount of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole is going to change that.

About a decade ago, I trained with an ex-NFL defensive back, Lou Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucious_Smith), with an extensive background in BJJ (and FMA) -- so this guy, as you can imagine, knows how to take someone down. My Hakkoryu teacher has an excellent model for utilizing sen-no-sen to counter committed attacks, and they've worked on every grappler who's shown up with dojo-arashi on the brain. It is good stuff, and in line with a lot of what you've describing as "aiki". Lou became a student because of this reputation (he was a gentleman and I enjoyed training with him). It's been awhile since I've seen Lou, but he runs a well-regarded sports-training business in Orange County, and I'm sure he'd be happy to vet what I've stated here.

But guess what? It's not fure-aiki -- which would not require sen-no-sen to negate an attempted double-leg: the takedown attempt would simply fail no matter how much the grappler changed his/her approach to generating leverage (Dan speaks of the ability to generate aiki from the back of the legs, which he's allowed attendees to sample by trying, at full strength and with all manners of regripping-and repositioning allowed, singles and doubles on him during workshops).

phitruong

01-29-2013, 06:24 AM

To me, it sounds like there are many different people calling what they do 'internal', yet they all have hugely different ideas about what is going on.

it depends on where they are in their training. i mentioned somewhere about kyu rank vs shihan. kyu folks know certain level, shihan knows more. not all internal folks are at the same level. i would list myself in the kyu rank level vs folks like Sigman, Dan, Howie, Akuzawa, and so on.

Some people believe you do use local muscles groups. Some people think you don't. some people think you start with local muscle groups but then stop using them. Some people seem to think that connective tissue is producing force. Some people think that they can be stable in all directions at once, some people don't. It goes on and on.

Until there is a general consensus about what is meant by the word 'internal' it's silly to keep talking about it. We should just be talking about the problem, as simply as possible, and work our way out from there.

actually, we have a lot more general consensus among internal practitioners that you make it out to be. you have problem accepting our answers, because they don't fit into your model. you want us to fit our stuffs into your model. why would we want to do that? our stuffs work just fine. if your stuffs work just fine, then we don't really need to discuss, do we? and for some reason, you don't think folks understand external/athletic, as though none of us haven't done sports and other martial arts in our lives. a bit presumptuous don't you think?

hughrbeyer

01-29-2013, 10:44 AM

I haven’t been contributing much to this thread because I think the whole project is hopeless. This thread is trying to use inadequate physical models to explain how IS works, starting with a statement of the problem that makes it impossible to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Let me justify those assertions, and suggest a model that might get you further.

The physical models are inadequate because they treat the body like a set of stacked blocks (as in Chris’ block man diagrams) and and limit thinking to to “muscles only contract”. Yes, that’s fundamentally true, but the body is so complex it’s irrelevant, practically speaking. Tendons wrap around processes and redirect force. Fascia creates a web of connections so muscle action here can affect the body over there. Parts of the body act like pullys, so a contraction down here can cause something to raise there. Scientists are still arguing about how the body works structurally—I saw a video last year posted by a scientist who had successfully modeled the backbone as a tensegrity structure, with vertebrae suspended in a web of ligaments rather than stacked on each other like blocks. Insisting on a simplistic model of the body will make your inquiry impossible. It’s like trying to study biochemistry using only particle physics—theoretically possible, practically not.

The way the problem has been framed the problem guarantees that it can’t be understood from an IS perspective. The model of the problem people seem to be operating from is that a force comes in, and the receiver resists it (by grounding it, or whatever). High school physics states that if I have a 50-pound push on my chest and I want to stand against it, I need to counter with 50 pounds equal and opposite force. Otherwise, I’m accelerating in one direction or another. Resisting the force, however “efficiently”, turns into bracing yourself against it so it doesn't push you over.

That’s a fundamentally losing proposition, martially speaking. If it’s a 200 pound force, I’ll be crushed however efficient I am. Even if I’m not, I’m pinned in place by that force and my own equal and opposite resistance. I might be totally immoveable, happy as a clam, pround as a peacock—until the guy clocks me with his other hand.

So here’s a better model, equally simplistic but at least it doesn’t point in exactly the wrong direction.

Model the body as a sphere, gimballed so it turns freely in any direction. Any incoming force hits the surface of the sphere. If the force is off-center, even the slightest bit, the sphere turns and the force is deflected. If the force is dead on center, the slightest turn of the sphere moves it off center and deflects it. The force can’t prevent that turning because the surface of the sphere moves perpendicular to the force, so the force can’t counter it. We counter the 50-pound force not by opposing it, but by disrupting it so we never have to deal with it at all.

