PDA

View Full Version : experiences in applying a float to waza?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


HL1978
01-30-2013, 03:27 PM
So I gave some examples of getting under/floating in other threads. Would anyone like to share their experiences in applying this to various waza? What did you notice that changed? Any difficulties?

ChrisHein
01-30-2013, 06:01 PM
I would like to know more about what you mean by "floating". I use and explain what I would call "floating" in class a lot. And I believe that Aikido technique uses a lot of this.

I would call "floating" the ability to get under your attackers center. By doing this, when your attacker tries to push on you they kind of "float" themselves up and cannot exert much horizontal force on you (because they are losing their connection with the ground).

From what I gather of your previous examples, you are maybe not talking about this. What do you mean when you use the word "float"?

hughrbeyer
01-30-2013, 07:22 PM
Chris, you've got three other threads trying to get people to explain basic concepts. How about leaving this one to answer the question that was asked?

For the OP, this is pretty much standard procedure for us these days--though different people are working the IS stuff to different degrees. Tenchinage is a good example--as soon as uke grabs wrists, nage should already be under him. This continues all through the technique--at the end, where everyone wants to throw down, we have to keep reminding them that even at the end you're not letting uke find a place to land.

Ikkyo, same way--as soon as the touch happens uke is displaced up, which then leads into the rest of the throw.

Yokumenuchi is more interesting--Sensei has always taught to move in to the attack rather than turning with it--now that moving in leads to the same kind of getting under/floating that ikkyo has--and that leads to the technique.

All the waza works and a lot of it even looks similar--it's the engine that changed.

HL1978
01-30-2013, 08:05 PM
I would like to know more about what you mean by "floating". I use and explain what I would call "floating" in class a lot. And I believe that Aikido technique uses a lot of this.

I would call "floating" the ability to get under your attackers center. By doing this, when your attacker tries to push on you they kind of "float" themselves up and cannot exert much horizontal force on you (because they are losing their connection with the ground).

From what I gather of your previous examples, you are maybe not talking about this. What do you mean when you use the word "float"?

I'm certainly not the definitive lexicographer here. You need to be under in order to float. Floating is more or less what it feels like if you get popped up onto your heels, you float upwards like a bubble without feeling any resistance. When floated you can be moved around easily, you can still input a push into your partner, but you basically push yourself away and it is easy for your partner to direct you where they want you to go.

Yes, you get under (it feels as though your effective center of mass is lower than your partner), but there is no physical lowering of the body, and there are a number of different ways in which one can get under, of which I have described at least two. How do you generally teach people how to get under, and when they do, do you see a difference in how various waza are applied?

ChrisHein
01-30-2013, 10:32 PM
Yes, you get under (it feels as though your effective center of mass is lower than your partner), but there is no physical lowering of the body, and there are a number of different ways in which one can get under, of which I have described at least two. How do you generally teach people how to get under, and when they do, do you see a difference in how various waza are applied?

Yes, I would describe what is done is suwariwaza kokyu ho as a "floating" but you're both sitting on the ground (so you really can't physically get any further under your partner).

I think many Aikido techniques have an element of "floating". I personally don't feel that it's especially "internal" in nature. It does have lot's to do with being able to feel under your partner.

asiawide
01-30-2013, 11:24 PM
Yes, I would describe what is done is suwariwaza kokyu ho as a "floating" but you're both sitting on the ground (so you really can't physically get any further under your partner).

I have a question. How do you get under if you can't physically get any further under? This is really hard for me. and probably many others too.

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 12:27 AM
I have a question. How do you get under if you can't physically get any further under? This is really hard for me. and probably many others too.

You drive them up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHuWiIquTM#t=0m18s is a video of me doing suwariwaza ryote dori kokyu ho. I drive him up, once his center is above mine, he's "floating" which makes it easy to move him away from me.

asiawide
01-31-2013, 02:15 AM
You drive them up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHuWiIquTM#t=0m18s is a video of me doing suwariwaza ryote dori kokyu ho. I drive him up, once his center is above mine, he's "floating" which makes it easy to move him away from me.

I'm sorry to keep on asking questions. But how do you drive them up? Once you drive them up, you are under him. But I don't get it how you can reach the state. Thanks!

chillzATL
01-31-2013, 09:21 AM
So I gave some examples of getting under/floating in other threads. Would anyone like to share their experiences in applying this to various waza? What did you notice that changed? Any difficulties?

