PDA

View Full Version : "resisting" a push part 2


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


HL1978
01-29-2013, 03:07 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. I wouldnt call this really "resisiting" because you aren't actively pushing back against the push, rather you are redirecting the force, and the resultant force causes the pusher to be pushed away.

This corresponds to one way to "float" an incoming push.

ChrisHein
01-29-2013, 05:27 PM
Hey Hunter,

Are you describing a 'feeling' that is 'internal' and not so much an actual physical difference? I ask because when you write about it, you often talk about how it 'feels' and don't worry so much about what is happening.

Could it be that the 'feeling' is the real difference, and that in both 'athletic' and 'internal' the body is actually responding in the same way?

With the new diagram (new Diagram (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1107&d=1359492340))in the second 'strong alignment' drawing. If the force is actually going into the font leg in that way, wouldn't it require more muscle to hold this position?

In the original red line force input, the skeleton is taking force (that's why there needs to be an alignment). This allows the muscles work less. In the new blue line, the muscles must do all the work to keep from being pushed over, and it seems to me that this would require more muscular strength and endurance. Do you agree or disagree?

HL1978
01-29-2013, 07:14 PM
Hey Hunter,

Are you describing a 'feeling' that is 'internal' and not so much an actual physical difference? I ask because when you write about it, you often talk about how it 'feels' and don't worry so much about what is happening.

Could it be that the 'feeling' is the real difference, and that in both 'athletic' and 'internal' the body is actually responding in the same way?

One could test it out with a couple of bathroom scales and see if by redirecting it to the front foot rather than the rear foot if more force actually goes into the front or rear foot (or try the same without a partner and see if through intent only it is possible to do). I only have one bathroom scale, so I'm not in a position to tell you if that is what actually happens, or if thats what I perceive as actually occurring. I would assume that if you were to see a change in the amount on one foot or the other, it probably would only be a small percentage of your overall weight rather than a huge one. Since I do tend to feel an increase in pressure, in the front foot, I would assume that is what is happening, as that is one way in which I can "float" or get under my partner.

I haven't spent much time with anyone who focuses on stand up grappling a few years, but even when I did we didn't do static push drills. I've never been floated by anyone when I did judo or wrestling (or BJJ), they usually got under just by physically dropping their body closer to the ground.

With the new diagram (new Diagram (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1107&d=1359492340))in the second 'strong alignment' drawing. If the force is actually going into the font leg in that way, wouldn't it require more muscle to hold this position?

Well, first of all wether I'm using structure or a ground path (they aren't the same), I would not want to actively push back. Sure in a push test it doesn't matter, because it is a static drill. In reality, if you push back, the whole if you push i pull dynamic comes in, and you actually make it easier for the other person who is pushing you.. If you are letting it go into the back leg or really anywhere, you don't want to provide any push back in the same direction. That took me years to finally understand what is a really simple idea. You simply don't push back, you have to abandon any feeling of being "strong" or "Stable" and you result in feeling stronger to the person pushing you. This is something completely counter-intuitive to most training I've encountered in martial arts or sports.

Now with that in mind, you really don't use much of any muscular effort other than what is required to hold yourself up or to redirect the force (it shouldn't take that much since you are using intent). You should not be straining against that incoming force at all so there should be really no additional muscular effort. If you get moved it doesn't matter, these drills are not really about how much force you can take. Its more important that if you get moved, you don't loose your balance, such as finding that you pop up on your heels or try and push back.

That misunderstanding is a common one I think, and leads to developing something other than "aiki". I think the perception may be that it is about as much as you can take due to demos. For development purposes, its really better to give a light static push rather than trying to wait until your partner fails at "resisting".

In the original red line force input, the skeleton is taking force (that's why there needs to be an alignment). This allows the muscles work less. In the new blue line, the muscles must do all the work to keep from being pushed over, and it seems to me that this would require more muscular strength and endurance. Do you agree or disagree?

I would disagree. I don't feel like I am utilizing any more effort one way or the other. Hopefully, I was able to make it clear that whether you put it in the rear foot, or put it in the front, you aren't pushing against the incoming force or resisting it in any way.. You are not, for example, trying to push the front leg into the ground by extending the front leg to try and redirect the force upwards. There are muscles you can use to add to the push in the same direction as the push, but thats a topic for much later. One which we can't really explore yet, although I did talk a little about it in one of the other threads.

RonRagusa
01-29-2013, 11:16 PM
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.

This is a nice description of what it's like to take a push with a coordinated mind and body. You use of the word "intent" corresponds to how I use the word "mind". The use of intent (mind) quantitatively enhances the person's being pushed ability to effectively deal with the force of the push. To experience how this feels simply perform the test while letting the mind wander, in your parlance, direct your intent elsewhere. Your ability to manipulate the force of the push should be markedly reduced.

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

It actually augments the structural model described by Chris. Via the use of mind/body coordination it gives rise to a more complete model that integrates the strengths of the physical and mental to form a sort of meta-structure that is capable of more than just resisting an incoming force.

Ron

phitruong
01-30-2013, 07:35 AM
This is a nice description of what it's like to take a push with a coordinated mind and body. You use of the word "intent" corresponds to how I use the word "mind". The use of intent (mind) quantitatively enhances the person's being pushed ability to effectively deal with the force of the push. To experience how this feels simply perform the test while letting the mind wander, in your parlance, direct your intent elsewhere. Your ability to manipulate the force of the push should be markedly reduced.

It actually augments the structural model described by Chris. Via the use of mind/body coordination it gives rise to a more complete model that integrates the strengths of the physical and mental to form a sort of meta-structure that is capable of more than just resisting an incoming force.

Ron

the reason why we use the word intent instead of mind is that everyone has a mind, unless you are a mime then your mind is in an invisible box. intent is an action of the mind where the mind is just a reservoir which powers the direction/vector of. the intent along with relaxation allows your body to microscopically readjust/reconfigure itself to the right structure or the meta-structure that you spoke of. of course, we are now venture into the lala land, where we will sing and dance naked around bonfire. intent is the ki (pun intended). when my youngest son was a wee babe, still in diaper. one time while driving, i saw his face, in the rear view mirror, with a such intense focus expression of highly focus intent, then he grabbed his toes with his baby hands and giggled. i immediately rolled down all the windows. my wife said "what are you doing?....arrrggghhhhh oh god! what did he eat?!!!" :D

RonRagusa
01-30-2013, 08:04 AM
the reason why we use the word intent instead of mind is that everyone has a mind...

And all minds possess intent. In fact, intent is so intertwined with the concept of "mind" that the two are indistinguishable. So if you're intent on using the word intent, I have no intention of dissuading you (any and all puns fully intentional).:)

Ron

Gary David
01-30-2013, 10:47 AM
And all minds possess intent. In fact, intent is so intertwined with the concept of "mind" that the two are indistinguishable. So if you're intent on using the word intent, I have no intention of dissuading you (any and all puns fully intentional).:)

Ron

I think we are talking focused and trained intent used to assist fully in the specific movement for single whole all at once connected effort that is greater than the sum of the parts. It is the goal for even everyday movement, but seldom realized.......
Gary

RonRagusa
01-30-2013, 11:32 AM
I think we are talking focused and trained intent used to assist fully in the specific movement for single whole all at once connected effort that is greater than the sum of the parts. It is the goal for even everyday movement, but seldom realized.......
Gary

Yeah, coordination of mind and body. I get it. I train it. I do it. I've posted here on Aikiweb and in my blog descriptions of some of the exercises and methods I use in training and teaching. No secrets, no one has to come and meet me to find out what I'm doing. I'll freely share what I do with anyone who is interested.

Perhaps you can, within the context of the thread topic, explain specifically some of the exercises you do to train and focus your intent when it comes to "resisting a push".

Ron

Chris Li
01-30-2013, 12:23 PM
And all minds possess intent. In fact, intent is so intertwined with the concept of "mind" that the two are indistinguishable. So if you're intent on using the word intent, I have no intention of dissuading you (any and all puns fully intentional).:)

Ron

I think that what Phi is referring to is that "mind" and "intent" are often distinguished between in Japanese and Chinese culture, and that the differences are important to many of the martial explanations given in Chinese arts...and by Morihei Ueshiba.

Mix the two and some (many?) of those classical explanations make much less sense.

Best,

Chris

Gary David
01-30-2013, 12:58 PM
Yeah, coordination of mind and body. I get it. I train it. I do it. I've posted here on Aikiweb and in my blog descriptions of some of the exercises and methods I use in training and teaching. No secrets, no one has to come and meet me to find out what I'm doing. I'll freely share what I do with anyone who is interested.

Perhaps you can, within the context of the thread topic, explain specifically some of the exercises you do to train and focus your intent when it comes to "resisting a push".

Ron

Ron
I started doing Ki exercises in 1974.....all the testing and all of that.....and within the context of this thread the training didn't go far enough or provide enough information to have a practical application past that of a warmup or use within the dojo environment. All of these static push exercises are nothing other than beginning exercises to allow one the understanding of what is possible.....they have to be translated into moving, into motion and movement or they are still not helpful.

In the context of this thread I will be teaching a class a week from Friday and I will try to video some stuffs to compare my thoughts (my opinions) with yours and others. Hope this fits your request.