Stupid experiment to try this out: Shut your eyes and push on a wall at a 45 degree angle. If you open your eyes, you’ll automatically compensate. If you shut your eyes, you’ll feel the wall push you off balance, out into the room.

Some implications of this model:

The receiver is totally mobile and totally free.

The harder the attacker pushes, the more they throw themselves off balance.

Because even a miniscule redirection, or none, is enough, the attacker is offbalanced immediately, with no apparent movement on the receiver’s side.

Turning develops naturally (which it doesn’t in the force/counterforce model), and when you add linear intent, spirals develop naturally. And therefore… Aikido develops naturally.

The reason for Dan’s favorite quote, “Not a fly can alight that does not inducing turning” becomes self-explanatory.

Experientially, this model matches better how using IS actually feels. If I’m doing it right, I don’t feel like Superman holding up 200 pounds—I feel like there’s no push to deal with. It’s irrelevant.

Of course, the model is simplistic. I have to train enough connection into my body so that it can act like a sphere. Not only the body as a whole, but every part of the body, has to be able to act this way. Then there’s layers and layers of details about movement and connection have to be layered on top.

But if you MUST have a simple physical model, maybe this will help.

ChrisHein

01-29-2013, 11:05 AM

A lot of what I'm seeing is- "Our stuff can't be described with your model." I think that's pretty fair. So make your own model.

I think lot's of the problem we are having is that people want to start in the middle, with complex things, and gain understanding from there. I believe you should start from simple places and work towards complexity.

For example we could start here: Only muscles make force. I know, you're screaming "there's so much more in the body", and there is, but let's start here- If only muscles make force, all movements must physically begin with muscular contraction. This means, in the same system (the complex body that everyone is eager to talk about), bigger more powerful muscles make for a more powerful system- no matter what that system is, internal, external, athletic or whatever else. If we can start there, I think we can begin to get over this problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some one can demonstrate something. Well, until we can actually all look at something, together, there's no use in bringing that demonstration up. I've seen all kinds of things, but if I can't show it, and you don't understand it otherwise know about it, why bring it up? We can't all look at it together.

Now you may be saying- "but I know this stuff happens, I've seen it". That's neat, but if that's your main interest, why even worry about talking about it? You already know what it is, so just train it. But if you don't know what it is, and want to talk about it, we should do that.

hughrbeyer

01-29-2013, 11:07 AM

Wow. Way to completely blow off an entire post, dude.

ChrisHein

01-29-2013, 11:15 AM

I hit most of your points.

Your model doesn't deal with force that's inside of the body. If we want to talk about that model it's different then "int. VS. EXT- resisting a push.

chillzATL

01-29-2013, 11:19 AM

I haven't been contributing much to this thread because I think the whole project is hopeless.

:)

hughrbeyer

01-29-2013, 11:25 AM

You hit nothing.

If you want to talk about IS, use the model that works for IS.

If you want to talk about external strength, use the model that works for externals.

You clearly want to talk about external strength and can't figure out how it's different from external strength. It's no wonder you're chasing your tail.

hughrbeyer

01-29-2013, 11:30 AM

Nicholas Eschenbruch

01-29-2013, 12:06 PM

Parting shot, re "make your own model":

Models are supposed to describe reality. When they fail to describe reality ("Hey! Venus has phases like the moon!"), you find a different model.

You don't say, "But according to my model it's not possible so it must not be true."

Hugh, I certainly benefitted from your model... but then I share some aspects of the same reality, beyond semantics and rationalisations. Nice parting shot, too, from a theory of science point of view.

phitruong

01-29-2013, 12:46 PM

Wow. Way to completely blow off an entire post, dude.

that because your model didn't mount any tractor beam and energy deflector, not to mention a few photon torp or at least disruptor beam. :)

HL1978

01-29-2013, 01:49 PM

So lets do something a bit more complex, than looking at structure, and far less complex than what I was referring to in the other thread regarding the shoulder. This is something that has been done at several of the IS seminars I have attended,

So if you are using structure, and combining it with trying to "feel" a path to the rear foot as shown in red, in Chris's original drawing. This is the first foot in the door step for IS.

If you try and move that pressure/feeling to the front foot, obviously you don't have a structural alignment to the front foot. Leaning forwards or a wider stance isn't really the right answer to get that path into the front foot. It shifts more weight onto the front foot, but compromises you, in part because most people actually tend to have that weight way forwards of the front foot as a result and the back foot gets very light.