While I never thought of it this way, I try to apply the general idea or concept of floating to most any force interaction related to waza. Whether I'm receiving the force or outputting it, I try to keep it as low as possible in my body and send it from there. Preferably that's my feet, but that's often times more the goal than the reality

As for what I noticed, everything is just easier. The techniques that stood out to me the most were the ones that involved more force on force interactions when nage was late on their timing. For instance Shomenuchi ikkyo irimi. We normally teach and practice this in a way that nage moves in as soon as uke begins to raise their hand to strike. So that you are catching uke before their force comes at you and then you just push through for the ikkyo. It's more about timing. I found that through maintaining that focus on ground connection through me and by keeping my intent right, the timing didn't matter. Uke would almost bounce off me.

Another technique would be yokomenuchi kata-otoshi. This one is taught similar to the ikkyo above. Where, via timing, you step in to meet the attack before the full force of it is delivered and drive uke back, out from their center and down. Typically we practice it in a way that if timing is right, you go irimi as mentioned above, if not, you receive it and turn away from it, tenkan, and then drop. Just as with ikkyo I found that focusing on the ground connection and intent that timing didn't matter and the choice to finish irimi or tenkan was mine to make. In comparison to how I'd always done this technique and seen it done, it was completely effortless and my uke commented that it felt like running into a brick wall at the shoulder. One other thing that I noticed was that whether I finished irimi or tenkan, the technique was done exactly the same. Typically when someone is late and they step back they end up grabbing gi and pushing down on the shoulder, almost like some sort of arm drag rather than something that resembles the way the irimi version is done. When doing it the way I mentioned above, nothing changed, once uke was up what happened from there was up to me, but the technique didn't change.

Beyond those two examples, I think any technique where you end up, either on purpose or by accident coming up against uke's force or weight, the difference is pretty noticeable as you don't get pinned down or off balanced as easily.

HL1978
01-31-2013, 10:12 AM
You drive them up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHuWiIquTM#t=0m18s is a video of me doing suwariwaza ryote dori kokyu ho. I drive him up, once his center is above mine, he's "floating" which makes it easy to move him away from me.

Chris,

It appears that you are pushing up and out, using the legs, arms, chest etc right? You indicated that once your partner's center is physically above yours he is floating. Clearly once he is above you, he is much easier to manipulate.

When I am referring to floating, you don't need to physically change the difference in height between you and your partner to be under them. You want to redirect their force down to make your partner go up. I discussed part of one way to do this with my shoulder video post.

hughrbeyer
01-31-2013, 11:30 AM
Yes, it's done with intent, not by pushing under them.

I find myself telling my kohai a lot these days, "Dig up my feet." They get locked in some force-on-force interaction and I tell them, "Dig up my feet." They get this confused look and then make some overt movement, and I say, "No, no. With your mind. Dig up my feet." And then they do and I fall over. :)

Weird stuff.

mathewjgano
01-31-2013, 11:52 AM
Mine's only a rudamentary understanding, but we sometimes practice "backward hanmi handachi," which is (I think) geared toward exploring how to float uke when he/she is physically below you. Mine's only a beginner level of understanding, but it's an interesting orientation to work with; you definately cannot just perform a bicept curl to lift uke, particularly when the arms are extended out away from the core.

In terms of simply floating aite/uke, I've been thinking lately of what one of my sempai told me, which was to be mindful of aite's hip and consciously trying to float it. I imagined a line from his hip going up to my point of contact (which was my tegatana on his front "corner" of the chest) and suddenly the physical struggle diminished noticeably. Holding the orientation in mind and applying my intent to lift/float (rest the driving force on top of my center) got me away from over muscling the contact point...well, less of it anyway.

phitruong
01-31-2013, 01:59 PM
during one of the seminar, Ikeda sensei had uke sit in seiza and grab his wrist from below while he stood. he would said "i picked" and walked away. uke looked as though he/she just stood up by themselves. if you try to do the usually muscle pull, it won't work. from uke's point of view, it felt as though Ikeda sensei reached down your spine and grabbed your tail bone and push you up. it's a very strange feeling. kinda freaky. i could do it now to certain degree, but back then it was a mystery to me how he did that.

Jonathan
01-31-2013, 02:06 PM
When I teach ryotedori kokyu dosa to my students, I remind them not to be passive when they extend their arms out for uke to grab. They must have strong projecting intent as they raise their arms and not wait until uke has grabbed on to begin to do so. When they do project this way, uke is lifted upward the instant he grips nage's arms. It is surprising how significant a difference this extension of intent can make to the interaction between uke and nage! To the onlooker, an extending nage appears to be doing nothing different from what a nage without extending intent is doing, but the result of their efforts is very different. And I find that projecting with intent before uke touches diminishes the need for precise arm and hand maneuvering. If the projection is done right, uke seems almost to throw himself.

