PDA

View Full Version : Where Does The Power come from?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


Morpheus
08-04-2005, 02:13 PM
A debate came up in regards to where a batter's power come from and it eventually turned into where does the power come from when one kicks.

My argument is that it comes from the ground and travels up the leg into the hip, but my co-worker feels it begins in the hip.

Can anyone shed some light on it. :ai: :ki: :do:

Kevin Leavitt
08-04-2005, 02:17 PM
how can you move your hips if you feet are not involved? Absolutely it must start from the ground. If you had zero gravity and you were floating....you couldn't swing your hips. The point of reference for them to move is from the ground.

Chuck Clark
08-04-2005, 02:19 PM
Power as you're talking about it basically comes from you fighting gravity by pushing against the ground. You can change the direction of that by using other muscles by rotating, etc.

Dirk Hanss
08-04-2005, 03:55 PM
Somehow both I guess.
Everything what Kevin and Chuck say is correct. But nearly all budo sports teach that the power comes from your centre (hara). Kicks, punches, and aikido techniques.

The idea is the hara is your centre of gravity. Legs take the resitance of the ground to get the power towards the target, but if the movement does not start in your energetical centre, it will be a powerless nothing.

In a seminar I learned, the hara is the engine. everything else is important, but it is leverage and gearing, a kind of energy transformation.

Yes, of course, you need the earth to get a firm starting point. It could be a wall (in a spaceship not connected to earth). But on earth it is earth. So one is as true as the other.

But my experience in traing is, if you concentrate in trying to get the movement started in your hara, it is much easier to get the power to the destination, than if you try to figure out, how to get the right ankle to achieve most power from earth.

Well, if you train different it might be the opposite for you.

Cheers, Dirk

Chuck Clark
08-04-2005, 04:10 PM
If the question is where does the movement start, the standard budo answer is from the hara. There's more to it than that though. The hara is not just the biological center of gravity. The movement really starts in your intent. Japanese budo teachers often talk about ki, ken, tai, ichi ... meaning your spirit/intent/heart, etc and the action, and body are all one. When you have done it properly so many times that the all of these things happen with no lag between any of them and you have no fear of failure, etc. then the waza is an actualization of your intent.

In doing this, the power (on this world...) comes from pushing away from the planet. (unless you have a rocket in your pocket or have ingested some particularly potent food...)

Adam Alexander
08-04-2005, 04:20 PM
I say a batter's power comes from the rotational force created by the hips against the ground...your body becomes a lever.

For the kicker...same thing, just different direction of power. The body's a lever. The power comes from the hips who's fulcrum is the ground.

...but I could be wrong.

Ketsan
08-04-2005, 04:43 PM
People can move in the zero gravity and vacuume of space so I suggest that the power comes from the hips. Maewashi geri is, in it's simplest form, simply lifting the leg and rotating the hips, this can be performed both on the ground or indeed in mid air.

rob_liberti
08-05-2005, 10:04 AM
This is basically the same question as: which end of the hose does the water come from? (especially if you shake the end it's coming out to give the water just a little more momentum). The majority of the power comes from the ground and is distributed by means of the hips. What do you expect would happen if we were both in zero gravity and you kicked me while we were floating? How "powerful" would that be compared to if were were both standing on solid ground with normal gravity?

Rob

ian
08-05-2005, 10:17 AM
power requires the connection between the ground and the kicking foot. If you kick in zero gravity your body would move backwards as your foot kicks forwards (though slightly less since your leg is less mass than your body). Ideally you use the ground to project as much of your body weight into the person as possible - thus your 'centre' is the centre of gravity where the body weight can be felt to be projected. Obviously a flying kick utilises the ground to get the forward momentum.

Roy
08-05-2005, 06:37 PM
Ultimately the sun

mj
08-05-2005, 06:50 PM
Didn't Bruce Lee say it came from the hips, in Way of the Dragon?

Aikido people probably aren't the best people to ask about kick power.

Roy
08-05-2005, 09:22 PM
I agree with mark that power comes from the hips :)

Adam Alexander
08-06-2005, 04:30 PM
Aikido people probably aren't the best people to ask about kick power.


Actually, the mechanics are all there. And, as I understand it, Ki society trains with kicks (Ukes).

crbateman
08-07-2005, 02:24 AM
I personally have never been kicked by the ground. It generally just sits there. When someone kicks me, it is the power of their muscles and their energy that I feel. They are simply braced by, and reflected from, the foundation of the ground.

In Aikido we are taught to maintain this connection to the ground, so that moving us will be as impossible as moving the Earth itself.

Kevin Leavitt
08-07-2005, 10:27 AM
I agree with Roy..the sun.

Excuse me know while I go finish my sacrifice. :)

rob_liberti
08-08-2005, 11:08 AM
I personally have never been kicked by the ground. It generally just sits there. When someone kicks me, it is the power of their muscles and their energy that I feel. They are simply braced by, and reflected from, the foundation of the ground.

In Aikido we are taught to maintain this connection to the ground, so that moving us will be as impossible as moving the Earth itself.
This is a good point. Have you ever been kicked by someone who attempts to avoid using friction for bracing as opposed to just staying squarely over their center and attempts to use gravity excursively for their stability? I understand these things are related, but changing your mindset results in quite a bit more striking power. I'm told that Korean master Hwang Kee was incredible at showing the difference.

So where does power come from, well, my opinion is that "power comes from" the bottom of your foot (assuming gravity), and continues through your body. For all intents and purposes, the bottom of your foot is close enough to the ground.

But I think the "sun" is probably the best answer.

Rob

Adam Alexander
08-08-2005, 12:08 PM
I look at it like a teeter-totter.

The power doesn't come from the axis point, it comes from the ballast (the other person).

In kicks, the ballast is the hips, the axis is the ground.

Roy
08-08-2005, 12:43 PM
I do recall being told a million times that one must be "rooted." So, this must mean being connected to the ground. I also think power comes from your heart, and commitment. Being relaxed and focus will also maximize power.

crbateman
08-08-2005, 03:07 PM
Kicks (and punches) are, to a great degree, a function of mass and momentum. An attackers body cannot gain either of these once he has left the ground. The whiplike action of a good kick does compound the total force, but nothing extra comes in the mass and momentum. The strongest kicks are those that are braced against the ground. A well-trained attack gets the mass of the body in motion (momentum) toward the target, with a muscle explosion just prior to impact. This movement toward the target and muscle explosion are developed against the foundation of solid ground. Losing the ground is sort of like trying to hit a home run while retreating from the pitch. Only the guys on "the juice" have a prayer without the proper concert of mass, momentum and power.

Eric_Aiki
08-08-2005, 04:53 PM
http://www.progressiveboink.com/b/images/100film/100.jpg
It's all in the hips.... It's all in the hips...

Thats what my Sensei keeps telling me. :D

Eric

Dirk Hanss
08-12-2005, 01:09 AM
Just a simple similar question:
At a car, where does the power/speed/acceleration come from?

Is it the driver (mind), gas pedal (intention), the engine (hips), the gearing (legs), the wheels (feet) or the street (earth)?

If you omit one of them, car would not move. Think about the rest by yourselves ;)

Regards Dirk

Takuan
08-17-2005, 03:35 PM
I believe that true power happens when the body reacts as "one". So I prefer not to think of different limbs or parts of my body when I need power. I think the ultimate goal is to create unity with head, spirit and limbs (center).

Pankration90
08-17-2005, 07:35 PM
It comes from your hips. Sure, you have to pivot on one of your feet but that pivot is caused by your hips, not the foot itself. Of course it depends on the kick you're doing as well, some styles use a flick of the knee and then some rely on just the hips.

rob_liberti
08-17-2005, 09:06 PM
The idea of where it "comes from", can be thought of more like how do you see the line of power, and where does it start? I think this is similar to the idea of: Does the wind blow the flag, or does the flag move the air around? It's more of a Yoda type thing (note I mean the cool Yoda from Empire Strikes Back, not the silly puppet flying and flipping around wasting all kinds of crazy energy while fighting someone. :) )

Rob

aikigirl10
08-17-2005, 09:18 PM
Power comes from the mind. Without the mind there would be no force to kick or swing a baseball bat or what have u . The ground and the hips and appendages are all just tools that the mind uses to accomplish whatever it sets out to do .

My theory (and some uncommon deep thinking (for me))

crbateman
08-17-2005, 10:13 PM
Power comes from the mind. Without the mind there would be no force to kick or swing a baseball bat or what have u . The ground and the hips and appendages are all just tools that the mind uses to accomplish whatever it sets out to do .

My theory (and some uncommon deep thinking (for me))An interesting thought, to be sure. But a bulldozer is but an appendage the mind uses when it sets out to move a mountain. But without the bulldozer, the mountain stays put. Without physical training and perfection of physical technique, the "tools" the mind needs would be absent and what the mind produces would be only ideas. The development of the mind and the physical body are not mutually exclusive, especially when work is to be done. Otherwise, Albert Einstein could have kicked everybody's ass... ;)

Rupert Atkinson
08-17-2005, 11:13 PM
Power can come from the ground through the feet - up the legs, through the hips etc. It can also originate in the hips. An example of the former is any pushing or pulling technique. An example of the latter might be a downblow smashing a board. But then, even though the downblow itself requires no help from the ground, the twist of the hips to set it up still originates in the feet.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 10:19 AM
Power can come from the ground through the feet - up the legs, through the hips etc. It can also originate in the hips. An example of the former is any pushing or pulling technique. An example of the latter might be a downblow smashing a board. But then, even though the downblow itself requires no help from the ground, the twist of the hips to set it up still originates in the feet. Basic power can come from the ground or from gravity... hence the vague comments about the ki of earth and the ki of heaven. Of course that doesn't tell you much (and it's not meant to, in those old sayings).