How then do you get it into the front foot without a visible shift and some of the problems I discuss above? Thats where intent comes in, you have to redirect that sensation so that you start to feel it in the front foot. When you first start, there probably will be some visible shifts, though this is really not required at all. I can't really tell you how to do it (its intent! Think that you want it to go into the front foot...), you have to have a partner who is willing to stand there and give you a constant light push. To make it even easier, don't hold your am out like in the diagram.

Most people at a seminar are able to replicate this with a light push after 10-30 minutes.

When you can switch it to the front foot through that mental redirection (the blue line), your partner will instantly be able to feel it. They won't feel themselves being pushed away on the same line as they pushed in as shown in the red line. Instead they will feel as though you are pushing from underneath them and they may pop upwards onto their heels and start to fall backwards. They percieve this as the purple line, though obviously the force actually travels through the body as the blue line.

What is described here, certainly doesn't correspond to a structural model, though it probably shows how intent can play a role.

Cady Goldfield

01-29-2013, 01:53 PM

Hugh Beyer wrote:
Model the body as a sphere, gimballed so it turns freely in any direction. Any incoming force hits the surface of the sphere. If the force is off-center, even the slightest bit, the sphere turns and the force is deflected. If the force is dead on center, the slightest turn of the sphere moves it off center and deflects it. The force can’t prevent that turning because the surface of the sphere moves perpendicular to the force, so the force can’t counter it. We counter the 50-pound force not by opposing it, but by disrupting it so we never have to deal with it at all.

Taking this point further, courtesy of I Liq Chuan and its headmaster, Sam F.S. Chin:

http://iliqchuan.com/content/matrix-i-liq-chuan

...and a clip of a martial application based on the sphere (and spheres within the sphere...) and tangent force:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH8p4486oX8

With a little stylistic tweaking of the outer expression, can y'all see the applicability to aikido throws inherent in that?

ChrisHein

01-29-2013, 02:00 PM

If you want to talk about IS, use the model that works for IS.

I agree- but your model was for a different problem then the one we are working on here. If you go back to the first part of this thread, I was pointing out the problem with confusing 'Area 1' (this thread) with 'Area 2' ( a thread yet to be started by anyone interested).

Let me justify those assertions, and suggest a model that might get you further.

The physical models are inadequate because they treat the body like a set of stacked blocks (as in Chris' block man diagrams) and and limit thinking to to "muscles only contract". Yes, that's fundamentally true, but the body is so complex it's irrelevant, practically speaking.

The body is complex, but the only thing making force inside of the body is muscle. So muscle cannot be considered irrelevant. "Practically speaking" the muscles are the only thing doing work. It is all driven by muscle, no matter how complex it gets.

Tendons wrap around processes and redirect force. Fascia creates a web of connections so muscle action here can affect the body over there. Parts of the body act like pullys, so a contraction down here can cause something to raise there. Scientists are still arguing about how the body works structurally

Yes, but muscle is still what drives all force in the body.

Insisting on a simplistic model of the body will make your inquiry impossible. It's like trying to study biochemistry using only particle physics—theoretically possible, practically not.

Well let's start simply then and see where we hit snags.

The way the problem has been framed the problem guarantees that it can't be understood from an IS perspective. The model of the problem people seem to be operating from is that a force comes in, and the receiver resists it (by grounding it, or whatever). High school physics states that if I have a 50-pound push on my chest and I want to stand against it, I need to counter with 50 pounds equal and opposite force. Otherwise, I'm accelerating in one direction or another. Resisting the force, however "efficiently", turns into bracing yourself against it so it doesn't push you over.
[/qutoe]
This is the problem we are working on.

[qoute]That's a fundamentally losing proposition, martially speaking. If it's a 200 pound force, I'll be crushed however efficient I am.

This is not true. The world record for a Squat is over 1000lbs, the guy doing it doesn't weight over 300lbs. He can generate, and resist much more force then he weights. In a squat you are aligned very well with the ground, the body can make tremendous amounts of force this way.

Even if I'm not, I'm pinned in place by that force and my own equal and opposite resistance. I might be totally immoveable, happy as a clam, pround as a peacock—until the guy clocks me with his other hand.

This is and is not true. It's also starting to get away from our subject. I say it's not true because professional football players resist huge amounts of incoming force, and are still able to move in relation to that force. I say it's away from our subject, because we are simply looking at incoming force right now, another thread would need to address this new issue.

So here's a better model, equally simplistic but at least it doesn't point in exactly the wrong direction.