Janet Rosen
01-31-2013, 03:07 PM
Because I don't sit in seiza, I have to do kokyudosa sitting crosslegged. I'm in effect pinned in place - and this has forced me to attune into the difference between "moving my hips" and "moving my center" - working with lessons from a variety of instructors, finding a way with intent to drop, turn and move my center without my body moving in space - in order to float my partner.
This remains very much a work in progress in that I still cannot do this reliably and consistently. With a partner who is interested in this kind of training, who is trying to connect to affect my center rather than clamp down on my arms, it is easier for me to work on it and be successful. With a partner who is clamping down, depending on how we are working together I may play continue to play with this method and just see if I can at least get a little float, then smile and assume the role of uke, or if it seems s/he has no patience for my "games" I just do the more mechanical extension version.

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 03:37 PM
I'm sorry to keep on asking questions. But how do you drive them up? Once you drive them up, you are under him. But I don't get it how you can reach the state. Thanks!

When he grabs you, in essence you become one structure. You feel through that structure, find the spot you can raise him up with (usually his shoulders will lock) and move that up.

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 03:41 PM
When I am referring to floating, you don't need to physically change the difference in height between you and your partner to be under them. You want to redirect their force down to make your partner go up. I discussed part of one way to do this with my shoulder video post.

I think your confusing imagery with what is actually happening. If you are not actually below them, in some way, you are not horizontally more stable then they are. Nature rule Hunter san, not mine :) . When you are feeling with your intent, what you are actually doing is finding a "sticking" point in their body, then you drive under that sticking point, from a lower position. Because their whole body is connected, once you find a spot to raise them up, their feet will go as well.

Jeremy Hulley
01-31-2013, 04:28 PM
I think your confusing imagery with what is actually happening.
Hey Chris,
I believe you have hit on the heart of the disagreement.

HL1978
01-31-2013, 04:29 PM
I think your confusing imagery with what is actually happening. If you are not actually below them, in some way, you are not horizontally more stable then they are. Nature rule Hunter san, not mine :) . When you are feeling with your intent, what you are actually doing is finding a "sticking" point in their body, then you drive under that sticking point, from a lower position. Because their whole body is connected, once you find a spot to raise them up, their feet will go as well.

Actually, finding a sticking point isn't required, nor do you need to get physically lower to ever get under anyone.

Here is a relatively simple exercise, that most people reading this should be able to figure out within a few reps. This is of course not the whole story, but relates to the shoulder stuff I talked about earlier and is only a portion of how I would execute kokyu dosa/kokyu ho. This is still a "muscly" way to do the exercise, but will develop some other things. For this super simplified version, don't use the lower torso musculature, hips or legs at all to push back, other than to keep your weight going straight down. I don't want any "additives" of any kind to complicate things.

You are going to start off in a standing position as it is easier to do than from seiza. Stand with your feet parallel and arms at your side. You can either have a partner grab both wrists or one much like they would in seiza. Extend your arm downwards without physically dropping or bending over. If you keep on extending downwards, like you are projecting your elbow downwards, you will find that your arm will eventually not be able to go any further down, but starts to rise with the shoulders remaining down. Your partner will begin to pop upwards and backwards and neither they nor you will feel any resistance. You don't want to fall forwards as your partner's weight goes out and back.

No explosion of power is required, in fact you can do this very slowly whether standing or in seiza and you won't feel any resistance.

You do the exact same thing in kokyu dosa, but its a bit more challenging because the arm is bent. This is why you project it out from the elbow and the position of the forearm/wrist becomes largely irrelevant assuming you know how to connect the shoulder to the body (which I haven't discussed at all).

Whats going on here? Well, by taking their weight/push and having it go downwards (and adding to it a bit), the resultant force goes upwards. From your partners perspective, you are pushing from underneath them, even though physically your body has not dropped at all. You don't find a sticking point at all, you are merely adding their weight/energy to your own and thus creating aiki.

Someone might say, "but Hunter, didn't you say, for internals you don't want to do the whole, you push, I pull thing?" Well, first of all, the way I discussed above was more of a muscle based version, I'm fairly confident that others reading this know how to do the same thing. This isn't dantien driven movement, however you are using your partners weight to cause them to move themselves.