Gary

Bernd Lehnen
01-30-2013, 01:12 PM
I think that what Phi is referring to is that "mind" and "intent" are often distinguished between in Japanese and Chinese culture, and that the differences are important to many of the martial explanations given in Chinese arts...and by Morihei Ueshiba.

Mix the two and some (many?) of those classical explanations make much less sense.

Best,

Chris

That’s, to my mind, a very critical point for the explanation and understanding of what’s internal in aikido, too, Chris.
My language skills and expertise are not sufficient, to elaborate further on this. But I’d love to see you doing this once.

“In my mind my intention meets the intention of others, aiki.”

Best,:)

Bernd

RonRagusa
01-30-2013, 02:24 PM
Thanks Gary, I look forward to seeing the results.

JFTR we have extended Ki exercises and testing beyond warmup applicability and are using both as development tools, both statically and in motion.

Chris, I understand. But I have to admit that I am not all that interested in the historical context that you referred to. I am more interested in establishing the correct feeling required to accomplish the task and then strengthening that feeling so I can replicate it as necessary. That's probably why the choice of metaphor means little to me.

Ron

Chris Li
01-30-2013, 02:32 PM
Thanks Gary, I look forward to seeing the results.

JFTR we have extended Ki exercises and testing beyond warmup applicability and are using both as development tools, both statically and in motion.

Chris, I understand. But I have to admit that I am not all that interested in the historical context that you referred to. I am more interested in establishing the correct feeling required to accomplish the task and then strengthening that feeling so I can replicate it as necessary. That's probably why the choice of metaphor means little to me.

Ron

The choice of metaphor doesn't really matter - except that it does when you try to talk to anybody else, otherwise nobody can understand each other.

Like anybody could understand Phi, anyway. :D

Best,

Chris

jonreading
01-30-2013, 04:55 PM
As a general observation, I often distinguish the difference between intent and mind as a comparison of understanding a thing, and doing a thing. Intellectually, I can understand how to hit a baseball. But understanding and doing are different. So while I understand that generally speaking, we use them interchangeably, I am not sure we should be. For example, Ikeda sensei is talking about mind/body unification. I need a concrete (and same) definition of "mind" for me to understand what sensei is saying.

Alternatively, there is something to intent. I think some of the stuff in prosthetics, for example, is wonderful.

ChrisHein
01-30-2013, 05:26 PM
One could test it out with a couple of bathroom scales and see if by redirecting it to the front foot rather than the rear foot if more force actually goes into the front or rear foot (or try the same without a partner and see if through intent only it is possible to do). I only have one bathroom scale, so I'm not in a position to tell you if that is what actually happens, or if thats what I perceive as actually occurring.

Fair enough ( I don't even have one bathroom scale so I'm in no better position, HA! But, I'll bet you are right, I bet, from what you are describing that there will indeed be a shift in weight.


Since I do tend to feel an increase in pressure, in the front foot, I would assume that is what is happening, as that is one way in which I can "float" or get under my partner.


I would like to talk about the concept of "floating" more. I think it may end up being very important to our discussion. However, strictly speaking, changing the force they can apply to you is out side of the way I'm thinking about the problem. I'm not saying that it's not valid, but before we understand how two seemingly different body usages are receiving a similar force, I don't believe we can move to that part. So what I'm asking, is that at first, we simply look at one force coming in, we can give it a number and say it's constant- like "10". Who knows what the "10" is, but we know it's a constant. I believe when we get into things like "floating" we are changing the incoming force. This is to say if we are "floating" someone the incoming force might drop to 6, because the person applying force can't apply as much now. Again, I'm not saying this isn't part of what we are talking about. But the first think I think we need to get a consensus on is how two seemingly different body use systems would deal with the same problem (incoming force "10") in different ways. Do you think this is fair?


Well, first of all wether I'm using structure or a ground path (they aren't the same), I would not want to actively push back. Sure in a push test it doesn't matter, because it is a static drill. In reality, if you push back, the whole if you push i pull dynamic comes in, and you actually make it easier for the other person who is pushing you.. If you are letting it go into the back leg or really anywhere, you don't want to provide any push back in the same direction. That took me years to finally understand what is a really simple idea. You simply don't push back, you have to abandon any feeling of being "strong" or "Stable" and you result in feeling stronger to the person pushing you. This is something completely counter-intuitive to most training I've encountered in martial arts or sports.

Here I think we are getting into trouble. If you are 'resisting' a push there there has to be a resistance- a 'push back'. Now I believe we can make a distinction in our pushing back, kind of what I think you are getting at. We can call one pushing 'active', this kind of pushing would be like when you bench press a weight off your chest, you are using the muscles in arms a chest to 'actively push' the weight off of your chest. There is also an 'inactive' push. This is like what a table does when you set a drink on it. The table doesn't have any muscles, so it's not 'actively pushing' your drink off the ground, but because of the tables structure, it 'inactively pushes' keeping your drink from falling to the ground.

This distinction is going to become important as we look at what pushing means, and how we use our muscles to do it. I agree that, when resisting an incoming force, I would like to 'actively push' against the force as little as possible. I say this because 'active pushing' requires more muscular tension, and stronger muscles to resist more force. When I am resisting an incoming force I would like to use as much 'inactive pushing' as possible. This simply requires my bones to take the load, so I don't have to use much muscular force. Above, when you say that you don't want to "push against", I would say you are talking about 'inactive pushing' as I just described it, am I correct in this assumption?


Now with that in mind, you really don't use much of any muscular effort other than what is required to hold yourself up or to redirect the force (it shouldn't take that much since you are using intent). You should not be straining against that incoming force at all so there should be really no additional muscular effort.


Here you are describing, to me, an ideal response to incoming force. I would say that you are using alignment of the bones to take force, so the muscles can relax, and I would describe that similarly. However I think you are suggesting that you don't use bone alignment to take the force. My question then is, if you're not using the bones to take the force, what are you using? The only think I would think that you can use to resist the force, if you're not aligning the bones, is muscular tension. How do you feel about this?


If you get moved it doesn't matter, these drills are not really about how much force you can take. Its more important that if you get moved, you don't loose your balance, such as finding that you pop up on your heels or try and push back.

I would say the same thing about ideal athletic movement, except I would add, when you're moved you must re align your body to the force from the new position.

ChrisHein
01-30-2013, 05:46 PM
I've been thinking about this problem a lot the last few days, and how to best explain the way I understand it.

Here is the problem: we have a force coming at us (it's entering our body), I would like to give that force a number, to help keep things clear as we move through the problem. The force coming at us is "10".

We want to keep this force of "10" from pushing us over. To do this, we'll have to 'resist' the force with a force of our own that equals "10" or more.

Inside of our body, we have three things that can 'resist' forces. Two of these things provide 'inactive force' that is to say their structural integrity provides the force, like a table holding a drink. One of these things provides 'active force' that is to say it can change/vary the amount of force it provides. The things that provide 'inactive force' are bones and connective tissue. The things inside your body that can provide active force, are muscles. These are the only three things we have to resist an incoming force.

If in proper alignment, the bones can provide a force to resist a push with no muscular help at all. That is to say, if your body was propped into the right position, you wouldn't need any muscle to resist the incoming force. Connective tissue can do the same thing. If placed into the correct alignment, it can resist a force with no muscular contraction. However in order to move the bones and connective tissue into the correct positions we have to use our muscles. Also in order to "hold" the bones and connective tissue in these positions, the muscles have to work. Ideally we can find an arrangement that requires very little muscular tension to hold this position. This is the essence of "alignment" we arrange our bones and connective tissue in such a way that we don't require much muscle to hold them there. If we don't arrange our connective tissue and bones in a good way, we have to use more muscle to hold the position (the bone's and connective tissue aren't helping us as much).

If you've followed what I've written so far, and agree, we can look at my main question.

If you're not using the bones and connective tissue in good alignment with the ground, how is it that you are not using more muscle to resist the force??

Here are some diagrams I made to show what I feel is going on with muscles and bones in and out of alignment. It also shows what I would call these different alignments.
1110

The first diagram shows how little muscle would have to work if the bones (and connective tissue) take some of the force. The bones in the arm arm aligned with the incoming force.

In the second diagram, the bones are not in alignment with the force. So the muscles have to work harder to support the force, as the bones (and connective tissue) are not taking some of the force)

In the third diagram, we see someone firing extra muscles that are not needed to resist the incoming force. I would say this is the kind of thing people are talking about when they describe "external" body use.

asiawide
01-30-2013, 06:31 PM
Chris, I have a question. In your model what is good aikido? alignment + muscle strength while standing or moving?

hughrbeyer
01-30-2013, 07:28 PM
So your definition of "internals" is basically wedging your body under the force like a door stop? That's what your diagram #1 is doing. I don't think it's even good athletics.

ChrisHein
01-30-2013, 10:25 PM
Chris, I have a question. In your model what is good aikido? alignment + muscle strength while standing or moving?

Alignment+muscle. While standing or moving, both.

ChrisHein
01-30-2013, 10:27 PM
So your definition of "internals" is basically wedging your body under the force like a door stop? That's what your diagram #1 is doing. I don't think it's even good athletics.

Hey Hugh.

That diagram #1 shows bones and the muscles of lets say the arm. By aligning the bones, the muscles don't have to contract as much/work as hard. It is basically what is happening when I show my push demon in my structure and alignment video.