Model the body as a sphere, gimballed so it turns freely in any direction. Any incoming force hits the surface of the sphere. If the force is off-center, even the slightest bit, the sphere turns and the force is deflected. If the force is dead on center, the slightest turn of the sphere moves it off center and deflects it. The force can't prevent that turning because the surface of the sphere moves perpendicular to the force, so the force can't counter it. We counter the 50-pound force not by opposing it, but by disrupting it so we never have to deal with it at all.

This model is an 'Area 2' model. Start a new thread and we can talk about it. This model is about deflection and not about resisting force. If you think 'internal' has nothing to do with resisting force, and only uses deflection, then all you have to say is 'internal has nothing to do with resisting force'. [See my comment about everyone is talking about different things]

Stupid experiment to try this out: Shut your eyes and push on a wall at a 45 degree angle. If you open your eyes, you'll automatically compensate. If you shut your eyes, you'll feel the wall push you off balance, out into the room.

Some implications of this model:

The receiver is totally mobile and totally free.

The harder the attacker pushes, the more they throw themselves off balance.

Because even a miniscule redirection, or none, is enough, the attacker is offbalanced immediately, with no apparent movement on the receiver's side.

Turning develops naturally (which it doesn't in the force/counterforce model), and when you add linear intent, spirals develop naturally. And therefore… Aikido develops naturally.

The reason for Dan's favorite quote, "Not a fly can alight that does not inducing turning" becomes self-explanatory.

More 'Area 2' Stuff

Experientially, this model matches better how using IS actually feels. If I'm doing it right, I don't feel like Superman holding up 200 pounds—I feel like there's no push to deal with. It's irrelevant.

Ah, here you say that you don't believe that IS ('internal') has anything to do with resisting force. So why post this in this thread that is titled "Int, Vs. Ext- RESISTING a push????

That's why I am being short with you. You are off topic. If you don't like this topic, start a new thread, addressing your topic, and I would love to talk about that.

You clearly want to talk about external strength and can't figure out how it's different from external strength. It's no wonder you're chasing your tail.

You clearly want to talk about something that is not resisting a push. This thread is not about that. That's why I "blew off your post", in an attempt not to "chase my tail". But I did it again just for you. Feel better now?

HL1978

01-29-2013, 02:04 PM

I'll move my post (#59) to a new thread, lets discuss it there. Jun, if you see this, can you delete my post from this thread, or move any replies to a new one?

Bernd Lehnen

01-29-2013, 02:15 PM

I agree- but your model was for a different problem then the one we are working on here.

You clearly want to talk about something that is not resisting a push.

Chris,
one question.
Do you think someone who resists a push internally has to be felt as if he obviously resists the push?

hughrbeyer

01-29-2013, 02:16 PM

Reread Hunter's post, whether it's moved or not, and ask yourself if your "Area 1" and "Area 2" distinctions make sense, when you're talking about real people on the other end of the push. How is the pusher popped onto their heels?

ChrisHein

01-29-2013, 04:19 PM

Chris,
one question.
Do you think someone who resists a push internally has to be felt as if he obviously resists the push?

I don't understand the question.

HL1978

01-29-2013, 06:21 PM

You clearly want to talk about something that is not resisting a push. This thread is not about that. That's why I "blew off your post", in an attempt not to "chase my tail". But I did it again just for you. Feel better now?

Well, like I said in the part 2 thread, you have to understand that you aren't actively resisting or pushing back in any way. That is to say, the resistance that the pusher feels at the most simple version of doing this exercise, is not the result of any additional muscular effort.

That is something that is strangely very very hard to do, as the natural reaction most people have when countering an incoming force is to push back against it or try and push back on an angle of some kind from the point of contact. It takes a while to unlearn this response in a static position, and even longer in a dynamic one.

This is why Mike Sigman wrote in one of his blogs, that most people he has met push back from somewhere else, even if it isn't from the point of contact and think this is "internal". I'm certainly guilty of that in the past.

akiy

01-29-2013, 10:37 PM

I'll move my post (#59) to a new thread, lets discuss it there. Jun, if you see this, can you delete my post from this thread, or move any replies to a new one?
Frankly, I am unsure why there are two threads on this topic. Can you please clarify why you feel the need to two threads on this subject?

Thanks,

-- Jun

akiy

01-29-2013, 10:40 PM

Also, can folks please explicitly include discussions of aikido in threads within the "Internal Training in Aikido" forum?

Thank you,

-- Jun

Chris Li

01-29-2013, 11:55 PM

Also, can folks please explicitly include discussions of aikido in threads within the "Internal Training in Aikido" forum?