More importantly, I said you want to keep your weight at all times pointed straight down. Forcing my partners weight down by integrating it within me does exactly that. Further you maintain that, by keeping yourself from being "pulled" forwards (as in off balanced in a forwards direction) as your partner moves away from you.

asiawide
01-31-2013, 04:44 PM
When he grabs you, in essence you become one structure. You feel through that structure, find the spot you can raise him up with (usually his shoulders will lock) and move that up.

Thanks for the answer. By the way, what's the structure? Is it also a kind of alignment? Could you describe the structure? And where is the spot that you can rais uke? Thanks in advance!

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 04:54 PM
, nor do you need to get physically lower to ever get under anyone.

How are you under someone without being physically lower then them? If you're not physically lower then someone you can't be under them. You could be next to them, or over them, but not under them. The word 'under' denotes being lower, specifically lower with them over you- under. I don't understand how you can do other wise. It might not seem like you are lower then them, but if you are under them, you have to be lower then they are. If not, we shouldn't say that we are under them.


Whats going on here? Well, by taking their weight/push and having it go downwards (and adding to it a bit), the resultant force goes upwards. From your partners perspective, you are pushing from underneath them, even though physically your body has not dropped at all. You don't find a sticking point at all, you are merely adding their weight/energy to your own and thus creating aiki.

I don't think that is what is happening. You are driving low, and whether you realize it or not, if they are not also driving down, you will find a spot where you are under them. I often find this spot in the shoulders, sometimes it's in their elbows or even in their wrists. This point will be a point they don't want to move (it's a sticking point). If you push into that point where they are locked up, like a wedge, you will drive them up. Once that part moves up, their center will move up also, then you can drive them away. Your physical body wont drop, theirs will raise. I wouldn't call this aiki, but I understand why some would.

If you don't find a "sticking point" why do they move? If there was not a point where they were locked up, their arms would just move and their body would be unaffected. It's only when you find this sticking point, the part where moving their hands moves their body, and get under that sticking point that you can actually move them away from you.


Someone might say, "but Hunter, didn't you say, for internals you don't want to do the whole, you push, I pull thing?" Well, first of all, the way I discussed above was more of a muscle based version, I'm fairly confident that others reading this know how to do the same thing. This isn't dantien driven movement, however you are using your partners weight to cause them to move themselves.

I can't see how something could not be a "muscle based thing". If it's not muscle making the motion happen, what is making it happen?

ChrisHein
01-31-2013, 05:04 PM
Thanks for the answer. By the way, what's the structure? Is it also a kind of alignment? Could you describe the structure? And where is the spot that you can rais uke? Thanks in advance!

When someone grabs ahold of you, the two of you begin to share a structure, you become like one larger thing because you are connected by the grab. When you feel through this unified structure (you and them) you will find a point where they will be locked up, you can use this locked up nature to connect to their core. For example, if you are grabbing me, and totally floppy in your elbow joint I can't move your core, because at the elbow joint you are keeping me from connecting to your center, so I'll try and lock it out, once I lock this spot out, I can get under the locked area, and move it, this will also move your core (because they are all connected). I can raise you with this.

Demetrio Cereijo
01-31-2013, 05:41 PM
Let me add that if uke applies force, by the magic of Newton's third law, he is making himself easier to lift.

HL1978
02-01-2013, 07:47 AM
Beyond those two examples, I think any technique where you end up, either on purpose or by accident coming up against uke's force or weight, the difference is pretty noticeable as you don't get pinned down or off balanced as easily.

Thanks, I think that is very helpful for others to read.

HL1978
02-01-2013, 01:04 PM
How are you under someone without being physically lower then them? If you're not physically lower then someone you can't be under them. You could be next to them, or over them, but not under them. The word 'under' denotes being lower, specifically lower with them over you- under. I don't understand how you can do other wise. It might not seem like you are lower then them, but if you are under them, you have to be lower then they are. If not, we shouldn't say that we are under them.

Being under someone is a common term when discussing internals. Its internal 101 really, and discussed pretty early on in most of the IS seminars I have attended. If one has IS experience, they should know what exactly it is a reference too.

For the clarification for those new to the subject, it refers to a force coming up from underneath the other person, and is typically used in reference various phenomena which can result such as floating etc. If we go purely by physical stature or utilizing structure, then I can never physically get under a 4'9" woman without physically dropping my body lower than hers. That is to say given conventional usage of the body, I could never overcome her innate advantage of having her hips lower to the ground, all other things being equal such as technique, timing, power and equal weight/muscle mass.