You could say that power comes from the ground in some example, but if you put a hydraulic jack on the ground and under a weight, you can certainly apply more power than if there was just a stick between the ground and the weight. If you stack 2 hydraulic jacks under the load, you can lift more weigth. And so on. Any application of power depends on the ground (or gravity if it's downward; or a combination of the two if it's outward), but the actual power depends on how many power points you can insert between the ground and the point of application (trying to not let the power factors interfere with each other).

So power should use the ground, but the best way is to let the ground be transmitted uninterruptedly through the body. Then you add the strength of the legs, the strength of the hips, the strength of the back, and any other cute additives that you can come up with... they all add up, just as the stacked hydraulic jacks did. "Ki" and "Kokyu" can be looked at a 'cute additives to overall power'. It's these additives that have allowed small people to become famously strong martial artists (apart from their technique, etc., of course).

FWIW

Mike

aikigirl10
08-18-2005, 10:34 AM
Yes, everything must work together , but the mind initiates it.

Pankration90
08-18-2005, 11:10 AM
http://martialartsplanet.com/forums/image.php?u=11700&dateline=1122269635
There's a pic of Mirko Filipovic kicking. Where in that gif is he pushing off the ground more than he needs to in order to hold himself up? The power comes from the turning of the hips and swinging the leg like a baseball bat, not from pushing off of the ground.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 11:26 AM
[IMG]Where in that gif is he pushing off the ground more than he needs to in order to hold himself up? Newton's third law. He lifts his leg to kick and he turns the kick to the side; there will be an increased force in the leg as he raises the other one. Friction and force keep his foot from moving as he turns the kick to the side. In other words, without additional forces applied to the ground, he couldn't kick. However, the conditioning and skill of various factors (like joint strength, etc.) are the "hydraulic jacks" (additive factors) inserted between the ground and what he kicks. But the ground is the source he must have above all else.

Mike

akiy
08-18-2005, 11:33 AM
http://martialartsplanet.com/forums/image.php?u=11700&dateline=1122269635
There's a pic of Mirko Filipovic kicking. Where in that gif is he pushing off the ground more than he needs to in order to hold himself up? The power comes from the turning of the hips and swinging the leg like a baseball bat, not from pushing off of the ground.
Hmm... I wonder how much power he (or anyone) would have if he were performing the same kick on a heavy bag while standing on a totally slippery surface (like an iced over pond)?

-- Jun

senshincenter
08-18-2005, 12:16 PM
Maybe there are two different perspectives going on in this thread - which is why folks are saying "taste great" "less filling." ???

It almost seems as if there are different questions being asked and so folks are coming up with different answers. Maybe this might help (maybe not):

If you want to say where does power come from in terms of something like the origin of movement – then you are going to have to look to the body first, not the ground. The ground does not move in a kick nor do we require the ground to move our body. However, it would not be correct to say that this kind of power (origin/source of movement) comes from the hips and/or the hara. In fact, such movement comes from many constructs of the body pushing and pulling against each other, so you’d have to mention them all and/or you’d have to increase your understanding of what “hara” means in order to capture them all – in my opinion.

If you want to say where does power come from in terms of something like generated force at impact – then you are going to have to look at things of the body AND things of environmental relevance as well. In this case, I do not think you can cover everything by just saying “the ground” – there are other factors/forces (e.g. gravity, friction, inertia, weight of the target, resistance, etc.) relevant here that come together to increase or decrease (should some be absent) power at impact.

In this sense, I think Mike, and many others that have also talked about combination of factors – including Paige with mentioning the relevance of the mind – etc., has described things well, only I would suggest that we then do not go on to pick any one factor over the others as “the most important.” In my opinion, whether you are talking about the origin of movement or whether you are talking about force at impact, you are going to be talking about an aggregate. To hear that and to then ask, “Yeah, but which one do you really need?,” after the fact has been pointed out, is to not understand the original premise fully.

My opinion,
dmv

rob_liberti
08-18-2005, 12:56 PM
Hmm... I wonder how much power he (or anyone) would have if he were performing the same kick on a heavy bag while standing on a totally slippery surface (like an iced over pond)?

-- Jun

Understood. And as I understand it, if Master Hwang Kee were standing on a totally slippery surface like an iced over pond, I think he'd blast through the heavy bag. I'm told that was his main point of how to train striking power. I heard "Gravity is the grace of god, and friction is the evil of men" and it seemed to apply well to martial art power.

Rob

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 01:04 PM
In this sense, I think Mike, and many others that have also talked about combination of factors -- including Paige with mentioning the relevance of the mind -- etc., has described things well, only I would suggest that we then do not go on to pick any one factor over the others as "the most important." In my opinion, whether you are talking about the origin of movement or whether you are talking about force at impact, you are going to be talking about an aggregate. To hear that and to then ask, "Yeah, but which one do you really need?," after the fact has been pointed out, is to not understand the original premise fully. Sure, it's obviously a combination of factors. However, the ground is the most important factor to consider when developing a kick, which is what I think the original poster was asking. He was discussing whether the power of a kick came from the ground or from the hip.

Of course you need some strength in the hip for a kick, but you should focus on the ground, IMO. A quick way to understand what I'm saying is to do a side-kick at a wall or hanging back. In one kick, kick in whatever version of side-kick you normally use, but kick directly into the target (like you were trying to break a board at that point). Focus on the role the hip plays. In the second kick, roughly mimic the first kick but focus on straightening the ground-standing leg so that the power is generated by the straightening of the leg on the ground. Hopefully, the example will highlight the importance of the power from the leg on the ground in answer to the original question. And of course there are a number of other contributing factors to any good kick, as well.

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 01:10 PM
Understood. And as I understand it, if Master Hwang Kee were standing on a totally slippery surface like an iced over pond, I think he'd blast through the heavy bag. I'm told that was his main point of how to train striking power. ??? Standing on ice was his main point or am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying that Hwang Kee did this sort of thing or are you speculating that he could have? Since Newton's Third Law says that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, where would the reactionary force go?

Mike

rob_liberti
08-18-2005, 02:41 PM
I thought that might be confusing. I believe the main point was to perform movements while almost completely on balance. Dan Mesisco sensei spoke of training so that you do not rely on any 'extra' friction to help you find ways to always move from "your place" even when your place seemed to be moving all around the room. My understanding of this is that Hwang Kee was able to do some mastery type things that would be similar to what I expect Tohei would be doing when standing on one leg, and/or staying extra heavy. So a really slippery surface to me, might not be all that slippery to him. So I'm not saying physics doesn't apply to someone. I more meant that we (the folks who would be sliding all over the place trying to kick while standing on a slippery surface) waste a lot of energy compared to the few folks who would not be sliding around all that much while kicking much harder than the rest of us.

Rob

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 03:45 PM
Unless you can somehow kick him straight up, vertically, there will be a horizontal component to the forces. You can't "translate" a horizontal force to being vertical (although you can add vector components, but that too would make you slip). So if there are horizontal components to the force you apply with the kick, you are totally dependent upon the coefficient of friction at the sole of your shoe. I.e., you'll slip and bust your butt. ;)

If Tohei is on a slippery surface, I promise you that he'll slide backwards, assuming you have a good grip on the floor. Even if he attempts to apply an "aiki" through the contact, he can't get around the horizontal forces, so he'll slide.


Mike

rob_liberti
08-18-2005, 04:08 PM
Well, yeah, that's the extreme. I'm not trying to claim that anyone is breaking the laws of physics.

Take two people and have them walk over what would generally be considered a very slippery surface. Have one of them walk across while consciously feeling the weight of their body over their feet, and let the other one just walk the way they normally walk. Both will have the same amount of friction available to them, but one will need less to stay balanced.

Rob

Pankration90
08-18-2005, 05:42 PM
Sorry I don't have time to read all the replies, but I read the two after my last post.

I'm not denying that the ground isn't involved at all while kicking. My point is that the ground is not the cause of the power, nor does it add any power. You turn on the ground, not because of it.

That kick in its simplest form is just lifting the leg and turning the body like it is an axle. The leg swings around and crashes into the target like a baseball bat. No where in that kick are you pushing against the ground in an attempt to kick harder. I'll try to give two examples:

1) You don't have to pivot on the ball of your foot. You could kick like Ramon Dekker, who turns one foot to the side, plants it flat on the ground, and the turns his whole body until it is aligned with that foot while swinging his leg around. It doesn't involve any pushing motion against the ground.

2) In one of the recent UFC's, Yves Edwards (I think that's his name) attempted a high kick, lost his balance/footing, and fell down. The kick still had plenty of power even though his foot wasn't "rooted" to the ground. Why? He lifted his leg and turned his hips while doing so. Jun, I hope that answers your question; you can kick on a slippery surface with a lot of power but losing balance is likely.

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 05:52 PM
Sorry I don't have time to read all the replies, but I read the two after my last post.

I'm not denying that the ground doesn't play a part in it, but you turn on the ground, not because of it. The power is neither caused by the ground nor by pushing on the ground; the power is caused by swinging your leg and turning your hips.

Jun, you can do that kick on ice with plenty of power. You'd probably fall down after it, though. Actually, you'd fall down trying to do it. Newton's Third Law doesn't say "For every action there will later be an equal an opposite reaction"... it happens immediately. No ground, no power. (People who leap into the air and kick using momentum got that momentum ahead of the kick, BTW... and it ain't all that powerful if you have any martial training, as many people well know).