HL1978
01-31-2013, 09:42 AM
I would like to talk about the concept of "floating" more. I think it may end up being very important to our discussion. However, strictly speaking, changing the force they can apply to you is out side of the way I'm thinking about the problem. I'm not saying that it's not valid, but before we understand how two seemingly different body usages are receiving a similar force, I don't believe we can move to that part. So what I'm asking, is that at first, we simply look at one force coming in, we can give it a number and say it's constant- like "10". Who knows what the "10" is, but we know it's a constant. I believe when we get into things like "floating" we are changing the incoming force. This is to say if we are "floating" someone the incoming force might drop to 6, because the person applying force can't apply as much now. Again, I'm not saying this isn't part of what we are talking about. But the first think I think we need to get a consensus on is how two seemingly different body use systems would deal with the same problem (incoming force "10") in different ways. Do you think this is fair?

In my experience, when you are first introduced to IS, you tend to use the back foot ground path or structural alignment approach such as what you are suggesting because it is the most easily accessible method. The limitations to it become readily apparent, and people move on to working various other skills such as floating.

When you get floated, you will find that your input of 10 does seem to drop, but the body of your opponent had to still deal with that 10 level of input. For me, floating someone via the front foot like I discussed, basically requires setting it up beforehand (that is to say ideally you are already under yourself all the time or if using the front foot, you have already set your body up to have a path go somewhere). Trying to get under yourself after you have a point of contact is more difficult (or even trying to establish a ground path afterwards), at least for me depending on the level of the incoming force.

I'm certainly willing to explore the discussion you propose.

Here I think we are getting into trouble. If you are 'resisting' a push there there has to be a resistance- a 'push back'. Now I believe we can make a distinction in our pushing back, kind of what I think you are getting at. We can call one pushing 'active', this kind of pushing would be like when you bench press a weight off your chest, you are using the muscles in arms a chest to 'actively push' the weight off of your chest. There is also an 'inactive' push. This is like what a table does when you set a drink on it. The table doesn't have any muscles, so it's not 'actively pushing' your drink off the ground, but because of the tables structure, it 'inactively pushes' keeping your drink from falling to the ground.

I would mostly agree, though there are other analogues to the structure of the table within the human body for conveying forces which do not require alignment. Obviously tendons and ligaments can convey force, and most of the body is wrapped in muscle which given that it is intraconnected through the body with other support systems can convey force (i.e. tensed muscles), or perhaps fascia (lets forgo any discussion of whether it contracts for now) given that is is a sort of a connective tissue

That is to say, that other things in the body can convey forces without requiring a particular structural alignment.

This distinction is going to become important as we look at what pushing means, and how we use our muscles to do it. I agree that, when resisting an incoming force, I would like to 'actively push' against the force as little as possible. I say this because 'active pushing' requires more muscular tension, and stronger muscles to resist more force. When I am resisting an incoming force I would like to use as much 'inactive pushing' as possible. This simply requires my bones to take the load, so I don't have to use much muscular force. Above, when you say that you don't want to "push against", I would say you are talking about 'inactive pushing' as I just described it, am I correct in this assumption?

If we are talking about receiving the most simple push, yes I would agree, but once we get into more complex things I would begin to differ. Obviously in aikido you aren't in a static posture or use the alignment granted from straight arms when performing waza.

Again keeping it simple, if I don't push back and I get moved, I want to be moved such that my weight is committed straight down such that I am not unbalanced when I am moved. This often results in the attacker loosing their balance. There are specific drills which can work on that, but that is more complex than what we are talking about now. Generally speaking, for most people, if they are moved, they weight gets committed in the direction they are moved, in part because their body "deforms" as a result of the inputted force which compromises their posture. I assume you agree with this as indicated by your comments about having to reset/regain that structural posture.

Active pushing can be used in different ways than "resisting". That is to say as I touched on elsewhere in other diagrams, you can push with the force rather than against it and something else happens entirely than the typical you push/I pull dynamic. I think we both agree that pushing directly in opposition to the force is not what should be done in aikido/IS.

The problem of course is what can we do when your structure is compromised, or if you are in a position in which you can't use structure at all, which for most people results in pushing against that force in some manner.

For me personally, I feel zero additional muscular effort whether I direct a force to my front foot or my rear foot, though to be honest, I am really "splitting" the forces between the two.

Here you are describing, to me, an ideal response to incoming force. I would say that you are using alignment of the bones to take force, so the muscles can relax, and I would describe that similarly. However I think you are suggesting that you don't use bone alignment to take the force. My question then is, if you're not using the bones to take the force, what are you using? The only think I would think that you can use to resist the force, if you're not aligning the bones, is muscular tension. How do you feel about this?

You could use muscular tension, but that isn't "internal" and has obvious disadvantages. I stated other portions of the anatomy which can convey forces. You could use different sets of muscle pairs, which I agree could be construed as muscular tension (although the opponent won't feel it as such). You eventually want to use the musculature of the torso to direct and pull on the limbs via some of those support structures, but that requires going through a progressive stages and conditioning. Of course the bones still convey the force, but with conditioning, other portions of the body can convey that force as well and thus don't require the limited postures of which you can utilize access good skeletal alignment. This was demonstrated in Forrest Chang's SJT video. Remember he doesn't say that structure is required for "jin", or in order to create (within yourself) a force that utilizes an opponents energy, you don't need a particular structural alignment.

I would say the same thing about ideal athletic movement, except I would add, when you're moved you must re align your body to the force from the new position.

This is where the internal approach differs. You don't need to reset to any particular alignment, as long as you are still "connected" or not off balance. Same thing shown in Forrest's video.

HL1978
01-31-2013, 09:55 AM
If you're not using the bones and connective tissue in good alignment with the ground, how is it that you are not using more muscle to resist the force??


Obviously if you use structure you have to use muscles to hold yourself up.

I believe you are familiar that you can use the muscles of the legs to push back while maintianing structure, and thus you should understand that you can use non local muscle to generate power conveyed by support structures of some kind to the point of contact with the opponent. (I don't consider this to be internal, just showing that this builds upon the initial logic you have presented).

Chris, let me know if the following is accurate in terms of your opinion:

So strictly speaking, by your definition, using musculature elsewhere in the body which conveys a force via support structures is less efficient than using structure. I would agree if the only judging criteria is the amount of muscle applied. The problem is that structure is limiting, its effectiveness drops when your posture is compromised in which case, the average person has to rely on more muscle to deal with incoming force. If you can use the body in the manner I am talking about, you wind up using far far far less muscle when the structure is compromised.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that you never want to give up structure, just that you learn how to use other manners of movement, it will not only enhance how you use structure, but not leave you vulnerable (like the typical person is) when it is compromised.

RonRagusa
01-31-2013, 11:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT3wkxr0Jq4&list=UUYm1xci-IqGeLiSzbAhGPKA&index=11

Chris, in the video above from your YouTube site you display using structure and alignment to resist a push on your outstretched arm. I noticed that your arm is stretched out to the side so that you are taking the push laterally. Have you tried this exercise with your arm stretched out in front of you so that you are taking the push head on instead of from the side?

You can try this with your feet in three different configurations: in a right or left stance, natural stance with feet parallel, on one foot. You can also vary the configuration of the arm being pushed from ramrod straight to having wrist, elbow and shoulder configured as in diagram 1 of your alignment series. If you give this a try I'd be interested in hearing about your experience.

Ron

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 03:31 PM
When you get floated, you will find that your input of 10 does seem to drop, but the body of your opponent had to still deal with that 10 level of input. For me, floating someone via the front foot like I discussed, basically requires setting it up beforehand (that is to say ideally you are already under yourself all the time or if using the front foot, you have already set your body up to have a path go somewhere). Trying to get under yourself after you have a point of contact is more difficult (or even trying to establish a ground path afterwards), at least for me depending on the level of the incoming force.

When I say "floating" what I mean, and think you mean, and is physically happening, is that the person pushing on you starts to lose connection with the ground. Because of this lack of connection to the ground they lose the ability to apply force to you. Now for them they might feel that they are pushing as hard as they can, and they are, but because they are not connected to the ground as well as you are (they are "floating") they are actually applying less force to you. This means the force coming in would drop from 10 to say 6. It's like trying to apply straight horizontal force to a wedge. You keep sliding up the wedge so that you can apply direct force on the wedge.


I would mostly agree, though there are other analogues to the structure of the table within the human body for conveying forces which do not require alignment.


I agree, but this means using muscles to make that alignment. If you're not using muscles, and you're not using connective tissue or bones to align to the ground- what is resisting the force?


Obviously tendons and ligaments can convey force, and most of the body is wrapped in muscle which given that it is intraconnected through the body with other support systems can convey force (i.e. tensed muscles), or perhaps fascia (lets forgo any discussion of whether it contracts for now) given that is is a sort of a connective tissue

Ligaments, tendons, fascia, skin- and actually are all connective tissue. I believe bone is also connective tissue, but it makes since to make a distinction in our case. So we only have three kinds of things the can make force- connective tissue, muscles, and bone. If you're not making alignments with supportive structures (The ground or muscles for the most part) how are you making force to resist anything? If you aren't using the ground as your supportive structure, how is it that you are not using more muscle instead of less muscle?


That is to say, that other things in the body can convey forces without requiring a particular structural alignment.


what are the things that can make/convey force that is not one of the above listed three?