Luckily, for me you can get under someone and there are multiple other ways of doing it. You can try and source power from a point lower than them (this only works against less skilled person), but that fails when you realize you can't get any lower than the feet (and its not really internal). The better way is to integrate your weight with the other person and their input force (and add to it rather than go against it), cause it to reflect off the ground ala Newton's 3rd law. The resultant force comes from underneath the other person, not requiring your hips to be lower than theirs. Thus you are under them. You need to be "under" yourself too, to make that work, but that idea will probably confuse too many people right now.

I don't think that is what is happening. You are driving low, and whether you realize it or not, if they are not also driving down, you will find a spot where you are under them. I often find this spot in the shoulders, sometimes it's in their elbows or even in their wrists. This point will be a point they don't want to move (it's a sticking point). If you push into that point where they are locked up, like a wedge, you will drive them up. Once that part moves up, their center will move up also, then you can drive them away. Your physical body wont drop, theirs will raise. I wouldn't call this aiki, but I understand why some would.

Could you clarify why you don't see this as aiki? There is a mixing of your weight/energy and your opponents which you put back on out into your opponent.

If you do the simple exercise I'm referring to, you won't feel a lock up point, though it certainly may be visible. You shouldn't feel any resistance of any kind.

If you don't find a "sticking point" why do they move? If there was not a point where they were locked up, their arms would just move and their body would be unaffected. It's only when you find this sticking point, the part where moving their hands moves their body, and get under that sticking point that you can actually move them away from you.


You don't need to find a sticking point, though it is certainly helpful and your partner's movement is certainly far more dramatic. Of course with a more and more experienced person, they won't present such a point or at least far less often and without being a limp noodle. What you really need to do, is bring that energy/force to the point of contact that they have maintained with you. You will still get movement, even if the other person is like a limp noodle as that limb is still connected through the support structures of the body to the torso.

I can't see how something could not be a "muscle based thing". If it's not muscle making the motion happen, what is making it happen?


If I only use what you give me, and only use whatever muscle I need to hold myself up, I'm not relying on muscular power. Rather, I would be relying on your muscular power. Remember this drawing?

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1108&d=1359493547

The blue line is the input force from your partner, and the purple force (in reality, it more or less follows both the blue and red lines back up as some goes into the rear foot) is what pushes back up on an angle. The internal way to do kokyu-ho/dosa relies much more on this than the elbow example I gave. Your arms will extend forwards, not to push your partner, but rather to maintain the connection with the partner. If you start to push with them to add to it, the resultant force winds up being less.

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 12:37 AM
For the clarification for those new to the subject, it refers to a force coming up from underneath the other person,

So the force is lower, correct, because it's coming from underneath.

I see a follow up to this being- the force is lower, but I am not. So my follow up question would be, what is making the force if you are not?? In order for the force to be lower (which it has to be if it's underneath) you must be lower, because you are making the force. I know you imagine bouncing the force, or the force coming from the ground up, but it's not really doing that, it's an image.

What is really happening is that you are pushing from a lower point then they are stopping the push from. That's how you "get lower than them without getting lower than them". You push from your legs (which is very low) into their higher parts, as I said it's usually the shoulder when I do it. You don't have to drop your hips.

Now what makes this hard, is when the other person knows you are doing this, and they start resisting the push from lower spots, and start working to keep you from getting into pushing high spots on them. Then when two people are skilled at this, they start dropping there hips, so they can gain advantage.

They don't drop their hips because they are ignorant of body use, quite the opposite, they are working against another skilled person who is keeping them from wedging them up- or "floating" them.


Could you clarify why you don't see this as aiki? There is a mixing of your weight/energy and your opponents which you put back on out into your opponent.


I don't call that Aiki, because I believe Aiki is the ability to understand the mind and intention of your attacker, then blend accordingly. I know other people have other definitions, and that's cool.


You don't need to find a sticking point, though it is certainly helpful and your partner's movement is certainly far more dramatic. Of course with a more and more experienced person, they won't present such a point or at least far less often and without being a limp noodle. What you really need to do, is bring that energy/force to the point of contact that they have maintained with you. You will still get movement, even if the other person is like a limp noodle as that limb is still connected through the support structures of the body to the torso.