Thank you,

-- Jun

Jun, can you explain why discussing something that the Founder demonstrated over and over, that remains part of the core practice of some branches of Aikido, and was cited as involving "the secret of Aiki" (by Morihei himself) doesn't qualify as a discussion of Aikido?

For reference:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14991

This thread, on the other hand, seems to qualify as a genuine Aikido discussion:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22243

And then of course, Koichi Tohei:

Ueshiba Sensei was an individual who showed what it means to exist in a relaxed state, to possess true ki, and to have a unified mind and body. His posture was as solid as a rock and you couldnâ€™t budge him no matter how you pushed or pulled; yet he would toss me effortlessly without ever letting me feel that he was using any strength at all. I was astounded that such a person should actually exist in the world.

More than anything, what Ueshiba Sensei taught me was that a relaxed state is the most powerful. He himself was living proof of that.

I donâ€™t think there is anyone these days who can truly demonstrate this the way he could. This truly wonderful quality that he took such great pains to developÂ— not stories about him pulling pine trees out of the ground and other nonsense Â—is what we should try to leave to future generations.

Note that he cites the push test as an exhibition of what he said was the most important thing that he learned from Morihei Ueshiba.

Best,

Chris

phitruong

01-30-2013, 05:52 AM

Also, can folks please explicitly include discussions of aikido in threads within the "Internal Training in Aikido" forum?

Thank you,

-- Jun

a push is slow moving of a strike, be it shomen uchi or yokomen or others. if we can deal with the slow, then we can learn to deal with the fast moving motions. Hunter mentioned about not really resisting the push which is the core of aiki, that is combining/merging (don't really like the term blending unless i am making a margarita) of two energies: uke's and nage's. resisting isn't merging/combining, but opposing. the idea behind unity is merging, makes the energy of the push your own. how we do that determines how we do our aikido techniques. this is the core of what Ikeda sensei said about aikido techniques versus aikido technique movements.

phitruong

01-30-2013, 06:04 AM

That is something that is strangely very very hard to do, as the natural reaction most people have when countering an incoming force is to push back against it or try and push back on an angle of some kind from the point of contact. It takes a while to unlearn this response in a static position, and even longer in a dynamic one.

that's an understatement. this is so very hard to do. i didn't figure this part out until not too long ago. it takes alot of mental control to override the natural response that we imprinted in our body for so long. just the other day, i was fighting very hard to control my natural responses, but then i realized it created more tension, so i told myself to "let it go and don't fight it!" i feels good afterward. and my wife said "i can't believe you ate the whole pizza!" :D

Bernd Lehnen

01-30-2013, 07:03 AM

I don't understand the question.

That’s exactly why I asked you.;)

We only talk about aikido here.

Well, take e.g. a resisting partner in a static position and the main forces affect your partner in one single plane. Then you could say you simply project ki, like Tohei would, or you may resort to ground-path and structure, and a simple vector model, like M.Sigman did, to let a beginner get a foot in the door to internal training. You would expect and feel a resisting force, which is obvious to you and it would make no difference if it were based on an internal or external paradigm.
Are we still on common ground? If so, have a look and try to see what you can get.

F1 = G1 x l1/h1

F2 = G2 x l2/h2

Equilibrium: F1 = F2 and G1x l1/h1 = G2 x l2/h2

If G1 > G2 then the value of l2/h2 has to increase:

Either you increase the value of l2, e.g. you take a step backwards,
Or you decrease the value of h2 by lowering your centre of mass,
one after the other or simultaneously.

Now, take someone with more advanced internal ability, who resists the push, as described in “Aikido and the dynamic Sphere” (Ratti/Ratti), using stillness in motion and intent to create a dynamic sphere, still not moving visibly. You will probably meet and feel a wobbly soft and cloudy thing, with the effect that you can’t make head and tail of it until you find yourself on the ground, wondering how that could possibly have happened.

I suppose, that to describe this with a simple physical model will be more difficult than describing how to ride a bicycle. If you attempt this, then good luck.

mrlizard123

01-30-2013, 07:04 AM

Frankly, I am unsure why there are two threads on this topic. Can you please clarify why you feel the need to two threads on this subject?

Thanks,

-- Jun

I think this is because of Chris Hein's desire to have an "area 1" and "area 2" discussion.

At least we're not having an area 51 discussion because otherwise the authorities might close us down...

chillzATL

01-30-2013, 07:15 AM

Also, can folks please explicitly include discussions of aikido in threads within the "Internal Training in Aikido" forum?