Insofar as "swinging your leg and turning your hips" I agree that those things can be additive components, if that's what you do. I do the same things some times, but in almost all times I add other things in the power chain. But without the ground running in an unbroken line through you're body, you're leaving money on the table, IMO.

FWIW

Mike

Pankration90
08-18-2005, 05:58 PM
Mike, I assumed that the original poster was talking about a roundhouse/turning kick and not a side or front kick because he mentioned swinging a baseball bat. When you're doing a roundhouse kick, you do not push off of the ground to gain power. You don't rely on the friction between your feet and the ground for power. All you need is to be able to raise your leg and turn your hips- that is the kick right there.

If you can't raise your leg and turn while on ice before falling down I think you need to work on your kicking a little. :D

aikigirl10
08-18-2005, 06:04 PM
even for a side kick you dont need to push off the ground. All you do is raise your knee and push out with your heel. The only purpose the ground serves is for standing on the other leg.

aikigirl10
08-18-2005, 06:06 PM
And, front kicks from the front leg dont require pushing off either. Front kicks from the back leg yes, but from the front leg, not really.

Pankration90
08-18-2005, 06:07 PM
Agreed.

Here is a gif of Yves Edwards:
http://img343.imageshack.us/img343/4710/yveskick7je.gif

senshincenter
08-18-2005, 07:58 PM
Sure, it's obviously a combination of factors. However, the ground is the most important factor to consider when developing a kick, which is what I think the original poster was asking. He was discussing whether the power of a kick came from the ground or from the hip.

Of course you need some strength in the hip for a kick, but you should focus on the ground, IMO. A quick way to understand what I'm saying is to do a side-kick at a wall or hanging back. In one kick, kick in whatever version of side-kick you normally use, but kick directly into the target (like you were trying to break a board at that point). Focus on the role the hip plays. In the second kick, roughly mimic the first kick but focus on straightening the ground-standing leg so that the power is generated by the straightening of the leg on the ground. Hopefully, the example will highlight the importance of the power from the leg on the ground in answer to the original question. And of course there are a number of other contributing factors to any good kick, as well.

FWIW

Mike


But even in this example you are sighting both the leg (i.e. straightening the ground-standing leg) AND the ground are mentioned.

Another way of looking at this, for me, is to see that folks are wondering about something that might be considered analogous to wondering about what causes the power in a pole vault. Is it the ground, the pole, or the athlete's physiology? Answer: All of them. Follow up question: Can you do a pole vault without the ground? Answer: No. Can you do a pole vault without a pole (or with a pole that will telescope down as the ground's pressure and the athlete's pressure comes to act upon it)? Answer: No. Can you do a pole vault without a sound physiology? Answer: Probably not very high, but most likely not at all.

If one wants to emphasize one aspect over another as part of a pedagogy - as part of something that helps a student get a better over-all picture of the details they are trying to capture and/or the mistakes they are making - then maybe mentioning one thing at the implied cost of the other elements and/or maybe saying "this is the most important aspect" might have it's place. But I see it as just good upaya. Thus, since most folks have a problem being grounded, it is often wise to think of the ground as the most important aspect in generating power. But scientifically, it just can't be emphasized over the other elements because it's very output is co-dependent in nature to other outputs (a lot of the time in accordance with Newton's third law) - which means it cannot be "more than".

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 08:32 PM
But even in this example you are sighting both the leg (i.e. straightening the ground-standing leg) AND the ground are mentioned. But not the hip and the ground, as in the original question, which is the point I was trying to make. Just the dependence on the ground as a source of power should be obvious. Now when you add in the idea of kokyu (which I realize you don't see as an aspect of the ground), which derives its essence from the ground, the answer is unmistakeable. At least to the cognoscenti. ;)

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 08:38 PM
Mike, I assumed that the original poster was talking about a roundhouse/turning kick and not a side or front kick because he mentioned swinging a baseball bat. When you're doing a roundhouse kick, you do not push off of the ground to gain power. You don't rely on the friction between your feet and the ground for power. All you need is to be able to raise your leg and turn your hips- that is the kick right there.

If you can't raise your leg and turn while on ice before falling down I think you need to work on your kicking a little. :D Easy way to check. Stand on some nice slick ice sometime, raise your leg until it is horizontal, and then swing your leg exactly horizontal into a buddy of yours. If you can even start the swing, you'll be lucky. You can get somewhat a *near* idea of the same thing by sitting on a smoothly-pivoting barstool (very smoothe), putting one arm out horizontally and then swinging it horizontally into a willing partner (keeping all other limbs still). I think you'll find that there's more to the standing leg in a side-kick than just a support from which you raise the kicking leg. It's still Newton's Third Law of Motion.

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 08:40 PM
Here is a gif of Yves Edwards: Sure, but watch the leg on the ground straightening so that he derives his power. See what I said in post #41. I shouldn't answer all these questions... Chuck Gordon will accuse me of nitpicking even if you're bringing up all the objections. ;)

Regards,

Mike

senshincenter
08-18-2005, 08:55 PM
Leg or hip, it still makes no difference - the ground cannot generate more power than the leg (or the hip) generates (i.e. puts into the ground). Scientifically, no single element can be given primacy - not the leg, not the ground, not the hip.

Nitpicking is half the fun. :-) Keep going!

Cognoscenti? I get the joke, but still... That sounds a lot like that article over there at AJ - where "there is this thing that exists and we know it exists because it doesn't exist." Okaaaaaaaayyyyy? ;-) When we take that kind of logic for reason of course we got to answer things by saying, "Understanding is beyond understanding - but for me and for others that agree with me." Sure, it's obvious you do not fully mean that - but Yikes! If we are going to run there at the end, we might as well run there at the beginning - right? Such reasoning is all so arbitrary - which is the real (social) power of the initiate (and why esoteric groups have always tended to be anti-scientific). If we are going to do that, then, right from the start, let's just say that: "It's beyond you to understand, unless you agree with me, but even then I don't expect you to understand (though I continue to expect you to agree with me)." lol :-)

Pankration90
08-18-2005, 09:15 PM
Easy way to check. Stand on some nice slick ice sometime, raise your leg until it is horizontal, and then swing your leg exactly horizontal into a buddy of yours. If you can even start the swing, you'll be lucky. You can get somewhat a *near* idea of the same thing by sitting on a smoothly-pivoting barstool (very smoothe), putting one arm out horizontally and then swinging it horizontally into a willing partner (keeping all other limbs still). I think you'll find that there's more to the standing leg in a side-kick than just a support from which you raise the kicking leg. It's still Newton's Third Law of Motion.
Mike, how can you say that when I just posted a gif of Yves Edwards generating enough power to KO his opponent without having his foot firmly on the ground? Power doesn't come from the ground during a roundhouse kick. Btw, you don't raise your leg up and then turn, you use the momentum of swinging your leg to turn. There is no "push" with the supporting leg to create power, so the ground doesn't help. The ground just gives you something to pivot on, nothing more.

Btw, I've said several times I'm not talking about a side kick and I seriously doubt the original poster was either. Swinging a baseball bat isn't a good analogy for a side kick...

Sure, but watch the leg on the ground straightening so that he derives his power.
His leg is straightening because of the momentum of his other leg. Try kicking high with a lot power while keeping your other leg bent... he is not using his supporting leg to push on the ground to create power.

Have you ever been taught the thai roundhouse?

Mike Sigman
08-18-2005, 09:45 PM
Well, we'll just have to disagree, Phillip. Show your clip to a physics professor sometime. ;)

Regards,

Mike

Pankration90
08-18-2005, 11:00 PM
Alright, but I don't think a physics professor is going to tell me that by pushing against the ground (which would make you go up) you cause your body to turn. :D

senshincenter
08-18-2005, 11:39 PM
However, he will tell you that a ground reaction force was relevant to that knock-out. On the other side, however, he won't tell you that the ground reaction force was the greatest and/or the most primary force involved (since such a force can only be equal to the force that is acting upon at the same time that it remains reactionary to that force).

Here are some relevant (and cool) links that help explain this stuff scientifically:


http://btc.montana.edu/olympics/physbio/glossary/g07.html

http://www.cwu.edu/~acquisto/movement.htm

http://guardian.curtin.edu.au/cga/teach-in/friction.html

http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/biomechanics-soccer.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fpte10.htm

http://www.coachesinfo.com/category/soccer/109/

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/U5L1d.html

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/207/4/667

Upyu
08-19-2005, 12:26 AM
I'd say that there's ways to kick where you can use more of the gravity force more efficiently than others.
Kyokushin and Karate in general tend to rely more on localized hip/waist power to drive the leg, using the pivot leg only as a pivot, which results in a more "surface" type of hit.

Thai kicks on the other hand, actually do rely more on that gravity force since they rely more on spinal strength, as well as the "stretch" from the middle as they kick. You'll notice the typical thai boxer kicks standing more "straight" than other people. There's a reason their kicks feel "penetrating".

And I'd disagree that the power(or well, most effecient power) comes from pushing the ground. If you "push" off the ground, it's too slow. Your entire body has to be able to take advantage of the gravity force as one unit. So, to a degree, having the foot planted completely or not, isn't the biggest factor. It's whether your body is "connected" as one unit.

I've seen my instructor over here kick in a slightly different manner from the thais, and despite weighing only about 60kgs, manages to knock the legs out from guys that weigh 100+ kg, in a stable stance. In his case, his supporting leg remains rooted, but its still his overall posture/connection that generates the power.

rob_liberti
08-19-2005, 06:44 AM
If I get shot out of a cannon, and through a kick at you while still accelerating I'll knock you out without having my other foot on the ground. But the power didn't primarily "come from" my hip. It came from the cannon, which pushed me at you by exploding me away from where it was "grounded". Draw a line of power, and tell me where it came from.