If you don't find a sticking point, you don't have access to the connected support structures. If they don't lock them selves and you can't lock something out there is no path to the center. This might mean going all the way to the end of range of motion, but you must find this spot, or only the limb you are moving, will move.


If I only use what you give me, and only use whatever muscle I need to hold myself up, I'm not relying on muscular power.


How are you directing the force "someone gave you"? You have to use muscle to do that right? If the only thing that moves your body is muscle, and there is force coming in, you must use something to direct that force.

If you are relying on muscle to hold you up. And relying on muscle to redirect the force (what someone gave you). Are you using besides muscle? It sounds to me like you're relying on muscle...

HL1978
02-02-2013, 12:34 PM
So the force is lower, correct, because it's coming from underneath.

I see a follow up to this being- the force is lower, but I am not. So my follow up question would be, what is making the force if you are not?? In order for the force to be lower (which it has to be if it's underneath) you must be lower, because you are making the force. I know you imagine bouncing the force, or the force coming from the ground up, but it's not really doing that, it's an image.

In your table example, how is there not an equal upwards force from the members of the table, under compression which handles the added weight of the book? Of course depending on the material, under compression, you will see a flexing of some kind. This flexing does allow for storage, much the same as a bowstring and a bow under compression (remember Hooke's law from school?), and is the foundation for the concept of store and release, but thats beyond our current discussion. You could imagine that if you could then shift that incoming load somewhere else, that the stored energy would be output (this is part of what Ark is doing in his explosive version of kokyu ho, rather than just pushing back explosively, the two don't look the same).

Now instead of allowing my body to deform, as it will under sufficient pressure, I direct that input into the front leg, through organizing my body via intent. Intent results in some sort of shift within the body, or activation of different muscular components, though it should be the lower torso which causes this to occur. The same input is received into my body, just the resultant vector has changed.

This isn't just imagery, if ones partner pops up on their heels, and feels no force on force component. For a very muscly example, with your arm bent 90 degrees receive a light push. Direct it through the bicep, then direct it through the tricep. Don't push back with it, just feel it directed one way or the other. If you can do both, then you should have some understanding of intent, and be able to do the same in the lower body with or without an additional load placed on you.

Like I state earlier, anyone studying internals should be able to demonstrate this relatively early on in their study. If you can't, one should express some concern. Speaking of which, I failed to do so at a seminar when Mike Sigman asked me to float him, which can tell you where I was at the time i had met him. Mike then showed everyone how to do it after that.

What is really happening is that you are pushing from a lower point then they are stopping the push from. That's how you "get lower than them without getting lower than them". You push from your legs (which is very low) into their higher parts, as I said it's usually the shoulder when I do it. You don't have to drop your hips.

I actually do not advocate doing this, which I will explain after the next quote.

Now what makes this hard, is when the other person knows you are doing this, and they start resisting the push from lower spots, and start working to keep you from getting into pushing high spots on them. Then when two people are skilled at this, they start dropping there hips, so they can gain advantage.

They don't drop their hips because they are ignorant of body use, quite the opposite, they are working against another skilled person who is keeping them from wedging them up- or "floating" them.

I used to think this too, did the same, and saw others who work on the Aunkai method do the same. If you know how to push back with your hips, then I can source from the quads, then you source from the calf (source meaning resist or push back with), then I source from the ankles, then you source form the toes and I loose. If we both can push back at each other from the toes, then neither of us can win by pushing from a lower point than the other. Usually what happens then is both partners will drop their hips progressively lower than one another.

Then Alex Lee said to me, well you can't source (push from or resist with) power lower than the bottom of the feet now can you? Instead whoever can direct more of their weight and their opponents weigh+input force into the ground with cause the other person to move. This is Newton's Third Law in action. Thus IS becomes of study of this particular element as a foundational element, upon which you build many other things.

I will also note, that Sigman's blog says the same thing, that many people think that by sourcing power from a lower point than the other person they are thus doing IS. I now agree with Mike. By pushing back from a lower point, you aren't letting that force go into you and reflect off the ground. When looking at trying to maximize that combined force/weight to have it go into the ground and reflect back, one should realize that pushing back, even at a lower point, reduces the amount going into the ground.

I don't call that Aiki, because I believe Aiki is the ability to understand the mind and intention of your attacker, then blend accordingly. I know other people have other definitions, and that's cool.

Thats fine, we can agree to disagree here. I tend to think my explanation makes a bit more sense when you get to topics like mushin, as you don't think. Rather, the body simply redirects the energy to create waza (freeform), which seems to make sense in light of the founder's comments rather than relying on knowledge of a set form of waza.