Again keeping it simple, if I don't push back and I get moved, I want to be moved such that my weight is committed straight down such that I am not unbalanced when I am moved.
this is getting beyond the topic of 'resisting' a push.
Because of this constant movement away from the topic of 'resisting' the push, I feel that you believe that non-resistance is a key part of 'internal'. If this is so, why disagree that the athletic model I described is not the best way to 'resist' a push? If 'internal' and the belief that Aikido in naturally an 'internal' art, has to do mostly with non-resistance, then can we start to agree here? If we are talking about 'resisting' and 'internal' doesn't resist, then why argue this point?


This often results in the attacker loosing their balance. There are specific drills which can work on that, but that is more complex than what we are talking about now. Generally speaking, for most people, if they are moved, they weight gets committed in the direction they are moved, in part because their body "deforms" as a result of the inputted force which compromises their posture. I assume you agree with this as indicated by your comments about having to reset/regain that structural posture.

I agree that if you move, you need to realign to maintain alignment.


Active pushing can be used in different ways than "resisting". That is to say as I touched on elsewhere in other diagrams, you can push with the force rather than against it and something else happens entirely than the typical you push/I pull dynamic. I think we both agree that pushing directly in opposition to the force is not what should be done in aikido/IS.

I agree, so can we simply say that 'internal' doesn't really have to do with resistance to pushing? If we can't say that, then how does an 'internally trained' body resist a push". If the answer is deflection of force, or something similar (redirection etc. etc.) then again, we are not talking about resistance. So are we not talking about resistance at all?

The problem of course is what can we do when your structure is compromised, or if you are in a position in which you can't use structure at all, which for most people results in pushing against that force in some manner.

For me personally, I feel zero additional muscular effort whether I direct a force to my front foot or my rear foot, though to be honest, I am really "splitting" the forces between the two.


You could use muscular tension, but that isn't "internal" and has obvious disadvantages. I stated other portions of the anatomy which can convey forces. You could use different sets of muscle pairs, which I agree could be construed as muscular tension (although the opponent won't feel it as such). You eventually want to use the musculature of the torso to direct and pull on the limbs via some of those support structures,

I don't understand these distinctions. So you are using muscles, and muscles are tensing. So how is it that if the body is not in alignment with the ground, you can use less muscular tension?


Of course the bones still convey the force, but with conditioning, other portions of the body can convey that force as well and thus don't require the limited postures of which you can utilize access good skeletal alignment.

How can this be done without requiring more muscular force. In my simple diagram I was showing how the muscles don't have to work so hard if they can align the bones, so the bones take the force. If you are not aligning with the ground (this is what would allow you to have less limited postures) and the muscles are not taking the force (requiring more muscular tension) then what other "thing" is taking the force?


This is where the internal approach differs. You don't need to reset to any particular alignment, as long as you are still "connected" or not off balance. Same thing shown in Forrest's video.

So how is it that you do not have to reset (make a new alignment) and you don't have to use more muscular force (the muscles take the force)? To me it sounds like we agree, there are only three things in the body that make force. You are eliminating two of them, and somehow making more/better force. How can you do that? What is providing the resistance? In my model only two things provide resistance the bones (aligning with the ground) and the muscle (providing active force). You seem to be saying the the connective tissue, which is soft, not having a rigid structure can keep the body upright and resist more force, then a body using bones, muscles and connective tissue. How does that happen?

These things are really getting too long. We need to agree on something very soon.

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 03:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT3wkxr0Jq4&list=UUYm1xci-IqGeLiSzbAhGPKA&index=11

Chris, in the video above from your YouTube site you display using structure and alignment to resist a push on your outstretched arm. I noticed that your arm is stretched out to the side so that you are taking the push laterally. Have you tried this exercise with your arm stretched out in front of you so that you are taking the push head on instead of from the side?

You can try this with your feet in three different configurations: in a right or left stance, natural stance with feet parallel, on one foot. You can also vary the configuration of the arm being pushed from ramrod straight to having wrist, elbow and shoulder configured as in diagram 1 of your alignment series. If you give this a try I'd be interested in hearing about your experience.

Ron

I've done all of these things quite a lot. With feel parallel or on one foot, without changing the way the force is coming in, it's impossible to resist much force. I can stand that way (parallel or on one foot), and redirect the push, which makes me very stable, and wears uke out.

RonRagusa
01-31-2013, 04:16 PM
I've done all of these things quite a lot. With feel parallel or on one foot, without changing the way the force is coming in, it's impossible to resist much force. I can stand that way (parallel or on one foot), and redirect the push, which makes me very stable, and wears uke out.

When I think of redirection of a force I assume a counter force is being applied at an angle to the incoming force as in slipping a punch and applying force to the attackers arm at a right angle to the direction of the punch.

So when you redirect the push are you changing the angle at which the force is being applied to your arm? And can you do that while keeping your arm straight? I would do it by slightly bending my wrist and elbow. With the added benefit of coordinating mind and body (intent) I can reduce the amount of force reaching my shoulder to practically zero. I think of it as dissipating the force as opposed to redirecting it but I suppose both are at work to one degree or another.

From what I have garnered reading Aikiweb posts, the "internal" folks claim that a sufficiently trained person is capable of resisting a full on front push to the chest in natural stance without displaying any outward movement whatsoever. I've never seen it done or fail to be done so I can't say yea or nay at this point. Assuming for the moment that the claims are true, how could you use alignment and structure to explain the feat?

Ron

hughrbeyer
01-31-2013, 11:07 PM
So how come if you push a car, you don't align your bones? Elbows, knees, hips are all bent to some degree. Why is this the most efficient way? After all, pushing a car is just the reverse problem of being pushed by a car.

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 11:53 PM
When I think of redirection of a force I assume a counter force is being applied at an angle to the incoming force as in slipping a punch and applying force to the attackers arm at a right angle to the direction of the punch.

So when you redirect the push are you changing the angle at which the force is being applied to your arm? And can you do that while keeping your arm straight? I would do it by slightly bending my wrist and elbow. With the added benefit of coordinating mind and body (intent) I can reduce the amount of force reaching my shoulder to practically zero. I think of it as dissipating the force as opposed to redirecting it but I suppose both are at work to one degree or another.

From what I have garnered reading Aikiweb posts, the "internal" folks claim that a sufficiently trained person is capable of resisting a full on front push to the chest in natural stance without displaying any outward movement whatsoever. I've never seen it done or fail to be done so I can't say yea or nay at this point. Assuming for the moment that the claims are true, how could you use alignment and structure to explain the feat?

Ron

Hey Ron,
I've tried it several ways. Of late I've been working on a way to do it quite nicely with slightly bent arms.

I believe that you are correct about 'internal' people making this claim. I have never seen this either. I have seen displays of alignment as I've shown in my video. I've also seen demonstrations of redirecting/dissipating/deflecting (whatever we want to call it). I've also seen a large number of novel tricks that can make it look like this is possible. But I've never seen video, or in person demonstration of someone standing square, not aligning and taking (relatively) large amounts of force. There's a lot of hearsay about such things.

Until I've seen it, I can't and wouldn't try, to explain it. We've got to look at everything on a case by case basis.

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 11:58 PM
So how come if you push a car, you don't align your bones? Elbows, knees, hips are all bent to some degree. Why is this the most efficient way? After all, pushing a car is just the reverse problem of being pushed by a car.

Well, you do align your bones. If you've ever pushed a car, or watched someone do it, you see them get into a steep position to start pushing. This steep position lines up the bones/structure of the body with the force of the car. This enables us to use weight and alignment to help us.

The joints bend to help the muscles apply active force to the object we want to move. We bend our knees to extend our legs to move the car.

In the receiving a push discussion we are talking mostly about passive resistance. In the car pushing example, we are talking about very active pushing. The muscles propel the car forward when we move the car. The muscles hold the alignment when we are receiving force.

You are correct, similar, but slightly different. In either situation alignment helps greatly.

Dave de Vos
02-01-2013, 01:17 AM
I haven't found a video of push tests on an arm, but this one might be close enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLOGR8tfRFE&feature=player_detailpage#t=141s
I don't know much about this instructor, but the beginning of this fragment looks like push tests we do (to about 2:40). Uke is not pushing on the instructor's arm, but directly on his center, which probably makes it easier. Also, the instructor is obviously pushed on his heels at the start. He has to correct a bit and he might be leaning on uke later on, so there is room for improvement here.

ChrisHein
02-01-2013, 02:11 AM
Well, I wouldn't say that he is receiving much of a push.

He is also ready to hook the guys elbow area. He didn't really latch on, but he also didn't receive much force. Any time you see them reaching out with their hands to make contact with the pusher, especially if they are hooking the arm or reaching under the pushing hands, there is a good chance they are bracing themselves by attaching to the pusher. It's kind of a trick, but depending on what you're looking at it's also kind of a legitimate technique.

Dave de Vos
02-01-2013, 02:37 AM
We do the push test without touching uke or keeping our hands near uke's elbow. And quite a few of Dan's students would do a lot better than what is shown in this video.

Then again, I don't want to be negative about this instructor. He seems to be demonstrating something else than just receiving a push. I just picked this video because this part looked similar to a push test we commonly do.