I had a friend in aikido who told me that she got these special dojo shoes because she found that there where times when she just needed more traction. She would have been much better off training in very slippery socks. Obviously, you need "some" friction, but it's amazing how much less is needed if you hold your body squarely over your center.

Rob

Mike Sigman
08-19-2005, 08:01 AM
And I'd disagree that the power(or well, most effecient power) comes from pushing the ground. If you "push" off the ground, it's too slow. Your entire body has to be able to take advantage of the gravity force as one unit. So, to a degree, having the foot planted completely or not, isn't the biggest factor. It's whether your body is "connected" as one unit.I can't speak for the other "ground" espousers, but I never suggested that "pushing the ground" was the important part. The important part is to be able to transmit a relaxed path from your hand or foot all the way through to the ground so that your opponent feels this ground, along with the various methods of storing and releasing (enhancing the power) of this path to the ground. The control of this path is normally what the "hara" is supposed to do, but in Aikido a lot of people make the hips the primary power-control point. I'm aware that some of the big-time players, like Abe Sensei, know how to generate power with the actual hara, but I'm not sure how many total can do it.

Because the path from the ground is so solid, it is probably the primary factor, but as I've said, there's still a combination of factors in any movement. The hips, etc., are more like auxilliaries. Don't forget the the ki! ;) If you want to get an idea of how the ki itself works, it works very much like the what the Heechee do to derive their power. :cool:

Regards,

Mike

Upyu
08-19-2005, 08:42 AM
Took the words out of my mouth Mike :D
The ground "path" is indeed what I was trying to get at.
Unfortunately a lot of people conceptualize this as "pushing" off the ground and using the resulting force, which is what I was referring to as being too slow.
And yea, the hara is merely a conduit, combined with expansion/contraction of your body to generate power. (Its prolly why the thais get so much power out of their kicks, cuz they got a strong notion to "expand" when they kick) :)

Mike Sigman
08-19-2005, 09:13 AM
And yea, the hara is merely a conduit, combined with expansion/contraction of your body to generate power. (Its prolly why the thais get so much power out of their kicks, cuz they got a strong notion to "expand" when they kick) :) Hi Robert:

Well, I think of the "hara" as being a nexus that is *functionally* connected out to the rest of the body (after you develop that connection) and it's also a pressure reservoir. Not merely a conduit. I use hips for power in the same way I use my knees, elbows, etc., but I use my center for my primary power to manipulate and "store" power, so my "release" or expansion is probably somewhat more different still.

Regards,

Mike

Pankration90
08-19-2005, 12:08 PM
The only purpose the ground serves is giving you something to pivot on.

If you don't lift your leg and turn your hips, there is no kick. That kick doesn't happen because of the ground. The kick isn't caused by pivoting on the ground, you pivot because of the kick.

This isn't a punch where you drive your legs into the ground to generate power. This is a kick where you swing your leg up at the target and turn. You're trying to over think it. When you do this kick, you are not trying to root yourself to the ground for power. You are trying to fight gravity, inertia, and friction so you can swing your leg as fast as possible into the target.

By your logic, if someone is simply standing still then the ground is pushing against them so there is "power". That doesn't make sense though; if no work is being done then there can't be power.

Pankration90
08-19-2005, 12:12 PM
Here's a quote about the mechanics of the thai round house:
Muay Thai roundkick mechanics
The Muay Thai roundhouse kick is swung around "dead-legged" style. In other words, imagine that your leg is a baseball bat. That means that the knee does not exist. Now, to get that leg to swing around and through a target, you have to use your hip to swing it around.

Let's break it down. Pretend that your leg is in a cast from the ankle to just below your hip. Your knee is immobile. You have to swing the kick around like a baseball bat to strike through your target.

First, step at an angle. You lean in the way that you are stepping, which is
coincidentally the opposite direction from your kicking leg. (that is an important item to note, I'm coming back to it in a moment)
As you step, you should already partially rotate your support foot, and you should also be up on the ball of your foot. Do not step flat-footed.

Now that you have taken that step and the kick is beginning to launch (remember, your leg is immobilized and you have to swing it with your hip) you must pivot on your support foot, LEANING AWAY from your kicking leg throughout the entire motion!
The heel of your pivot foot should have turned all the way towards the target during the kick. Or, you can think of it as turning your knee completely away from the target. You should keep your leg semi-stiff throughout the swing of the kick, tensing it up at impact. You should point the toes of your kicking foot during the kick. This tightens up the muscles and tendons in the foot and ankle, which will prevent injury if you catch your target wrong, such as when you misjudge your distance when you kick and catch your target with your toes. Now, lets go back to that "lean away" item again. By leaning away from the kicking leg, you are actually transferring your full upper body weight into the kick. How? Well, I am not a physicist, but this has to do with that law regarding for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. But, rather than discuss physics, just think of it like this. Have you ever swung a baseball bat? Or a golf club? In both cases, as you swing the club or bat, your upper body always swings around opposite of the club or bat. Leaned away from it! Baseball players do not hunch into their swing unless they are bunting. Rather,
they lean back, or away from the bat and try to knock the sucker out of the park!
http://www.subfighter.com/article933

There is no mention of rooting your supporting leg, pushing off the ground, or anything. The ground just gives you something to pivot on.

aikigirl10
08-19-2005, 12:22 PM
Exactly philip. Even with a round house where the knee is bent and you snap it out , there is no kicking off from the ground. The kicks that would start with a kicking off motion would be kicks in the air, a front kick from your back leg , or a double kick. Anybody who has been taught kicks should know this. If you have never been taught kicks and you are posting on this thread ... well i guess you just like to argue.

Mike Sigman
08-19-2005, 12:42 PM
By your logic, if someone is simply standing still then the ground is pushing against them so there is "power". That doesn't make sense though; if no work is being done then there can't be power. "When still, he is as immoveable as a mountain; When moving he is as irresistable as a great wave".

akiy
08-19-2005, 01:01 PM
Does anyone have an analog (ie not digital) body weight scale? If so, can they please stand on it on one leg then do a roundhouse kick or a side kick to see if the perceived "weight" on the scale changes?

Curiously,

-- Jun

senshincenter
08-19-2005, 01:34 PM
There's no doubt that the scale would change since lifting the leg in the kick would spark the ground reaction force. In fact, really, there's no need to kick, just get a decent scale and try and lift one foot off of it - the scale will move (maybe up to five or ten pounds on most folks). There is also a similar effect (i.e. a ground reaction force) once the target is struck (should the kicker have one foot on the ground at the moment of impact).

In the flying roundhouse kick in the animated gif, the ground reaction force is involved first in the launch and then as a resistance energy (via Newton's first law) which assists the kicker's physiological constructs in rotating the hips/leg/body/etc. into the kick.

Pankration90
08-19-2005, 03:12 PM
"When still, he is as immoveable as a mountain; When moving he is as irresistable as a great wave".
That doesn't prove that there is "power" while standing still. For there to be "power", work has to be done over time. If someone is standing still, there is no work. No work means no power.

The ground reaction force can't be used to generate power in a kick because according to newton's third law, it is exactly equal to the force you put on the ground. It's not going to push you up or make you go faster. The only way to generate power using the ground is to drive into it with your legs, which is not done while doing a roundhouse kick.

Edit: I just went and stood on a non-digital scale and lifted my leg. When I lifted it the needle went back and forth a little but that's because my supporting leg was on the side of the scale, not the middle. After a second or two my weight went back to normal- you don't get heavier by standing on one foot.

senshincenter
08-19-2005, 04:59 PM
Just to keep things clear...

The ground reaction force is equal in duration as well - so you should only be able to measure it in this experiment as you are lifting the leg. Once the leg is lifted, that first difference measured returns to or near "zero" (especially if there is no further movement of the leg in question). The needle did not go back and forth because you were on one side of the scale - as if that were the case the needle would actually go down in weight - not up (which is what happens). In such an experiment, it is not that you get heavier, but that a force (separate from weight/gravity) is acting in an equal and opposite manner to that which is being used to lift your leg. Simply put: You can't lift any body part up (e.g. raising your arm) - let alone lift something off of the ground - without the presence of the ground reaction force (assuming you are on the ground).

Pankration90
08-19-2005, 05:37 PM
senshincenter,
Even if the needle was going back and forth (so the weight went down and up, not just up) because I was lifting my leg and not because I was on one side of the scale, I was still raising my leg using my own muscles. My leg didn't raise because of the ground. There is no way to use grf to kick.

senshincenter
08-19-2005, 06:08 PM
Hi Phillip,

Yes, it is accurate to say that you raised your leg - the physiological components of your body are the primary energy here (not the reaction energy). The leg didn't move because the ground moved. This is very true. The ground is not the primary force in this regards. However, because you are on the ground, GRF is so intertwined (according to Newton's third law) with lifting, thrusting, forward movement, braking, etc., that it is equally not accurate to say that such force is irrelevant. According to Newton's third law, science considers force to exist in pairs - called "action-reaction force pairs." If you don't have this pairing you wouldn't be lifting your foot were you standing on the ground - let alone kicking. I realize you are probably picturing being able to raise your thigh to your lower abdomen while floating in space, but there is no ground in such a scenario and this is the only reason why the action-reaction force pairing is made up of different elements (such as different muscles pulling against other muscles). Nevertheless, when the ground is present, the force pairing occurs (simultaneously) with the simultaneous lifting of the leg and the ground "pushing" back. Without this pairing, nothing lifts. Sure, it's freaky, it's mind-bending maybe, but it's science. If you look at the links I provided above, especially the first three or four, you can read about all of this stuff for yourself.

david

Upyu
08-19-2005, 07:57 PM
Here's a quote about the mechanics of the thai round house:

http://www.subfighter.com/article933

There is no mention of rooting your supporting leg, pushing off the ground, or anything. The ground just gives you something to pivot on.