Thank you,

-- Jun

Unfortunately discussing internal training in Aikido typically means that we don't discuss aikido as it is commonly practiced at all. There's no way to avoid that though. You shouldn't look at this any differently than a big thread discussing goals in Tomiki's exercises or Misogi. Neither would be commonly considered aikido, but they would be allowed all the same.

akiy

01-30-2013, 09:04 AM

Jun, can you explain why discussing something that the Founder demonstrated over and over, that remains part of the core practice of some branches of Aikido, and was cited as involving "the secret of Aiki" (by Morihei himself) doesn't qualify as a discussion of Aikido?

If you feel such links are so apparent, please explicitly reference those core practices within aikido when discussing these topics within the Internal Training in Aikido forum.

Thanks,

-- Jun

akiy

01-30-2013, 09:05 AM

I think this is because of Chris Hein's desire to have an "area 1" and "area 2" discussion.
Can you, Chris, or someone else please clearly delineate these differences for me?

Thanks,

-- Jun

mrlizard123

01-30-2013, 09:13 AM

Can you, Chris, or someone else please clearly delineate these differences for me?

Thanks,

-- Jun

I can't I'm afraid, as I don't see the separation as being a real or useful one but Chris used this definition in his post.

Area 1- How I use my body to do work.

Area 2- How I keep others from applying force to me.

I see these as being interwoven and not disparate.

Chris Li

01-30-2013, 09:29 AM

If you feel such links are so apparent, please explicitly reference those core practices within aikido when discussing these topics within the Internal Training in Aikido forum.

Thanks,

-- Jun

Well, I did, in the post that I addressed to you, and the same references have been raised many times on these forums.

I feel that everybody in these threads understands the context of the discussion (although they may not agree!), and that the discussion is in relation to internal training in Aikido, which is why I was puzzled by your statement.

Shout out to people on the thread - is there anybody who really does not understand this?

You may not agree that this is, or ought to be, a part of Aikido, and that's fine - jump in and join the discussion!

As I and Jason pointed out, there are many threads on the forums that are much more tangentially related to Aikido, but are somehow allowed to proceed without intereference so long as they involve something less controversial (and less interesting, IMO). Aren't the controversial topics the ones that we should be discussing?

Best,

Chris

HL1978

01-30-2013, 09:44 AM

Chris,

I'm in agreement here.

We could structure the discussion about specific ki tests for example, but in the end there would be no real difference as we would be talking about the same subject matter. Calling it a ki test instead of a push test matters little, though perhaps calling it a push test lets us get away from any preconceptions of how some people may be performing the tests.

Jun,

I repeated the other post in a new thread, as I realized after writing it, that I was talking about something different than what Chris H was referring too and from what Jason C. had introduced in his original post. It matters little to me if the two threads or joined together or not, but I believe more than one poster, including Chris H had requested to discuss some of the other types of approaches in a new thread.

chillzATL

01-30-2013, 09:49 AM

Chris,

I'm in agreement here.

We could structure the discussion about specific ki tests for example, but in the end there would be no real difference as we would be talking about the same subject matter. Calling it a ki test instead of a push test matters little, though perhaps calling it a push test lets us get away from any preconceptions of how some people may be performing the tests.

Even if you stick to ki tests and try to use the more aikido-familiar terms (extend ki) etc, at some point you have to discard that terminology to attempt to discuss them on a modern level that people can make sense of. If we start a thread here called "how to extend ki" nothing in that thread is going to be aikido specific, but you can't argue that the topic is 100% aikido related.

Cady Goldfield

01-30-2013, 10:30 AM

akiy

01-30-2013, 11:27 AM

Well, I did, in the post that I addressed to you, and the same references have been raised many times on these forums.
And, yes, I appreciated the fact that you included your references in your post. I am simply asking for more people to do so explicitly.

Thank you,

-- Jun

akiy

01-30-2013, 11:28 AM

Can't help noticing that since this Internal Training in Aikido forum was introduced, virtually all discussion of internal training has transferred out of Non-Aikido Martial Traditions and now takes place here.
Yes, this is one of the reasons why I am asking for more explicit connections to aikido being included when discussing things in this forum.

Thank you,

-- Jun

ChrisHein

01-30-2013, 11:47 PM

Can you, Chris, or someone else please clearly delineate these differences for me?

Thanks,

-- Jun

Here's what I get from all this. When we are talking about doing Aikido, we are talking about using our bodies. When the subject of 'internal' comes up, one of the main things that people seem to believe is that there is a different way of using the body (the internal way), this way allows for "Aiki". By not using this body method, we cannot do "Aiki".