Dave de Vos
02-01-2013, 04:12 AM
You say there isn't much of a push in the video.
I don't know how well one can see how strong a push is.
For example, there are several videos on YouTube about the Aunkai pushout exercise, which you have undoubtedly seen before.
I've never studied Aunkai, so I'm not sure if the purpose of this exercise is actualy a push test, but assuming that is is to some extent, one could do this test with very little force or quite a lot of force. If you and you partner are balancing out, there are no visual cues to the amount of force being exerted.

The only way to know for sure is by measuring, not by watching a video.

My own body weight is 70 kgs (155 lbs).
When I push a bathroom scale horizontally against a wall, I have to push hard to get to 20 kgs (45 lbs), about 30% of my body weight. The height of my horizontal push is 120 cm (4 ft) from the ground. I'm 178 cm tall (5'11").

I recently asked my wife to push the bathroom scale against my belly, and gently increase the pressure. (Getting my wife to do it gently is a challenge in itself ;))
I don't allow myself to cheat by leaning on my partner. My partner is allowed to suddenly and unexpectedly remove his/her force. If I lose my balance, I was cheating.
My limit was 9 kgs (20 lbs), 12% of my body weight. The height of the push was about 105 cm (3'6") from the ground.
I consider this a moderate push when I push the scale against the wall to the same amount. I might do a bit better if I practise more with my wife and the scale, but I think these number are a good indication of my current ability.

I gave you my numbers so you can go ahead and demonstrate that you can withstand a stronger push than me using nothing but athleticism. I have no doubt that you'll succeed.

I really don't think push tests should be like a weight lifting contest. I think it's for monitoring my own progress. Most important for me is that I'm a lot better now than when I started. (I haven't done such a test when I started so I have no numbers to support that, though.)
Anyway, I'm still very low level. Is it too far fetched that I could increase my limit to 20 kgs (45 lbs) by training a few years more?

RonRagusa
02-01-2013, 07:55 AM
I really don't think push tests should be like a weight lifting contest. I think it's for monitoring my own progress. Most important for me is that I'm a lot better now than when I started.

He hits the nail squarely upon its head folks.:)

While all of these exercises make for impressive demonstrations their employment as training tools is where their real value lies.

Ron

Bernd Lehnen
02-01-2013, 08:38 AM
Hey Ron,
I've tried it several ways. Of late I've been working on a way to do it quite nicely with slightly bent arms.

I believe that you are correct about 'internal' people making this claim. I have never seen this either. I have seen displays of alignment as I've shown in my video. I've also seen demonstrations of redirecting/dissipating/deflecting (whatever we want to call it). I've also seen a large number of novel tricks that can make it look like this is possible. But I've never seen video, or in person demonstration of someone standing square, not aligning and taking (relatively) large amounts of force. There's a lot of hearsay about such things.

Until I've seen it, I can't and wouldn't try, to explain it. We've got to look at everything on a case by case basis.

This, to my mind, is a good summary of where you come from, Chris. Many would agree.

Ron may have gone a step further in his approach by relating to ki, as a good teaching tool in the way Tohei may have intended.

But it appears to me, that the “ hardcore internal” people in aikido apply ki more as a subset of applying intent and other things, so that ki alone isn’t sufficient to do or explain the things that happen in the process of effective aiki(do) nor what they have in mind with this internal stuff.

And a simple model for structure and using vectors may even be of lesser use to them.

hughrbeyer
02-01-2013, 12:33 PM
Frankly, I can't tell the difference between ki and intent, except intent is less woo so maybe more acceptable to people who have burned out on ki.

Ron, I think the points you're making about working with bent arms here, and earlier when you pointed out that Chris H's first block man diagram was best for resisting a push, are very deep.

Janet Rosen
02-01-2013, 01:14 PM
Frankly, I can't tell the difference between ki and intent, except intent is less woo so maybe more acceptable to people who have burned out on ki. .

Good point - I work with extending ki per my instructors in K Tohei Sensei lineage and with focusing or projecting intent per seminars w/ Ikeda Sensei and Ledyard Sensei - in my own practice, the latter has built on the former, giving me more specific body tools for implementing the former - on a purely visualization/metaphor level they are darn close and "intent" may make more sense as a term to some folks.

ChrisHein
02-01-2013, 01:16 PM
I really don't think push tests should be like a weight lifting contest. I think it's for monitoring my own progress. Most important for me is that I'm a lot better now than when I started. (I haven't done such a test when I started so I have no numbers to support that, though.)
Anyway, I'm still very low level. Is it too far fetched that I could increase my limit to 20 kgs (45 lbs) by training a few years more?

Hey Dave. I'll see if I can round up a bathroom scale and give it a go.

I think this above quote is also very good. And probably where many internal people are working. It's not so much that you can produce the most force, it's simply a litmus to see progress.

Where I think the Aikido internal people have gone astray lately, is they are starting to believe that their is something very unique about the way 'internal' uses the body. I don't find this to be true. I do find that there are many unique methods of training in 'internal' that are quite useful for learning to organize your body. But the end result, whether you take the "traditional" internal path, or a modern athletic approach is much the same.

HL1978
02-01-2013, 01:17 PM
You can find videos of pushout, or other exercises pushes by people trying their darnedest to push people over while standing with both feet parallel. Ark does his pinky throwing demo too with either the feet parallel or a very shallow stance. None the less, to make these things work, you can't rely on structure, nor can you push back. If you push back you fall over, if you lean, your opponent can let go and you fall forwards.

The challenge becomes, how do you get that power back into the other guy when exerting any power of your own makes you fail? I've laid out enough of the logic for the astute reader to figure out a couple of things which are required to do it properly.

HL1978
02-01-2013, 01:20 PM
Where I think the Aikido internal people have gone astray lately, is they are starting to believe that their is something very unique about the way 'internal' uses the body. I don't find this to be true. I do find that there are many unique methods of training in 'internal' that are quite useful for learning to organize your body. But the end result, whether you take the "traditional" internal path, or a modern athletic approach is much the same.

Chris,

How do you recreate the effects associated with internals without windup, big rotations, explosive power or better timing?

Also you did say that had some challenges figuring out how to move the arm in the way I wrote about. Assuming that I'm not lying about moving that way :D , would you consider that being at least one possible way that movement is different?

Chris Li
02-01-2013, 02:02 PM
Where I think the Aikido internal people have gone astray lately, is they are starting to believe that their is something very unique about the way 'internal' uses the body. I don't find this to be true. I do find that there are many unique methods of training in 'internal' that are quite useful for learning to organize your body. But the end result, whether you take the "traditional" internal path, or a modern athletic approach is much the same.

Chris, nobody has said that, and nobody will say that. Everybody has the same basic body, that works the same way, everybody knows this.

That doesn't mean that everybody uses things the same way. Put a football player and a ballet dancer together and they'll move completely differently. There are things that one does that the other can't, not with a lot of conditioning and/or training. They're just different.

Internals just use a different method of moving and conditioning. At some point, I suppose, you could say it's all "athletics" (which really hasn't been defined either), because everybody's using the same body, but that doesn't mean that someone training in "athletics" can get to the same place as someone using the other methods, or that they even understand the other methods.

Since you, yourself, say that there are "many unique methods" in internals, what's the point here?

Best,

Chris

ChrisHein
02-01-2013, 02:03 PM
Chris,

How do you recreate the effects associated with internals without windup, big rotations, explosive power or better timing?

Without a specific, I'm not sure what you're asking. I can do "no inch punching" (much to the chagrin of my students), strike hard in limited distance, push hard from odd positions and the like. Nothing I can do is out of the scope of modern athletics (and if I showed modern pro athletes how to do these things, they could probably do them much better then I can right away). I am not baffled by anything that I've seen in 'internal' demos in the last several years (not to say that before I understood what was going on that I wasn't). But I also studied internal with a very good teacher, so that's not much of a surprise.


Also you did say that had some challenges figuring out how to move the arm in the way I wrote about. Assuming that I'm not lying about moving that way :D , would you consider that being at least one possible way that movement is different?

Wait, did you flex your deltoid? If your deltoid was not in contraction when you raised your arm, you are correct, I cannot do that. And in fact I would have no explanation for that. But I believe you said that your deltoid was making a contraction.

I have no difficulty raising my arm without tensing my trapezius. I believe that is what you were showing as poor movement in your video, and I agree with that.

ChrisHein
02-01-2013, 02:14 PM
Since you, yourself, say that there are "many unique methods" in internals, what's the point here?

Best,

Chris

If we took a college athlete (someone who plays sports). And had him try and solve the same physical problems that an internal person was presenting- he would solve the problems in the same way as the internal person. Without having to study 'internal'.

That is the distinction I am making. The end result, and the way to people achieve it- internal or athlete will be the same.

Athletics is the word I use to describe western studies of body use. These are mostly oriented around sports, but have much application beyond that. These studies are just as sophisticated- if not more so, then traditional Chinese methods.

The real reason for all of this is to help people realize that when you study Aikido, you are simply using your body efficiently. Understanding how the body works is available to all. You don't have to see a special teacher, or believe a special faith, your local football coach has a pretty good idea about proper body use. What is unique about internal is the way they teach these things, but not the end result they produce.

chillzATL
02-01-2013, 02:30 PM
If we took a college athlete (someone who plays sports). And had him try and solve the same physical problems that an internal person was presenting- he would solve the problems in the same way as the internal person. Without having to study 'internal'.