Cuz that's only one way of kicking. You do know that there's multiple ways of kicking. If you kick like that article describes, you will kick with some penetration, but you won't get the entire ground path to flow to the other leg. The impact won't "enter" as deeply. (We've tested this at our school w/ a number of Muay Thai students that kick the air shield, and the impact always stops maybe about a couple inches in)
If you can figure out how to kick a round with your "supporting" leg rather than the hip and twist/transfer of the upper body weight by leaning back, you'll knock someone's legs from clean out under them. Feels kind of like a double leg shoot if you do it properly.
However, if you kick w/ the intent in the supporting leg, you'll also realize that the highest one you can do is a medium low.
If you raise any higher then you do have to lean back.

On an anecdote, you can also use this same power generation for a front kick. Most karate people lean back when they thrust kick, using that upper body weight to generate power.
If you do the same kick, w/out leaning back, and figuring a way to keep your body "axis" in line while moving forward, you'll find the kick will go straight through the target, kind of like cutting through butter, or that "double-leg shoot" feel.

Pankration90
08-19-2005, 11:00 PM
Yes Upyu I know there are several different ways of kicking, I said I was talking about the thai roundhouse several times. I think it's odd that you said the thai boxers only penetrated a couple inches, but if you watch a decent thai boxer miss with a kick they spin in a complete circle. The follow through is so strong that it allows their whole body to turn. Keep in mind there is no single way to do the thai roundhouse as well.

Senshincenter,
Without gravity you wouldn't be able to lean back to add power to the kick, pivot, etc... I'm not trying to say you can do that kick in zero gravity. I'm just saying that the kick is not caused by the ground, and the power isn't caused by the ground either. The ground is a factor, yes, but it's not what causes the kick to be effective. The ground is there for all kicks, but the mechanics of the thai roundhouse are what separates it.

senshincenter
08-19-2005, 11:31 PM
Again - I think the sites I linked above would give you the information you require to better understand what an action-reaction force pair is and how it is functioning in a kick (of any kind). Thai tactics are not going to ever fall outside of these parameters. Science is science.

Your issue seems to be with the word "cause." If you read my very first post in this thread, where I address how folks are using this word (or a similar idea) in two different ways (as the primary/first aspect and as the overall engine involved) you might also gain a better understanding of the physics involved. As I said then, if one is looking for the "first" aspect involved in the kick, you are going to have to look to many physical components located in the body that work simultaneously to generate the initial force. These are mentioned in one of the links I gave above - along with what part they are playing mechanically. If you are looking to see "cause" the other way, you are going to have to include those physiological components, along with a whole lot of other forces particular to this planet, PLUS the ground. In either case, primacy (nor greater significance) cannot be given to the leg, the hip, (nor the ground) - which was my first point in this discussion.

dmv

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 12:08 AM
i really dont understand how there are so many people posting here who truly believe that one's power comes from the ground. Its over my head. When i first read this post i thought to myself "wow, this one'll last about 2 minutes" Apparently i was mistaken.

I'm not sure i even grasp the concept here. Are you guys (people who think power is derived from the dirt) saying that kick power comes from kicking off of the ground ? Or , are you guys just totally zen and saying that "all power comes from the center of the earth and when i start to kick this magical nonsense runs through the magma and up into my leg to give me strength to throw my leg into the air"? I think there are people here with both points of view.

I think Jean had a good point for once by saying that your body is a lever. The axis is the ground the hips are the ballast. The ballast does the work the axis allows it to take place. Nothing more, end of story. Simple science.

What i'm trying to get at is, what are the 'ground' people saying and what are the 'hip' people saying because this will decide for me whether or not i want to continue posting here. If we are discussing the facts of science then yes , i'd be more than happy to join in. If we are discussing some make-believe force from man-made asphalt we walk on then no, i dont want to keep posting because that is just ridiculous.

Please enlighten me , in laymans terms , hell, im only 15 ;-)

Paigie Frazie

Upyu
08-20-2005, 12:54 AM
Yes Upyu I know there are several different ways of kicking, I said I was talking about the thai roundhouse several times. I think it's odd that you said the thai boxers only penetrated a couple inches, but if you watch a decent thai boxer miss with a kick they spin in a complete circle. The follow through is so strong that it allows their whole body to turn. Keep in mind there is no single way to do the thai roundhouse as well.


WHen the kick connects, it only penetrates a couple of inches. Try it some time. Hold an airshield against your shin and have a heavy weight thai boxer kick you. It'll feel like a baseball bat slammed into it, but it won't actually disrupt your center that much.
Btw, if you watch a decent kyokushin guy miss with a kick, he'll spin full circle too, so that's not really a measure of "penetration" at all.
It's actually the generation of "circular" force, rather than relying on gravity and body's natural structure which impedes more "penetration".
I'll see if I can't get a video up sometime w/ the difference.

senshincenter
08-20-2005, 03:19 AM
As for my position in regards to the part the ground plays in kicking...

Paige, "ground reaction force" is a scientific term. As I said, if folks check out the links listed above and/or just do a google search on "ground reaction force" one will see how the ground is indeed involved with the force of and the possibility of the kick. It's not advanced or theoretical physics - it's very basic stuff and it is readily available all over the net. If anything is hocus pocus, it is really the idea that one can generate force without an opposite and equal reaction.

Mike Sigman
08-20-2005, 09:12 AM
I'm not sure i even grasp the concept here. Are you guys (people who think power is derived from the dirt) saying that kick power comes from kicking off of the ground ? Or , are you guys just totally zen and saying that "all power comes from the center of the earth and when i start to kick this magical nonsense runs through the magma and up into my leg to give me strength to throw my leg into the air"? I think there are people here with both points of view. Hi Paige:

There's a trick you can do with your body if you relax and practice a lot. You can let a path from the ground run from your foot (or whatever has access to the ground; even your butt in a chair) to wherever you want. You can even stand still and move it where you want it (without having to move) and after a while it will be where it needs to be without thinking. Some people can develop the skill to where it is so strong and so automatic that if you push against them with your hand you'll feel something like a blurry pencil-eraser under the skin where you're touching. I can lie down on a massage table and counter the direction of rub from the therapist wih the ground path and he/she will comment that I feel like lead.

All the real "Kokyu Power", "Fa Jing", "power releases", etc., use this power in conjunction with "ki" (which is too involved to get into here). You use ground power for pushes, hits, kicks, withstanding blows, etc. It's the ground power that Tohei and O-Sensei and others are demonstrating in most of the pictures of "ki strength" (notice that they're usually showing some odd posture that still somehow stops a push, etc., from someone... they're showing you how they can manipulate the ground). They're demonstrating that kind of ground power because it is crucial to Aikido.... not because it's a cute parlour trick, etc., that some people think. It's a major subtopic in the issue of real "ki", not the woo-woo kind. Probably it will be your generation that breaks through and starts adding this crucial component back into Aikido in the West. So dig into it and surpass everyone. ;)


Regards,

Mike

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 09:32 AM
As for my position in regards to the part the ground plays in kicking...

Paige, "ground reaction force" is a scientific term. As I said, if folks check out the links listed above and/or just do a google search on "ground reaction force" one will see how the ground is indeed involved with the force of and the possibility of the kick. It's not advanced or theoretical physics - it's very basic stuff and it is readily available all over the net. If anything is hocus pocus, it is really the idea that one can generate force without an opposite and equal reaction.

Yes David, i realize most of us are talking about science , im not quite that dumb. But what you said was the ground was
involved with the kick. The original post said that the power for the kick comes from the ground. This is where we get into mystical nonsense , IMO.

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 09:39 AM
Hi Paige:

There's a trick you can do with your body if you relax and practice a lot. You can let a path from the ground run from your foot (or whatever has access to the ground; even your butt in a chair) to wherever you want. You can even stand still and move it where you want it (without having to move) and after a while it will be where it needs to be without thinking. Some people can develop the skill to where it is so strong and so automatic that if you push against them with your hand you'll feel something like a blurry pencil-eraser under the skin where you're touching. I can lie down on a massage table and counter the direction of rub from the therapist wih the ground path and he/she will comment that I feel like lead.

All the real "Kokyu Power", "Fa Jing", "power releases", etc., use this power in conjunction with "ki" (which is too involved to get into here). You use ground power for pushes, hits, kicks, withstanding blows, etc. It's the ground power that Tohei and O-Sensei and others are demonstrating in most of the pictures of "ki strength" (notice that they're usually showing some odd posture that still somehow stops a push, etc., from someone... they're showing you how they can manipulate the ground). They're demonstrating that kind of ground power because it is crucial to Aikido.... not because it's a cute parlour trick, etc., that some people think. It's a major subtopic in the issue of real "ki", not the woo-woo kind. Probably it will be your generation that breaks through and starts adding this crucial component back into Aikido in the West. So dig into it and surpass everyone. ;)


Regards,

Mike


THIS was what i wanted to know. this kind of stuff is really not my thing. No, i dont believe in it, and this is the stuff i dont wanna talk about.

On the other hand i do believe in Ki. (no, i dont believe it is the sole power of the universe) But my take on ki is that it is something that you as person generate when you are focused and in the zone , hence breathing exercises, warmups , etc. But some kind of magical power that comes from the ground , IMO thats nonsense.