If you don't find a sticking point, you don't have access to the connected support structures. If they don't lock them selves and you can't lock something out there is no path to the center. This might mean going all the way to the end of range of motion, but you must find this spot, or only the limb you are moving, will move.


You would certainly agree that if I exert a force on a limp arm, that eventually it will extend to a point where there is sufficient tension conveyed into the limb and into the body which will eventually cause the person to move.

None the less, if the person is holding on to you, even if their arm feels there will be a tension to some degree. This can be used as they will need to maintain their grip.

How are you directing the force "someone gave you"? You have to use muscle to do that right? If the only thing that moves your body is muscle, and there is force coming in, you must use something to direct that force.

If you are relying on muscle to hold you up. And relying on muscle to redirect the force (what someone gave you). Are you using besides muscle? It sounds to me like you're relying on muscle...

If I use the lower torso/hip/inner thigh to direct a force, then sure, I'm using muscle to some degree, but it does not mean that you are pushing back with it.

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 01:11 PM
In your table example, how is there not an equal upwards force from the members of the table,

There is, the table is lower, and it's under (whatever you put on it) making force. This is why the thing- you or a table has to be lower in order to make force to push them up. Otherwise you can't "float" anything you simply push it.


This isn't just imagery, if ones partner pops up on their heels, and feels no force on force component.
No one, is saying that this result doesn't happen. But it doesn't happen the way you describe. You can't be under something without being physically lower than it is- it's not possible. You can't bounce force out of the ground and make someone pop up in the way you are describing. Even if you could, it would be much less efficient (due to force going all the way down, and coming all the way up through both of your bodies), then it would be to simply get under them and raising them up. You would lose power not gain power.


I used to think this too, did the same, and saw others who work on the Aunkai method do the same. If you know how to push back with your hips, then I can source from the quads, then you source from the calf (source meaning resist or push back with), then I source from the ankles, then you source form the toes and I loose. If we both can push back at each other from the toes, then neither of us can win by pushing from a lower point than the other. Usually what happens then is both partners will drop their hips progressively lower than one another.

This is the nature of competition. Two people with equal skills trying to "get" one another. If you are both equally skilled, there isn't a way to avoid this.

Then Alex Lee said to me, well you can't source (push from or resist with) power lower than the bottom of the feet now can you? Instead whoever can direct more of their weight and their opponents weigh+input force into the ground with cause the other person to move. This is Newton's Third Law in action. Thus IS becomes of study of this particular element as a foundational element, upon which you build many other things.

An easier way to say this would simply be, when no one can get lower, the strongest person wins. Again something we see in competition.


You would certainly agree that if I exert a force on a limp arm, that eventually it will extend to a point where there is sufficient tension conveyed into the limb and into the body which will eventually cause the person to move.

Yes, I did say that also.


None the less, if the person is holding on to you, even if their arm feels there will be a tension to some degree. This can be used as they will need to maintain their grip.

So you wouldn't call this tension a "sticking point". What do you call it? Because to me you just described a sticking point, a place where you can exert force on them. Did I miss something here?

I think all of our problems are in semantics and the confusion of imagery and what is happening.

Under has to be below. This is a good example. How can you use the word "under" and not mean that the thing that is "under" is also "lower???? Why would we even discuss this? If you're not lower than something you can't be under it- so why use the word under to describe something that is not lower?

But you do mean under, and to do that you must be lower, but you disagree that you are lower for some reason, even though all of your examples were things that are lower.

This weird semantics thing, with words that have a very clear meaning is making talking about this stuff very hard.

HL1978
02-02-2013, 01:23 PM
That's a bit of a selective response Chris, ignoring the components which make a float happen. IS is about a type of efficiency not used in normal body movement. Thats why i earlier stated I never realized the degree to which you had to relax and never push back.

I will respond fully later.

ChrisHein
02-02-2013, 03:32 PM
That's a bit of a selective response Chris, ignoring the components which make a float happen. IS is about a type of efficiency not used in normal body movement. Thats why i earlier stated I never realized the degree to which you had to relax and never push back.

I will respond fully later.

It could be that I'm selecting the parts that seem relevant to me. I think that's a fair assessment.

I'm trying to find the parts where you actually explain the components of IS. When I read them, to me they just sound like a really complicated way to say something, that can be said in much more plain terms.

To me, I believe that the problem we are really having is imagery and words. I know I keep saying this. But I really think that is the difference and not an actual physical one.