Except that they wouldn't, at all. Go back to my Lebron James example. 100% certainty that he would respond exactly as I indicated as "typical", not "internal".

Chris Li
02-01-2013, 03:29 PM
If we took a college athlete (someone who plays sports). And had him try and solve the same physical problems that an internal person was presenting- he would solve the problems in the same way as the internal person. Without having to study 'internal'.

The thing is - they don't (figure it out, that is).

I haven't seen anybody, physically talented or not, figure this out in a conventional way. OTOH, there are a number of people around teaching who have figured it out the "regular" way.

Best,

Chris

HL1978
02-01-2013, 05:37 PM
The thing is - they don't (figure it out, that is).

I haven't seen anybody, physically talented or not, figure this out in a conventional way. OTOH, there are a number of people around teaching who have figured it out the "regular" way.

Best,

Chris

There are all sorts of IS skills out there, some of which can be achieved through athleticism, but have drawbacks.

Here is a short and non-comphrehensive list of IS skills
getting under without physically dropping
unbalancing on physical contact (doesn't require a strike, windup etc)
lack of feedback on contact or when waza is performed
able to generate power from very weak positions without the benefit of structural alignment

Bernd Lehnen
02-01-2013, 05:39 PM
Frankly, I can't tell the difference between ki and intent, except intent is less woo so maybe more acceptable to people who have burned out on ki.

Ron, I think the points you're making about working with bent arms here, and earlier when you pointed out that Chris H's first block man diagram was best for resisting a push, are very deep.

Hugh, you must be relatively advanced in internal training from what I can see.

But…frankly, if you could make this distinction, may be, that would a big leap forward for you, don't you think?

So how come if you push a car, you don't align your bones? Elbows, knees, hips are all bent to some degree. Why is this the most efficient way? After all, pushing a car is just the reverse problem of being pushed by a car.

Have you ever been pushed by a car? If so, you would know, that this has nothing in common with two living beings, pushing each other.

Best,

Bernd

ChrisHein
02-01-2013, 06:29 PM
The thing is - they don't (figure it out, that is).

I haven't seen anybody, physically talented or not, figure this out in a conventional way. OTOH, there are a number of people around teaching who have figured it out the "regular" way.

Best,

Chris

From looking at the idea of resisting a push for the last few days, I can't see how 'internal' people would resist a push any differently than an athlete would.

I'm sure if we keep examining things, we'll find out, at least in the realms of body movement, 'internal' people aren't doing anything significantly different than athletes would, given the same task (lifting, pulling, pushing, hitting, moving).

Chris Li
02-01-2013, 06:42 PM
From looking at the idea of resisting a push for the last few days, I can't see how 'internal' people would resist a push any differently than an athlete would.

I'm sure if we keep examining things, we'll find out, at least in the realms of body movement, 'internal' people aren't doing anything significantly different than athletes would, given the same task (lifting, pulling, pushing, hitting, moving).

A "few days" and you're already "sure"?

Well, good luck with that.;)

Best,

Chris

Bernd Lehnen
02-01-2013, 07:02 PM
From looking at the idea of resisting a push for the last few days, I can't see how 'internal' people would resist a push any differently than an athlete would.

I'm sure if we keep examining things, we'll find out, at least in the realms of body movement, 'internal' people aren't doing anything significantly different than athletes would, given the same task (lifting, pulling, pushing, hitting, moving).

So, do you think, Ueshiba Morihei just anticipated modern athletics?

How do you explain his comparatively high success rate at higher age, or the fact that early aikidoka often got better despite them growing older, in view of the fact that normal athletes for the most part often have to retire relatively early in their lives?

hughrbeyer
02-01-2013, 07:18 PM
But…frankly, if you could make this distinction, may be, that would a big leap forward for you, don't you think?

Um... why? I think they're both pointing to the same use of the mind to lead the body. If I'm wrong about that, then yes, there's something to learn.

Have you ever been pushed by a car? If so, you would know, that this has nothing in common with two living beings, pushing each other.

True enough. My point for Chris H was that even in the simplest case--pushing a dead weight on wheels--you don't want to use his preferred structure. You'd never push a car with absolutely straight arms. So even in the simplest case, his block man model fails.

Dave de Vos
02-01-2013, 07:50 PM
Well, you can find such a skeletal lineup configuration in olympic weight lifting and women carrying loads on the head in the developing world. I guess it works well if the circumstances are right for it.

But it's not a very stable configuration. As soon as the force line moves outside the lineup of the bones, the whole thing falls apart. So in a more dynamic situation, like a martial encounter, it's less useful I think.

ChrisHein
02-01-2013, 11:53 PM
A "few days" and you're already "sure"?

Well, good luck with that.;)

Best,

Chris

Well, you and I have both been at the study of 'internal' for more then a few days....;)

I haven't heard you explain how 'internal' resists a push any differently than modern athletics would. Yet, you're sure that it is different...:)

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 12:02 AM
So, do you think, Ueshiba Morihei just anticipated modern athletics?

How do you explain his comparatively high success rate at higher age, or the fact that early aikidoka often got better despite them growing older, in view of the fact that normal athletes for the most part often have to retire relatively early in their lives?

I'm not sure what/who it is we are comparing Ueshiba with/to.

If you want to talk about physicality in old age, Ueshiba has some stiff competition. Jack Lalanne 1984 Age 70: Handcuffed, shackled and fighting strong winds and currents, towed 70 boats with 70 people from the Queen's Way Bridge in the Long Beach Harbor to the Queen Mary, 1 ½ miles.

Ueshiba wasn't competing at anything into old age. He was teaching martial arts, and as he got latter in life, he wasn't actively doing lots of that. So if we compare him to his peers, there are lot's of martial artists like him. If we compare him to top level athletes like Jack Lalanne, who were interested in physical activity late in life, he's coming up short.

Comparisons are interesting things.

Chris Li
02-02-2013, 12:04 AM
Well, you and I have both been at the study of 'internal' for more then a few days....;)

I haven't heard you explain how 'internal' resists a push any differently than modern athletics would. Yet, you're sure that it is different...:)

And you won't, we've been down this road before and I'm not interested.

Best,

Chris

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 12:06 AM
Well, you can find such a skeletal lineup configuration in olympic weight lifting and women carrying loads on the head in the developing world. I guess it works well if the circumstances are right for it.

But it's not a very stable configuration. As soon as the force line moves outside the lineup of the bones, the whole thing falls apart. So in a more dynamic situation, like a martial encounter, it's less useful I think.

But people are also dynamic. We can realign quickly. Think about NFL linemen. They are bombarded with huge amounts of incoming force. Force that is coming in the form of very dynamic defensive tackles and ends. They are not holding static weight, they are pushing back people who are trying to get around them. If you want to talk about people who can push, and push ever changing forces from many different angles, NFL linemen are the best in the world.

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 12:09 AM
It's funny, because to me, it's not a question of which is better. It's a question of what else is there? If you're not using skeletal structure to aid your muscles, you're using muscle alone. Does anyone think it's easier to only use your muscles?

If there is anything else to use besides bones, connective tissue and muscle, what is it? It's not like we have much choice here....

HL1978
02-02-2013, 07:23 AM
Well, you and I have both been at the study of 'internal' for more then a few days....;)

I haven't heard you explain how 'internal' resists a push any differently than modern athletics would. Yet, you're sure that it is different...:)

You generally would not resist it, you would float your opponent, or put your opponent in a hole. This is what the aikido waza look like to me. You get underneath or unbalance your partner, then put them into a direction they are weak.

Martially its better to not have force on force on the same angle unless you can generate more than the other guy.

As for athletics, it is not my experience that most people can innately do a ground path. Sure they can do it once they are shown, but that isn't their initial reaction.

Dave de Vos
02-02-2013, 07:36 AM
But people are also dynamic. We can realign quickly. Think about NFL linemen. They are bombarded with huge amounts of incoming force. Force that is coming in the form of very dynamic defensive tackles and ends. They are not holding static weight, they are pushing back people who are trying to get around them. If you want to talk about people who can push, and push ever changing forces from many different angles, NFL linemen are the best in the world.

I meant to give examples of sustaining a load where the rightmost of your pictures of increasing alignment is applied in practise. In my mind we're talking about sustaining a load, not pushing. I don't know much about the job of a NFL lineman. Is he supposed to stop and possibly bowl over or opponents who want to pass him to score?

Anyway, it's not really relevant to me. In my opinion, this ability to sustain a load is about being in a state where you don't align for a load from a specific direction. With push tests, uke can push on different parts of my body while I should not have to change anything. I try to be in a state where it does not matter where the push comes from, I'm just more stable when I'm "on", than when I'm "off".

My stability is different from different directions, because in some directions, body alignment happens to contribute to my stability, but IMO that's not what's being tested. What's being tested is the development of that which does not rely on aligning my body to the direction of the force. Ideally, I would develop that other thing to a point that the contribution of body alignment is more or less inconsequential.

Dave de Vos
02-02-2013, 08:10 AM
You generally would not resist it, you would float your opponent, or put your opponent in a hole. This is what the aikido waza look like to me. You get underneath or unbalance your partner, then put them into a direction they are weak.

Martially its better to not have force on force on the same angle unless you can generate more than the other guy.