Mike Sigman
08-20-2005, 09:53 AM
THIS was what i wanted to know. this kind of stuff is really not my thing. No, i dont believe in it, and this is the stuff i dont wanna talk about. When I read this, Paige, I wonder if you're reflecting the view within your own dojo. In other words, you're saying your Sensei doesn't teach these sorts of things, you've heard that they're not real, etc.... and so you're following along in the way you've been taught, like a good student. This is exactly why I have a thing about people being "teachers" when their knowledge is incomplete.... they often mislead sincere beginners. There's something really wrong with that part of it, regardless if they get personally "offended" that someone suggests there might be something they don't know.

Oh well.... keep an open mind, Paige. Once you're shown how to do these things, they add a lot of power to your martial arts and your daily life AND you'll see that while they're unusual body mechanics, they're not "magical". They still obey the laws of physics, even though they're something that looks like "magic" to someone who doesn't understand how they work. Who knows... learn how to do your Aikido with these things and you could become one of the first of the western Aikidoists to reach that level... passing everyone from the current generation.

Regards,

Mike

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 10:18 AM
When I read this, Paige, I wonder if you're reflecting the view within your own dojo. In other words, you're saying your Sensei doesn't teach these sorts of things, you've heard that they're not real, etc.... and so you're following along in the way you've been taught, like a good student. This is exactly why I have a thing about people being "teachers" when their knowledge is incomplete.... they often mislead sincere beginners. There's something really wrong with that part of it, regardless if they get personally "offended" that someone suggests there might be something they don't know.

Oh well.... keep an open mind, Paige. Once you're shown how to do these things, they add a lot of power to your martial arts and your daily life AND you'll see that while they're unusual body mechanics, they're not "magical". They still obey the laws of physics, even though they're something that looks like "magic" to someone who doesn't understand how they work. Who knows... learn how to do your Aikido with these things and you could become one of the first of the western Aikidoists to reach that level... passing everyone from the current generation.

Regards,

Mike

Let me put this in terms even you can understand. It is very offensive to hear u call my sensei unqualified or to say that his knowledge is incomplete , For your information he DOES teach these kinds of things and I as a person CHOOSE to not believe them. Dont take me for some kind of naive idiot who is a newbie to aikido , because that is not the case. I've been in aikido for 7 1/2 years.

Lets talk about being a beginner fellow 'Aikidoist' , the correct term would be Aikidoka , as i stated in one of the above posts , i DO believe in Ki , but i dont recognize it as some kind of power that would conflict with my religion. To me the idea that you can have magic from the dirt is just stupid . But like i've said a bajillion times yes , i think Ki is an essential part in aikido. You have to focus and you have to believe in yourself and you have to be strong (mentally). Ki may also be a way also for each person to get in tap with what they believe in. For instance, Im a catholic so Ki is a way for me to get in touch with God , If you are of another religion , the same applies with whatever god/goddess/cow you want to worship.

Powers, magic, fairy dust, give me a break.

Paige

Ron Tisdale
08-20-2005, 11:09 AM
Paige,

a) you are not listening

b) you are not listening

c) you are being offensive, not Mike.

Best,
Ron

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 11:47 AM
Ron ,
im listening perfectly, i dont appreciate people judging me because of my beliefs. I am a very open minded person. But the way everyone is describing this power coming from the ground to me that is saying there is power other than God. I'm fairly religious and i choose not to believe this.

As far as being offensive, If anyone was offended it was me. If i offended u mike then i am truly sorry , but all i said was i do not believe in power from the ground. Mike comes at me saying " your sensei doesnt know what hes talkin about , you're a beginner , maybe once you learn you'll be good at aikido... blah blah blah"

That to me is very offensive. And i dont appreciate it. If this crap continues i'll be done with aikiweb, plain and simple. I do know when to quit.

-Paige

Mike Sigman
08-20-2005, 12:05 PM
As far as being offensive, If anyone was offended it was me. If i offended u mike then i am truly sorry , but all i said was i do not believe in power from the ground. Mike comes at me saying " your sensei doesnt know what hes talkin about , you're a beginner , maybe once you learn you'll be good at aikido... blah blah blah" Sorry, Paige, I wasn't trying to be offensive. I don't even have any idea who your sensei is. First thing, though, is that you've just made a claim about some exact things I said. I didn't say those things, so you need to acknowledge that.

Second thing is this: Assume for a minute that the worst thing I did say (which was "incomplete knowledge", nothing more) is true. I.e., that there are a lot of teachers teaching students and many of them are missing this basic skill (it's not magic, Paige, it's physics).

If there are teachers who are doing this and when it's pointed out (with pretty darned good support from many directions) all they do is start carping about how they are "offended" or how they "have many more years in Budo than so-and-so", or any of the other conceits, then I'm still going to state my opinion. It boils down to this simple question:

Which is more important... that a bunch of people doing something demonstrably incomplete not have anyone discuss it out loud... or is it more important that there be some concern for the students of these teachers who are getting some basic element of their martial art wrong? My opinion is it's more important to discuss these things out loud. If I'm wrong, I don't have a problem listening to the reasoning or why I'm wrong or even in saying so if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's why this topic engenders silence or cries of "I'm offended".

I've been one of those students who spent years with a teacher only to find out later that I had to go back to the beginning and re-do what they taught me because they left out some things they didn't know and they didn't know enough to spot that they didn't know. I've listened to people with 20+ years when they've suddenly realized that the teacher they were so vested in turned out to not have had complete information and what they were doing was missing a crucial element. I say it's a topic worth discussing, holding people to facts, and not trying to take it to the personal level in order to get rid of it. I.e., the best way to discuss these things is to supply factual reasoning, not reasoning based on emotion or belief. ;)

Best Regards,

Mike

Pankration90
08-20-2005, 12:19 PM
WHen the kick connects, it only penetrates a couple of inches. Try it some time. Hold an airshield against your shin and have a heavy weight thai boxer kick you. It'll feel like a baseball bat slammed into it, but it won't actually disrupt your center that much.
Btw, if you watch a decent kyokushin guy miss with a kick, he'll spin full circle too, so that's not really a measure of "penetration" at all.
It's actually the generation of "circular" force, rather than relying on gravity and body's natural structure which impedes more "penetration".
I'll see if I can't get a video up sometime w/ the difference.
Kyokushin fighters kick in a way that is very similar to thai boxers.

I don't see how you can use gravity much more than thai boxers already do... kicking up and then arching back down into the thigh or neck as you turn your body so your hips face slightly downward as well.
http://lannamuaythai.com/thaiboxing/roundhouse-2.jpg

senshincenter,
I read a couple of those links when you first posted them. No where do they say that the ground reaction force allows the kick to be powerful- Newton's third law which you seem so fond of proves you wrong. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you stand on the ground, gravity is pushing you down. The ground pushes you back up. In order for that to cause the power in the kick, the GRF would need to push back HARDER than you push down which is impossible. The only way to generate power using the ground is to push against it by extending your leg, and that isn't what's done in the thai roundhouse. The ground is merely what you pivot on.

Since you guys seem to want to discuss mystical nonsense I don't think there's any need for me to post on this thread anymore.

senshincenter
08-20-2005, 12:35 PM
Well perhaps we can ease things down a bit. Let us find some common ground here.

We have to all see that this for most involved here does remain a science question and/or at least it is thought to be dealing with "natural" forces. I do not see either (recent) party as suggesting that some kind of paranormal force is involved. Perhaps this, Paige, is what Ron is referring to when he is suggesting that you are not hearing what Mike is saying. In simplest terms, without all the polemical statements (which might indeed and rightly be causing the reactionary rejections), Mike is suggesting that there is a way to use natural forces, forces such as GRF, etc., to gain higher power outputs. The capacity to use these forces and/or to increase one's force at impact or at a bracing angle, etc., is relative to one's skill at transferring such force as desired or needed along the body. This is really just describing a process of basic energy transference and/or the redirection of energy (to use a more familiar phrase), etc. From this perspective, one can see that this is not only well within the grounds of scientific thought, it is also the very core strategic assumption behind all Aikido. In this sense, what he is saying is really beyond rejection.

The “hard to swallow” part someone may feel when hearing of such things is, as Mike suggests, partly do to one’s inexperience in practicing energy transference martially and/or at such subtle levels. It is accurate to say that most aikidoka are indeed only experienced in energy transference when it comes to gross examples, such as uke does a tsuki at jodan level and nage does an inward parry, affecting the strike, and uke’s center of gravity, line of gravity, Base of Support, etc.

That said, there is another reason why the message may feel “hard to swallow.” This side has nothing really to do with a lack of common experience. As Paige might take better note of what she is hearing, if I may respectfully suggest to both parties, Mike’s message might be better served if it came without the usual or “popular” rhetoric that is indeed traditionally associated with folks that want to talk about more “magical” things. Such things are, for example, the jabs at teachers, the division of West and East, the overly great significance given to specific training techniques, the notion of a “Golden Past,” and the delivered sense of “I know, but I can’t tell you.” It is not only that such things give of an air of elitism, which some might take an aversion too, it is, more importantly, that such things seem to fly in the face of the first and most important message: That such skill at energy transference, etc., is perfectly natural and well within scientific theory. In short, these things make it hard for someone to hear what Mike is saying because they in essence contradict his original position that he is addressing something natural and well within scientific understanding, etc.