So for me, it is important to hash out what this different body method is, this way assess why it may be useful for the practice of Aikido.

My main point of interest in this discussion is to find out how 'internal' is using the body in a unique way.

I made a distinction with 'area 1' and 'area 2' because I wanted to make a clear distinction between body use, and affecting the source of power. That is to say if the force coming at us is the same- how would 'internal' and non internal handle the situation differently. This would be 'area 1' if we change the amount of force coming in, before it gets to us (this is changing the force at the source of power) that would be 'area 2'.

I'm interested in all of this because of the idea that in order to do Aikido with "Aiki" we must use a special and unique body method.

As we're working through the problem, I think there are simpler ways to say it. I personally have no idea why we needed two threads. I think we could combine them both.

Dave de Vos

01-31-2013, 05:32 AM

I personally have no idea why we needed two threads. I think we could combine them both.

I think you suggested it yourself in post #61 (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=322858&postcount=61).

ChrisHein

01-31-2013, 11:31 AM

I think you suggested it yourself in post #61 (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=322858&postcount=61).

I think these two threads "internal Vs. Ext- resisting a push" and "resisting a push part. 2" are discussing the same thing, resisting a push. That is I am calling 'area 1 there is no reason not to combine those'. However there is now a "floating" thread, which addresses 'area 2', I think we need that distinction.

mrlizard123

01-31-2013, 11:37 AM

I think these two threads "internal Vs. Ext- resisting a push" and "resisting a push part. 2" are discussing the same thing, resisting a push. That is I am calling 'area 1 there is no reason not to combine those'. However there is now a "floating" thread, which addresses 'area 2', I think we need that distinction.

resist [rɪˈzɪst]
vb
1. to stand firm (against); not yield (to); fight (against)
2. (tr) to withstand the deleterious action of; be proof against

I think that you're making a case for using definition 1.
Others are using definition 2 perhaps?

ChrisHein

01-31-2013, 01:45 PM

I think that you're making a case for using definition 1.
Others are using definition 2 perhaps?

You're probably right.

To me there is a clear difference between being able to resist force (area 1)and doing something to make less force come in (area 2).

I think we started out talking about area 1 and as the conversation has gone on, everyone is more interested in talking about area 2 now. My need to stay on task has probably made me get out of touch with the conversation.

Bernd Lehnen

02-01-2013, 04:01 AM

You're probably right.

To me there is a clear difference between being able to resist force (area 1)and doing something to make less force come in (area 2).

I think we started out talking about area 1 and as the conversation has gone on, everyone is more interested in talking about area 2 now. My need to stay on task has probably made me get out of touch with the conversation.

Well, in fact, Sagawa stated quite clearly (and you may look it up in “ Transparent Power” or “Tomei na Chikara” by Kimura Tatsuo), that Takeda’s and his own aiki were about not letting another’s force impinge on you.:)

Perhaps, everyone else here is more interested in how this is translated into contemporary aikido?

Best,

Bernd

Tengu859

02-01-2013, 07:37 AM

Well, in fact, Sagawa stated quite clearly (and you may look it up in " Transparent Power" or "Tomei na Chikara" by Kimura Tatsuo), that Takeda's and his own aiki were about not letting another's force impinge on you.:)

Perhaps, everyone else here is more interested in how this is translated into contemporary aikido?

Best,

Bernd

Aiki in me, before you and thee...!!! I've heard this somewhere before...!!! :0)

Where are you...???

Take Care,

ChrisW

PS No such thing in contemporary Aikido...or DR for that matter... :0(

Bernd Lehnen

02-01-2013, 08:15 AM

Aiki in me, before you and thee...!!! I've heard this somewhere before...!!! :0)

Where are you...???

Take Care,

ChrisW

PS No such thing in contemporary Aikido...or DR for that matter... :0(

As to: No such thing in contemporary aikido...;) :

Hey Tengu,:cool:

I wouldn't verbalize it so strongly.

Think of Bill Gleason, George Ledyard, Chris Li, Saotome, Ikeda, then Phi and then Ron Ragusa and Mary Eastland. To my mind it's also a question of to which degree. Even Chris Hein displays it a bit in his videos of aikido, although he himself, may be, would immediately and strongly deny this.

Take care,

Bernd

Tengu859

02-01-2013, 11:18 AM

As to: No such thing in contemporary aikido...;) :

Hey Tengu,:cool:

I wouldn't verbalize it so strongly.