As for athletics, it is not my experience that most people can innately do a ground path. Sure they can do it once they are shown, but that isn't their initial reaction.

I agree with this. Ability to resist a push stops making sense at some point.
But Dan also convinced me that you need it to go further. Can one really achieve the bold part without this ability if the opponent does not cooperate?

HL1978
02-02-2013, 08:30 AM
I agree with this. Ability to resist a push stops making sense at some point.
But Dan also convinced me that you need it to go further. Can one really achieve the bold part without this ability if the opponent does not cooperate?

Sure, if you float someone, they can't push back and they are off balanced, even if they don't quite realize it. You can then make them feel really off balanced by putting them into a hole (a direction in which they are weak). Most of the aikido waza I recall, don't force the person to move in a direction in which they are innately strong.

Even if they person tries pushing harder or leans on you at that point, it just makes it even worse for them.

HL1978
02-02-2013, 08:42 AM
My stability is different from different directions, because in some directions, body alignment happens to contribute to my stability, but IMO that's not what's being tested. What's being tested is the development of that which does not rely on aligning my body to the direction of the force. Ideally, I would develop that other thing to a point that the contribution of body alignment is more or less inconsequential.

I would agree with this. That is one distinguishing characteristic is that people who work on IS feel very strong in compromised positions. They don't need a structural alignment in order to convey power to the ground or into a training partner. My intent is not to pick on Chris H, but he keeps on going back to the structural model, but the structural model fails when there is no alignment. The ability not to have to reset from a compromised position is one unique characteristic to IS movement not found in athletics.

In the following picture, imagine someone has gotten you to a compromised position where structure is not going to help. Some might recognize this from Forrest Chang's SJT video.

http://armitage.crinkle.net/~hunter/bent%20over.JPG

Can you counter it without resetting? Obviously while resetting, your opponent can still apply force and make it worse for you. If you know how to move the body in an IS matter, you don't need to reset.

RonRagusa
02-02-2013, 08:44 AM
If there is anything else to use besides bones, connective tissue and muscle, what is it?

Mind.

Ted Williams once said something to the effect that hitting a baseball was the hardest thing to do in sports. When the ball leaves the pitchers hand it has to travel roughly 55 feet to reach the plate. The batter has less than 1/2 second to decide whether or not to swing at a 100 mph fastball. Add to that the fact that the pitcher has a variety of pitches at his disposal and there's an awful lot of information for the batter to process in that less than 1/2 second.

So what differentiates an exceptional batter from an average batter? Assuming they're roughly comparable in physical development, mind. The exceptional batter will have a higher degree of mind/body coordination than the average batter. Integration of mind and body is an important factor effecting performance in all human activities. And Aikido is no exception.

When practicing push tests we see a noticeable performance difference when the student consciously lets the mind waver, loosening coordination of mind and body, as opposed to when the student "centers" the mind and closely coordinates mind and body.

Ron

Dave de Vos
02-02-2013, 09:04 AM
Sure, if you float someone, they can't push back and they are off balanced, even if they don't quite realize it. You can then make them feel really off balanced by putting them into a hole (a direction in which they are weak). Most of the aikido waza I recall, don't force the person to move in a direction in which they are innately strong.

Even if they person tries pushing harder or leans on you at that point, it just makes it even worse for them.

I'm really too inept in aikido as well as in internals to say much about floating, but I'm going to do it anyway. ;)
Floating someone requires you to get under them. My thinking was that the ability to resist a push internally greatly enhances the ability to float someone who is not cooperating.

HL1978
02-02-2013, 11:13 AM
It's funny, because to me, it's not a question of which is better. It's a question of what else is there? If you're not using skeletal structure to aid your muscles, you're using muscle alone. Does anyone think it's easier to only use your muscles?

If there is anything else to use besides bones, connective tissue and muscle, what is it? It's not like we have much choice here....

Depends on what connective tissue we are referring to.

I'll cite this post from RSF from Robert John: (http://rumsoakedfist.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=43&p=116771#p116736)

If it were simply the tendons that get developed, it doesn't explain why the "skin" seems to get thicker with years of practice. Even Ark himself has a skill where his skin turn rock hard like a statue, but he isn't stiff (IE the muscles aren't really tensed to the degree you'd expect). When I asked him about it, he simply said it was "kin-maku" or "muscle-membrane." (Note: Ark is not on the fascia bandwagon, the comment about kin-maku is something he learned from his own teacher...which implies that people before have kicked this idea around as well...ie nothing's new under the sun)

Mike Sigman has said similar things where he will occasionally tense this layer under the skin that is not muscle while having a massage and see what the masseuse says.

You will also notice that people who train to get their feet very heavy (which by the way implies more than just feeling pressure on the soles), start to have very wirey feet (from tendons) and "thick" feet.

http://blog-imgs-12.fc2.com/a/o/k/aokihumu/20110520195220ede.gif

This isn't the best aun statue picture, but you can sort of see the feet in this one. Next time I hit up the Smithsonain, I will try and get a better photo of the aun statue at the Freer/Sackler gallery.

While I think we all would agree that training for different sports leads to different body shapes (swimmers don't look like 100m sprinters), IS training leads to different body development that for most doesn't look like, exhibit nor produce the same characteristics when used as a typical athletic body.

Bernd Lehnen
02-02-2013, 04:43 PM
I'm not sure what/who it is we are comparing Ueshiba with/to.

If you want to talk about physicality in old age, Ueshiba has some stiff competition. Jack Lalanne 1984 Age 70: Handcuffed, shackled and fighting strong winds and currents, towed 70 boats with 70 people from the Queen's Way Bridge in the Long Beach Harbor to the Queen Mary, 1 ½ miles.

Ueshiba wasn't competing at anything into old age. He was teaching martial arts, and as he got latter in life, he wasn't actively doing lots of that. So if we compare him to his peers, there are lot's of martial artists like him. If we compare him to top level athletes like Jack Lalanne, who were interested in physical activity late in life, he's coming up short.

Comparisons are interesting things.

Sure.
But did you simply bypass my main question, or are you saying, modern athletics provides us with everything we need, so we don't need the example of Ueshiba any more in aikido, or we don't need internal training or what?
Not sure.

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 07:28 PM
Sure.
But did you simply bypass my main question, or are you saying, modern athletics provides us with everything we need, so we don't need the example of Ueshiba any more in aikido, or we don't need internal training or what?
Not sure.

Sorry, I thought your main point was that Ueshiba was very impressive late in life. I see now that your main question was- did Ueshiba anticipate modern athletics?

I guess I glossed over that question because I didn't understand it.

I believe Ueshiba was a guy who used his body a lot. I also believe he had a pretty good working knowledge of how to use it. I don't think he was physically doing anything that many of his peers couldn't also do. I think what Ueshiba was onto wasn't so much about the body, but more about the mind. I think he saw problems of conflict differently than most people do. I know studying Aikido has made me look at conflict much differently than I did before studying it.

I do believe since Ueshiba's time we understand the body much better. So I don't think he was showing us the future in his movements.

I do believe he's an important figure in Aikido, if not the single most important figure. I think the impressive thing about him was not the way he used his body, but the way he looked at the situation.

hughrbeyer
02-02-2013, 07:47 PM
Well, you can find such a skeletal lineup configuration in olympic weight lifting...

That was actually the only example I could come up with. I thought of posting one of those youtube videos of weightlifters breaking their elbows doing that, but decided I'd spare you all.

As for NFL linebackers, we totally see them stiff-arming the opposing linebackers all the time. Yeah, right.

If Chris H's diagrams can't even explain straight athletics, why are we still talking about them?

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 08:01 PM
That was actually the only example I could come up with. I thought of posting one of those youtube videos of weightlifters breaking their elbows doing that, but decided I'd spare you all.

As for NFL linebackers, we totally see them stiff-arming the opposing linebackers all the time. Yeah, right.

If Chris H's diagrams can't even explain straight athletics, why are we still talking about them?

Who is saying your arms have to be straight? I am saying that you use less muscle if you fully align the bones. There are good and bad things about this. If you want to use the least muscle possible, the more the bones are in alignment the better.

This is my whole problem with not using skeletal alignment with the ground, and still use less muscle. You can't do both at the same time.

hughrbeyer
02-02-2013, 08:28 PM
Well, you did, when you drew the diagram and started treating "efficiency" and "using less muscle" as the goal, and decided that fascia and tendons couldn't play any part in using less muscle (since they aren't accounted for in your diagram).

There's no part of this discussion that makes sense.

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 09:00 PM
Well, you did, when you drew the diagram and started treating "efficiency" and "using less muscle" as the goal, and decided that fascia and tendons couldn't play any part in using less muscle (since they aren't accounted for in your diagram).

There's no part of this discussion that makes sense.

Connective tissue is something I've talked about, that is fascia and tendons. I never said they don't play a roll, they are essential parts of the body. When we were talking about using the least amount of muscle possible, the only way I could think of to solve the problem was to align the skeleton with the ground, thus taking some of the stress off of the muscles.

I also said that good athletics uses skeletal alignment. I also said, a number of times that it takes more muscular force to resist a push if you are not aligning the bones of the body. I also said that the better the alignment the less the muscles will have to contract.

If using less muscle is not a goal of internal, then maybe alignment is not not your answer. If you do it in another way I would love to hear about it. Don't put words in my mouth Hugh.