For example: If something is a high level of skill, and if full understanding (i.e. comprehension) requires such skill development, then there could NOT be a “Golden Past.” Instead, we would see a time just like ours, no matter how far we went back. We are not looking at a “knowledge” that has disappeared and/or that is on the verge of facing extinction (like a species would face extinction). There was not a time when everyone (or most) knew it and/or when access to such things was more readily available. There was no such moment from which we are today separated from by a discontinuity of history. There have only been and will only be times when such skill level is higher and more subtle than what most will achieve. Access to such things then remains forever relative to one’s commitment to achieving them. Rather than a “Golden Past” we are really looking at “golden versions” of each one of us – versions we may cultivate ourselves as or versions we may never attain. This is an important distinction and we should take note of it before we go running off to the mountain in search of some hermit that claims to have a straight continuous line tied to “The Past.” “Golden Pasts” are fictions created by folks in the present to given their subjectivity an air of objectivity – something that is always necessary when you want to trade one form of cultural capital for another. Being a fiction, a “Golden Past” has nothing to do with what is natural or what is scientific – not even the science of History.

Another example: If such a skill is perfectly natural – to humanity and to the larger environment – then we should not prioritize the various means of acquiring such a talent. In particular, if such a skill is at the heart of Aikido, every aspect of Aikido suffices as a means to acquire that skill. It is one thing to suggest that added training devices might be beneficial to one’s training; it is another thing to suggest that without these devices our practice is doomed to remaining incomplete. What is actually required is a depth of training, not a breadth of training. And while breadth may indeed offer some that particular avenue to depth that they needed, it does not follow that depth cannot be achieve through current avenues and/or that additional avenues will guarantee such depth. In truth, it is because of the reasoning and events that we find in the aforementioned example that our practice may remain “incomplete” and/or “superficial” and we face this possible doom no matter what technique we may be using to refine our practice. In this sense, we do not need “ancient” techniques used to discover such skill in “the past.” We can use more recent ones, new ones, ones we invent on the spot, and, to be sure, we can use Kihon Waza, etc. While old techniques may be a supplemental training aid that may do us some good, they may very well do nothing of us since we may be part of the larger mass of people that never acquire such skill. Something cannot be natural and then separated from great sections of the natural world. Because of this the aggrandizing of techniques from the East, from China, from this art, or from that teacher, etc., works against the first and only worthy premise: we are dealing here with natural forces.

Perhaps if the parties involved could look at these things in these suggested ways, the common ground of not seeing the forces as paranormal would emerge.

On an additional note: It might very well be that Paige’s instructor is adopting a paranormal approach to training within some parameters – which very well might put him “at odds” with her position but would not have him saying the same thing that Mike is suggesting.

dmv

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 12:35 PM
Sorry, Paige, I wasn't trying to be offensive. I don't even have any idea who your sensei is. First thing, though, is that you've just made a claim about some exact things I said. I didn't say those things, so you need to acknowledge that.

Second thing is this: Assume for a minute that the worst thing I did say (which was "incomplete knowledge", nothing more) is true. I.e., that there are a lot of teachers teaching students and many of them are missing this basic skill (it's not magic, Paige, it's physics).

If there are teachers who are doing this and when it's pointed out (with pretty darned good support from many directions) all they do is start carping about how they are "offended" or how they "have many more years in Budo than so-and-so", or any of the other conceits, then I'm still going to state my opinion. It boils down to this simple question:

Which is more important... that a bunch of people doing something demonstrably incomplete not have anyone discuss it out loud... or is it more important that there be some concern for the students of these teachers who are getting some basic element of their martial art wrong? My opinion is it's more important to discuss these things out loud. If I'm wrong, I don't have a problem listening to the reasoning or why I'm wrong or even in saying so if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's why this topic engenders silence or cries of "I'm offended".

I've been one of those students who spent years with a teacher only to find out later that I had to go back to the beginning and re-do what they taught me because they left out some things they didn't know and they didn't know enough to spot that they didn't know. I've listened to people with 20+ years when they've suddenly realized that the teacher they were so vested in turned out to not have had complete information and what they were doing was missing a crucial element. I say it's a topic worth discussing, holding people to facts, and not trying to take it to the personal level in order to get rid of it. I.e., the best way to discuss these things is to supply factual reasoning, not reasoning based on emotion or belief. ;)

Best Regards,

Mike

The things i accused u of saying were said , just in different words. At least thats how i interpreted them.

As far as my sensei goes , thank u for your concern , but i promise you he is very qualified to teach and he does understand all aspects of aikido. He was taught my morihei Ueshibas grandson. He is a 3rd Dan, His name is Tom Berry. Look him up on dojo search if it would make you feel more comfortable about what i'm being taught.

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 12:38 PM
Since you guys seem to want to discuss mystical nonsense...


Thank you.

senshincenter
08-20-2005, 12:42 PM
senshincenter,
I read a couple of those links when you first posted them. No where do they say that the ground reaction force allows the kick to be powerful- Newton's third law which you seem so fond of proves you wrong. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you stand on the ground, gravity is pushing you down. The ground pushes you back up. In order for that to cause the power in the kick, the GRF would need to push back HARDER than you push down which is impossible.


You are not grasping the co-dependent nature of action-reaction force pairs. If you can better grasp that, you might be more able to see that there is no contradiction in my usage of Newton's third law. The physics are escaping you - I hate to point out. Perhaps we should move on.

Thanks anyways for your part in this discussion.

dmv

Mike Sigman
08-20-2005, 02:05 PM
Perhaps if the parties involved could look at these things in these suggested ways, the common ground of not seeing the forces as paranormal would emerge.

On an additional note: It might very well be that Paige's instructor is adopting a paranormal approach to training within some parameters -- which very well might put him "at odds" with her position but would not have him saying the same thing that Mike is suggesting. Hmmmmmm. David, I think we settled the issue in another thread that you don't understand what I'm talking about, so I don't see any reason to continue until you *do* understand. Robert John and a number of other people on the list understand what I'm talking about and I don't think any of them take it as mystical nonsense or a vague statement about "Ground Reaction Force". I'm talking about a physical skill that is obviously difficult to find information about. However, there is plenty of literature, interviews, films, etc., showing what I am talking about, so the clues are there.

There are no "JABS" in discussing a valid topic. If there's an ethics problem, as I was pointing out, the problem is with the people who haven't bothered to chase these things down and who insist that they are "teachers" of Aikido, Karate, Tai Chi, Jiu Jitsu, the "Koryu", etc., particularly in light of the number of clues about these *physically demonstrable* skills. Ultimately, the question revolves around what is owed to the people who are students.... they are not "lesser beings" just because someone has set themself up as a teacher. They deserve primary consideration.

Anyone who brings up a question that raises a concern about students is not "taking jabs" at others, unless someone wants to use that as a good reason to drop a potentially embarrassing discussion.

Assume for a minute that Ueshiba, Tohei, Abe, and others are not dunces who have good martial arts but an unfortunate propensity for playing parlour games. Suppose for a moment there is something to the ki and kokyu things that you don't know and which is very important to the core of movement in Aikido and other arts. Wouldn't you agree that these discussions about this kind of power are important? Or do you think they should be hushed up because they could be an embarrassment to people who don't know them? It's an interesting thought-puzzle, isn't it?

Of the other arts that use kokyu power and ki development, let's take karate as an example... for instance Uechi Ryu. If you went onto the Uechi Ryu karate list, you'd find almost no knowledge or even mention of kokyu power, particularly in definitive terms. Yet there are things like videos called "Karate no Kokyu Ryoku" (The "kokyu power of karate") from experts in the art. So if someone went on such a list and started making noises about kokyu power, I assure you that the established hierarchy would react very negatively toward anyone who made such a suggestion. Their status is at stake; in some cases their livelihood is involved. They would try to blow the topic off and personally attack anyone who suggested such a thing. Pretty much what you'd expect.

However, if there were indeed some knowledgeable people on the list who thought such a newcomer was simply wrong, they'd point out why, give reasons, show they knew as much or more. The behavior in the responses gives it away, David. Of course, you'd have to understand that there is indeed such a topic before you could appreciate my viewpoint. At the moment, you and I are pretty much agreed that your idea of what "kokyu" means is far off the basic body skill that I (and many others) see it as. So there's our impasse. I.e., maybe the problem isn't me or what I'm saying... maybe the problem is you and what you know. And I say that from a debate point of view, not to take an oblique shot at you.

So if we have a disagreement, which we do and which we settled in another thread, why go out of your way to invent an argument? Why don't we just leave it that your comments about kokyu are on record and you're either right or embarrassingly archived? That's the way I see my own comments, FWIW.

Regards,

Mike

senshincenter
08-20-2005, 04:56 PM
Mike,

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your view. Upon reading some of the things you have written, I seem to have attached my understanding of what you are saying to statements you've made in the past that led me to believe you were talking about scientifically recognized forces. If you were, it only followed logically that the examples I brought up do indeed work against the dissemination of such insight.

I didn't mean to create one argument out of another. I was trying to find a common ground between what you and Paige were saying. If you were not talking about scientifically recognized forces and a transference of those forces, or were but were also talking about the addition of "something" else (that falls outside of the former category), you are right in what you say here, that I am not of the position that such forces exist and/or that they should be considered the height of Budo training. Along the same lines, I would also have to say that there is no common ground between what you were saying and what Paige (and others) were saying. They may seem to have understood your position better than I did. My fault is my own.