Think of Bill Gleason, George Ledyard, Chris Li, Saotome, Ikeda, then Phi and then Ron Ragusa and Mary Eastland. To my mind it's also a question of to which degree. Even Chris Hein displays it a bit in his videos of aikido, although he himself, may be, would immediately and strongly deny this.

Take care,

Bernd

Bernd,

Most of those you mentioned I wouldn't consider contemporary... ;0) Many of them from what I understand are studying/training in the whole IP/Aiki thing... :0)

Sorry to make it seem so bleak, but I feel its a sad state of affairs due to the way things seem to be unfolding... :0(

Take Care,

ChrisW

phitruong

02-04-2013, 12:57 PM

Think of Bill Gleason, George Ledyard, Chris Li, Saotome, Ikeda, then Phi and then Ron Ragusa and Mary Eastland. To my mind it's also a question of to which degree. Even Chris Hein displays it a bit in
Bernd

nooooo don't include me in with such august personalities. i am just a budo mutt. :)

you know i have reading these posts and we discussed the muscle, bone, and structure model and so on and so forth. I wondered if we should look at hydraulic system in the body. since we are really "ugly bags of mostly water", wouldn't it make sense to think in term of hydraulic? you know there is a pretty interesting hydraulic system that most, if not all, men have and tend to be obsessive about during our youth and life. :)

hydraulic system doesn't depend on rigid structure.

Bernd Lehnen

02-04-2013, 03:16 PM

nooooo don't include me in with such august personalities. i am just a budo mutt. :)

you know i have reading these posts and we discussed the muscle, bone, and structure model and so on and so forth. I wondered if we should look at hydraulic system in the body. since we are really "ugly bags of mostly water", wouldn't it make sense to think in term of hydraulic? you know there is a pretty interesting hydraulic system that most, if not all, men have and tend to be obsessive about during our youth and life. :)

hydraulic system doesn't depend on rigid structure.

Phi,

Even if internal training were all Greek to you, which it isn't, you'd still belong into the alphabet.;)

Bernd Lehnen

02-04-2013, 04:58 PM

Bernd,

Most of those you mentioned I wouldn't consider contemporary... ;0) Many of them from what I understand are studying/training in the whole IP/Aiki thing... :0)

Sorry to make it seem so bleak, but I feel its a sad state of affairs due to the way things seem to be unfolding... :0(

Take Care,

ChrisW

May I dare to ask you to be more explicit?

Tengu859

02-05-2013, 06:56 AM

May I dare to ask you to be more explicit?

Bernd,

Sorry. I think that I was being off topic(mostly for myself). I love this stuff. There is a bunch of it here on Aikiweb. It's just a matter of wading through it. Many of those that used to post here do not anymore. That's what makes me sad. Those with more experience, that can or could be a help to those interested in IP/Aiki are silent(whatever the reason may be). Maybe I'm being too negative. The blind leading the blind,etc. So don't mind me... :0)

Take Care,

ChrisW

Bernd Lehnen

02-05-2013, 11:09 AM

Bernd,

Sorry. I think that I was being off topic(mostly for myself). I love this stuff. There is a bunch of it here on Aikiweb. It's just a matter of wading through it. Many of those that used to post here do not anymore. That's what makes me sad. Those with more experience, that can or could be a help to those interested in IP/Aiki are silent(whatever the reason may be). Maybe I'm being too negative. The blind leading the blind,etc. So don't mind me... :0)

Take Care,

ChrisW

Sure I do.

Chris,
I owe you an answer.

Trying to not get much further off topic. Jun has been very generous so far.

Bill Gleason apparently never has posted anything here. Dan and others seem to keep silent for a while. May be, that will change (again) in the future.

So far, I have never personally met anyone in aikido, who could see absolutely clear; all were blind or may be up to threequarterblind, not to speak of teaching ability. We all suck.

But, to bring some light into internal training in aikido is a worthy endeavour. Even if our most wished for don’t or can’t take part.
To my mind this thread is a worthy attempt. No one of us partially blind makes the attempt to lead all others; we simply discuss and see, what we can get out of this all. The exchange of completely differing opinions may lead us to a clearer sight.
And take for example Chris Hein, his constantly stubborn “so what” attitude might further help to not cultivating alien hothouse ideas. Would be a pity to see him quit, too.
Then think of those others I mentioned, they’re all posting, and slowly we might come further and further and learn something together.
In this thread we’ve tried out and discussed, even strongly debated, several propositions.
Why, it’s not all that bad. You might chime in..

Take care.:)

Bernd