JW
02-02-2013, 09:03 PM
This is my whole problem with not using skeletal alignment with the ground, and still use less muscle. You can't do both at the same time.

I know I haven't been keeping up with the discussions. But I am kind of shocked at how stagnant things are. Chris, this is sort of the whole basic point of the training-- there is something else besides skeletal alignment and muscle. As much as you think people like me are wrong for thinking that, you have to face the fact that we honestly think there is something.

It's fine if we think each other are wrong, but you aren't going to get mechanistic discussion when one group thinks there is something that the other group thinks is fantasy. We know it isn't fully described scientifically yet. It's just that we don't all need to wait for that in order to train!

So regarding the "what is it" question. There is a name for this. "Kokyu ryoku." It's something that appeared to be of primary importance to O-sensei. It has to do with the tanden controlling a surrounding body that is "filled" with ki. Non-scientific words like "ki" and "fill" and "center" get used because we don't have physiological data.

It all hinges on the idea that one can control ki with the intent, ki can control force (like things like rubber bands, ropes and pulleys can), and the center can manipulate a body whose ki is under load. Oh, and of course, the ki can get stronger if it is exercised. (This can be done with or without a lot of muscular activation-- i.e. ki use can be separated from muscle use)

[edit: ps, the question of how the intent controls the "ki" is of course not physiologically resolved. Does the intent make some muscle activate and pull on connective tissue? Maybe. So is it "just muscle?" The Peter Ralston motion-abort demonstration when studied at its extreme really suggests that if muscles are the mechanism by which intent controls ki, this is very different from what happens after. The intent for reaching for a coffee cup causes different things to happen in the body than does the actual reaching which happens after. They may both involve muscle but they are 2 different processes.]

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 11:57 PM
Hey Jonathan,

I get it. I tell you what, I'll leave all you guys alone. You're doing your thing, and here I am messing with your fun.

Sorry.

mrlizard123
02-03-2013, 09:50 AM
Hey Jonathan,

I get it. I tell you what, I'll leave all you guys alone. You're doing your thing, and here I am messing with your fun.

Sorry.

But you're not, you're just claiming that it's not possible that we're having "fun" and "doing [our] thing" because it doesn't fit with your understanding; I can assure you there are plenty of people having fun and getting on with it just fine.

It's a shame that you seem intent on disproving at a distance and from your point of preconception what you, by your own admission, cannot explain.

Mert Gambito
02-03-2013, 12:10 PM
Well, you and I have both been at the study of 'internal' for more then a few days....;)

I haven't heard you explain how 'internal' resists a push any differently than modern athletics would. Yet, you're sure that it is different...:)

Chris H.,

When I stated in another post that Dan Harden can resist changing forces from a non-cooperative training partner without the need for conscious adjustment to those forces, there was zero metaphor in that statement. No doubt muscles are in play (Dan has repeatedly publicly cited the psoas, for example). If adjustments in his body are happening, they are virtually autonomic; and even then you can't sense or see muscles firing. But none of the athletes I know train like this, and none of the folks with athletic training backgrounds I know who've trained with Dan can relate it to anything in athletics.

Now, many others here can back this up because they've experienced it first hand as well. These are rational, and in many cases formally skeptical people.

But we can't adequately explain it to your satisfaction, so there's only one option left: go get a sampling and conduct the requisite analysis by meeting Dan or a reasonable analogue. The effort to form a western-centric model and rationale is fruitless without you working off the same data points as those with whom you're trying to engage in said effort.

JW
02-03-2013, 01:28 PM
Chris, I wouldn't have been so verbose if I wanted to be antagonistic and close the door to discussion. And if by "I get it" you mean to imply that my intention was to be so, then you are putting words in my mouth, which I don't like any more than you do.

Personally I like and appreciate the lack of agreement between people - it's healthy and it means we have to watch out about talking nonsense, and try to be clear and reasonable. My point was not to put up a wall, I was saying that in this particular argument (defining precise body mechanisms involved) I see a problematic roadblock, that's all.

Apart from this particular "body mechanism" topic, I think your voice is one of the most important because you ask what is the "so what" of it. Like when you copied Ark's video with your own. My opinion: while mechanistic talk is a little premature, talk about what are the advantages of internal vs atheleticism is not-- in fact it is underdone. But that isn't going to get pushed as aggressively without people like you.

(Dan has repeatedly publicly cited the psoas, for example).

Actually this is a good example of one of the things I was talking about. People usually think "using the psoas" means flexing them and therefore causing the joints spanned by those muscles to flex. It's conventional, but if there is another strategy for using the body, then that may not be what someone means when they mention the psoas. For instance, if "ki development" leads to the hyperdevelopment of some large-scale tensile structure through the body, which includes the psoas, then "using the psoas" may mean something like learning to harness the utility of the tensile strength of those muscles (and the tissue connected to them) when they are in a fairly relaxed rather than flexed state.

If adjustments in his body are happening, they are virtually autonomic; and even then you can't sense or see muscles firing.
I'm excited about hypothesizing but we should be clear when we are doing it. The fact is we don't understand what the role of the ANS is here, if any. I have fun hypotheses too, like the idea that some of this training may make motor behavior more controlled by the cerbellum, which would NOT feel conscious to us, instead of the cortex, the traditional seat of volitional motor behavior. But, this is all just fun possibilities rather than explaining to someone unequivocally what is happening.

Mert Gambito
02-03-2013, 09:04 PM
Actually this is a good example of one of the things I was talking about. People usually think "using the psoas" means flexing them and therefore causing the joints spanned by those muscles to flex.

True. No one muscle / grouping of muscles are trained/used in isolation during any of the IP/IS exercises or body connection and movement theories to which we've been exposed in Hawaii.

I'm excited about hypothesizing but we should be clear when we are doing it. The fact is we don't understand what the role of the ANS is here, if any. I have fun hypotheses too, like the idea that some of this training may make motor behavior more controlled by the cerbellum, which would NOT feel conscious to us, instead of the cortex, the traditional seat of volitional motor behavior. But, this is all just fun possibilities rather than explaining to someone unequivocally what is happening.

Yeah, to be clear, I'm using "autonomic" in the general sense (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/autonomic), vs. specifically referring to the ANS.

Mert Gambito
02-03-2013, 09:24 PM
[W]e can't adequately explain it to your [Chris Hein's] satisfaction, so there's only one option left: go get a sampling and conduct the requisite analysis by meeting Dan or a reasonable analogue. The effort to form a western-centric model and rationale is fruitless without you working off the same data points as those with whom you're trying to engage in said effort.

For what it's worth, like proving the Earth actually being round despite the prevailing skepticism prior to circumnavigation of the globe (i.e. adequate technical ability to achieve the proof), it'll be great when IP/IS is appropriately scientifically modeled! If that leads to improved efficiencies in the training protocols, then fantastic! Even then, the metaphors will be valuable because the technical explanations likely will, ironically, be too, well, technical and granular to be practical.

HL1978
02-05-2013, 01:10 PM
This is my last post on this topic:

Think of aiki as a balance skill. In order to balance something, you have to let its weight/force integrate into yours. If you don't and push back against it, it isn't integrated, and thus never a part of you. I have spoke elsewhere, about letting pressure go into your feet. If you resist, you can't get that pressure get into your feet as it gets stuck elsewhere in the body. Working on this is totally "un-natural" and counterintutive, because for most people when you let that force get in to themselves, they find that they become compromised and weak. That's why you start out with very light pressure. Once that weight/energy is integrated in you, it is a part of you. You move your arm and the other person moves as well and you feel no resistance. This is much the same how we usually don't feel much of any resistance to lifting our own arms up, because they are attached and part of us, but when we add a 1 lb weight, we become sensitive to it.

If you start fighting that incoming force, you start fighting yourself. Retraining the body not to fight itself and to let that force enter the body is part of why IS is such a slow process.

I think there is a video out there of Ikeda standing on a kart with casters? If he was to resist and push against the technique, he would push himself backwards. Be mindful of this when you practice waza. The next time you perform a technique, feel where you weight goes. Feel how the pressure changes on your feet. Feel if you get pulled forwards or backwards, and if you tend to let Uke's energy enter into you, or if you actively try not to let it go into you.

Cady Goldfield
02-05-2013, 09:27 PM
In internal training, there is no "resisting." There is receiving and absorbing of force, and the expelling/expressing or projection of force. To receive, the body must be structured without tensing the conventional muscle groups and positioning that most people would use to brace against a push. Instead, you use "internal" muscles and connective tissues to mold your body into an "arc" (and multiple arcs within the arc) that conveys push-force to the ground instead of letting it push you back or "break" you at your center of mass point.

When you hold your proper structure, and add aiki to it, you both receive and feed/deliver simultaneousl, so when the opponent pushes you, he is bounced back... by his own force, augmented by your own. However, at will you can simply receive the push without returning the force.

Lonin
02-09-2013, 08:34 PM
It is Chinese New Year....Celebration of the spring festival..."Happy Spring Festival to all". Holiday and time enough for my two cents.....hard(sometimes called "dead") Chi is based on your structure, The 'attacking' force gets vented around and not allowed to enter your sphere. Soft chi is a sort of vibrational/oscillation of your weight at he hips/knees....it absorbs the 'attacking' force and the oscillation of weight allows you to 'return' the force.