I'm trying to see the difference, I'm listening.

HL1978
02-03-2013, 08:37 AM
It could be that I'm selecting the parts that seem relevant to me. I think that's a fair assessment.

I'm trying to find the parts where you actually explain the components of IS. When I read them, to me they just sound like a really complicated way to say something, that can be said in much more plain terms.

To me, I believe that the problem we are really having is imagery and words. I know I keep saying this. But I really think that is the difference and not an actual physical one.

I'm trying to see the difference, I'm listening.

Well, this stuff is much easier to show in person. Thats when you can make small adjustments and you feel loads in the body move and things get heavier, or muscles which you aren't used to (stabilizers) using get fatigued very quickly.

So say we're going to do kokyu dosa and you are giving me a little bit of an input while holding my wrists. So when I first start executing whatever waza I want to do, you should be able to feel when i push on you with my biceps, then if i move to my shoulder, then if i move to my lower back, then if i push with my abs, hips, and quads. I would reset after starting to move from each part. If you then are moved, after i sequentially push with each of those parts of my body, but you don't feel me pushing from any of those parts, how can I be moving you? I can't be bracing to hold structure in place because you would feel the tension in my body that results, particularly if we are moving very slowly.

That would be an indicator, that you are moving yourself as a result of the energy you are giving me. Once you get that, it makes the waza practice very easy to do because your partner does all the work for you, you just direct them in the direction you want them to go.

I'm going to take a time out for a bit and give others who are working on this stuff a chance to discuss their experiences in floating.

phitruong
02-04-2013, 01:34 PM
was out for awhile. looked like the conversation hasn't change much.

to the OP, i usually "float" the other person when i want them to go down. i don't normally think of float, but getting under, i.e. sink the qi/ki/chi (SJT #1). many folks i dealt with tend to be physically taller than me, so floating isn't a problem. creating a purer ground path is usually more problematic. for me, as a short person, i tend to drop on top, then float, then on top, sort of a wave. since working with IS, i don't worry too much about being early, on time or late to deal with uke. the phrase "already there" has a whole new meaning. sometimes i played a bit of a game, by letting other folks slammed into me with full power to see how pure is my ground path and then proceed to do whatever techniques that we were practicing at the time. the difficult thing for me is to keep my quads from react to incomming force.

Dan Richards
02-11-2013, 11:02 AM
Yes, it's done with intent, not by pushing under them.

Bingo. This isn't about moving uke. It's about moving yourself. And the only person keeping you from moving - is you.

Part of the problem is that people have way too much invested in the idea that there's this big strong guy grabbing on to their arm, and they've got to deal with the strong guy and move that strong guy.

That strong guy exists only as you create him. And the more you create him, the more your arm/s becomes an extension of him. That fires up your primal brain and then - even though you've gotta keep it cool - you're still having to do tricky jitsu leverage and throw in some muscle to move him.

I've got 120 lb women who can sit in seiza and have four strong guys put their eight hands on one of her arms and grab tight. I tell the women, "Those guys don't exist. You're just hanging out by yourself and you want to turn your hand over to see if it's clean." The four strong guys all topple over on each other. Works every time. I've got little kids who can do that like it's a piece of cake.

If you can create some big guy grabbing you - with your mind. Then you can uncreate them - with your mind. Seriously, there is no spoon.

ChrisHein
02-11-2013, 12:36 PM
If you can create some big guy grabbing you - with your mind. Then you can uncreate them - with your mind. Seriously, there is no spoon.

But there is a something- your mind calls it a spoon, which is just a construct made up by your mind, but there is still a something. If that something has a will, and wants to enact it's will upon you, you'll have to deal with it.

Tengu859
02-11-2013, 02:17 PM
But there is a something- your mind calls it a spoon, which is just a construct made up by your mind, but there is still a something. If that something has a will, and wants to enact it's will upon you, you'll have to deal with it.

Do or do not...there is no try...!!! ;0)

Dan Richards
02-11-2013, 03:48 PM
But there is a something- your mind calls it a spoon, which is just a construct made up by your mind, but there is still a something. If that something has a will, and wants to enact it's will upon you, you'll have to deal with it.

Ah, so now I have to deal with a spoon that you've created, within a mind that you've created for me. Oh, and you've created me, too. And then you've created this other something that wants to enact its will, that you've created, upon me, and I have to deal with it.

You're a pretty creative guy, Chris.

OK. So, what do you propose?