Though I do not write for the sake of having things archived, and though I am not motivated in my training/teaching by financial pursuits, I have no problem saying here, without the slightest bit of embarrassment, that for me, I do not consider these things (i.e. things that today adopt a scientific discourse only in attempt to gain of the cultural capital involved but remain at best a pseudo-science and at worst a superstition; things that require the rhetoric of a Golden Past in order to seem legitimate; things that make use of esoterica as an obvious polemic meant to restrict critique; etc.) to be of any worth - be that worth measured martially (i.e. the capacity to gain physical victory over an aggressive opponent) or spiritually (i.e the capacity to have a harmonious relationship with others and with the Divine). With that said, I have never set out to partition off some type of discursive territoriality. The fact that you and I disagree, that you say I "just don't understand," and that I myself may feel some impulse to return the favor, does not mean, for me, we cannot discuss things further or even repeatedly. For me, disagreement is the source of both discussion and advancing one's knowledge through discussion. It is between this and my attempts to find a common ground, so Paige wouldn't have to think you were some "loony-tune" and you wouldn't have to openly imply that her teacher "sucks," that you'll find my reason for writing here. Again, I meant no argument to follow, and I still do not see one here. If you and I disagree and if we are doomed to silence, as you suggest, there can be no argument. Unfortunately, for me, there is also no point of discussion either.

If it is not clear, and since you may be a person that is instrumental in bringing a "re-found" knowledge to others, it might be good for your message to know that the "jabs" come in when you simultaneously state that "x" is the heart/source/meaning/end all of something, that without "x" nothing can exist, and then say that someone doesn't have "x". It may be true that if someone doesn't have "x," someone doesn't have "x." That's really all you can say. But what is certainly up for debate, and is really just a matter of preference when ultimately decided, is the value of "x." For it is not true that "x" is the "end all" of every art and especially of every person's practice - this denies the individuality that marks every human pursuit. What is factual is that many people have perfectly legitimate forms of practice, be that martially oriented or spiritually oriented, and/or anything else, without seeing the manifestation of such forces and their transference as central or even desirable. You should learn to allow for that reality if you really do have some interest in having more folks come to understand what you claim is missing and that can only be grasped by the means you have come to feel as legitimate. If you do, I would suggest, you wouldn't have to expect so much from certain members of your audience when it comes to swallowing what you are saying - rather you'd be able to expect them to understand more. In short, it's not really too "wise" to say that friction is caused by a single energy - this is true for human interaction too.

My humble thanks for your reply, and, again, my apologies if I have misrepresented your position in the slightest.

dmv

Mike Sigman
08-20-2005, 07:48 PM
I seem to have attached my understanding of what you are saying to statements you've made in the past that led me to believe you were talking about scientifically recognized forces. I still am talking about scientifically recognized forces, David. But because skills adhere to physical law doesn't mean that everyone knows how to do them or understands how to do them. What I'm saying is that these are body skills that you obviously don't know how to do. When I have done in-services with, for instance, the teaching staff for physiology at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, I could lead them through a basic "how-to" so most of them could do some of these things. They recognized, when shown how to do them, that they were unusual skills, but no one of us even considered the idea that those skills were outside of "scientifically recognized forces". But even though the skills obeyed the laws of physics, none of them knew how to do them. I'm suggesting that you don't know how to do them either, so there's not much you can say *knowledgeably* until we get past that hurdle. And frankly, I'm just trying to answer the peripherals of a discussion about "hip or ground", not trying to convince you of anything. I'm happy with you believing what you want to believe. And I respect you for stating your beliefs in public... it's along the lines of what I consider a real martial artist would do.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 09:12 PM
Paige:
Just cuz your teacher is 3d dan doesnt mean he understands the finer aspects of body mechanics yet.
We had a Shihan from Yoshinkan come to our class w/ 30+ years experience get held down in Kokyuage/sage exercises by one of Akuzawa's (Instructor) first year student (who's not that big either).
He ended up writing a letter to the instructor which basically entailed him saying that "what you and I are doing are completely different, and I dont think I can start my training over at this stage, etc etc".
People need to let go of their pride...

Just cuz my teacher is 3rd dan doesnt mean that he
doesnt understand the finer aspects of body mechanics.

For your information i was just stating his credentials so that people can find out for theirselves whether or not they think he is 'qualified' or whatever u want to call it.

But i promise hes not stupid, and he was trained by Yamada sensei.(Morihei Ushebas grandson, or student if i'm not mistaken) AGAIN EVERYONE thank you for your concern.

aikigirl10
08-20-2005, 09:18 PM
I'm so sick of this thread. This is quits for me.

senshincenter
08-20-2005, 09:24 PM
Mike,

I guess we are back to square one then since you are again (having thought you said this multiple times/every time) to saying you are only talking about scientifically recognized physical laws - as this was something I said you were saying to Paige. That was the common ground i was trying to point out to her.

It seems then that my other criticisms were what was at issue then - really. However, and truthfully, that is where what you say gets confusing for me, and apparently for others as well, since the scientific understanding of many involved is sound by any account - but also since scientific understanding does not require the things that often accompany your insight (such as things I mentioned in the earlier post - that may have rubbed you wrong). However, for me it is these reasons that some of the things you speak of sound so pseudo-scientific. Not everything, but some things. For example, your physical examples stay well within the realm of physics but the idea that one must be able to practice something before one can understand it is well outside of the realm of scientific reasoning (which includes physics). Under scientific reasoning, the fact that I speak with different terms than you, use different phrases, and note different sources, etc., means nothing more than that. It is very possible under scientific reasoning that we are discussing the same things but under different paradigms. Under pseudo-scientific thought such differences in expression state"OBVIOUSLY" - without seeing or feeling first hand and only experiencing little more than a few passing conversations - that I am incapable of understanding and/or that I am ignorant on the whole regarding such matters as energy transference and/or force production, etc. Interestingly, it also is what allows another person to say "I was thrown by someone's pinky" and to then have you go on to determine that they are capable of understanding such things. Under scientific reasoning, the fact that I have been thrown out of nowhere, been thrown with the greatest of ease, been thrown with someone's pinky or their gaze, or faced a power that seemed totally different from what we are mostly accustomed to recognizing as power, etc., when combined with my own discourse means only that I do not speak or seek to understand such things with a discourse similar to yours. Under pseudo-scientific reasoning, all of my experiences are illegitimate, my insights shallow, and my understandings false, simply because I do not speak like you speak. When you put this kind of energy out there, it's going to transfer almost always as friction. If you are insightful in terms of energy transfer, you got to see that this is what is going on and not that folks haven't learned or should learn how to take a criticism more well.

Anyway, you've motivated me to investigate your discourse further, to see if there is more than just paradigmatic differences between what we are talking about. I consider this a very positive situation, even if I do feel it as a loss of some sorts that you feel you cannot converse with me. It is a positive situation because I will either come to better understand your discourse and thereby find a way of presenting my own discourse to you without triggering your alarms as you coming across something that is "ignorant," or I will have realized some great flaw in my account of things - one that can thereby be corrected as I come to adopt a new, more accurate paradigm over a less accurate one. So I am looking forward to the future, when you might feel more like you can talk about things with me, or at least having me read your points as part of my active pursuits to follow such orientations from intellectual curiosity to practical realizations to body/mind insights.

Hoping in 20 more years you might be able to talk to someone like me,
dmv

Mike Sigman
08-20-2005, 09:47 PM
However, and truthfully, that is where what you say gets confusing for me, and apparently for others as well, since the scientific understanding of many involved is sound by any account - but also since scientific understanding does not require the things that often accompany your insight (such as things I mentioned in the earlier post - that may have rubbed you wrong). However, for me it is these reasons that some of the things you speak of sound so pseudo-scientific. Not everything, but some things. For example, your physical examples stay well within the realm of physics but the idea that one must be able to practice something before one can understand it is well outside of the realm of scientific reasoning (which includes physics). These kinds of skills are not that hard to understand, David. Kokyu is really a sophisticated focus and development of a body skill that we often use unconsciously... but it is deliberately cultivated to a degree that you wouldn't normally consider possible. "Ki", in the narrow, focused sense of the basic body skill ("ki" can get complex and the discussion is beyond my typing motivations), involves a principle that many of us peripherally touch in our lives (like say a weight-lifter or labourer will by necessity develop some ki but they'll just consider it part of their developed strength).... but again it is developed to a sophisticated level that we would never even imagine. Essentially I can do these things and have done them where others have seen them. Upyu's teacher sounds like he can do them far better than I can, as a guess. The error people make is sort of like Upyu's thread on Bullshido shows.... the people who haven't seen these things don't believe they can be done or they relegate them to fantasy or they relegate them to the "pseudo-scientific", as you term it.

Again, my main point is not to try to convince you via the internet that these things are true. However, I AM saying that there is ample evidence that these things are indeed intrinsic parts of Aikido and they're not some artificial topic that I'm introducing. IF, as I'm contending, these physical skills are a part of Aikido proper, then it's an important and valid topic which should go beyond the ideas of pride or the idea that mentioning it is a "jab" at someone's esteem.

In a nutshell, these kinds of kokyu and ki 'conditioning' are unusual ways of utilizing some oddities of the body. In a way, you could say that they generally "add strength" to the body. However, they're not the same thing as adding strength through supplementary weight-lifting, cross-training, etc. The big difference is that in Aikido, Karate, Taiji, Bagua, etc., etc., many of the techniques are built around this unusual form of strength and you can't adequately do the higher levels of techniques if you don't have this basic form of strength.

What I suggest is that people go out and start pounding the pavement because it's that important and ultimately people like Upyu and a number of others are breaking ground in this area. I.e., you can't avoid the inevitable and you shouldn't try to avoid these things, seeing as how they're so blatantly a part of Aikido. I know Ushiro Sensei was doing some workshops on kokyu.... that's a start, but just because someone is showing the external exercises doesn't meant they're teaching what goes on inside. It's not going to be easy. What little I know certainly wasn't easy to obtain.

FWIW

Mike

mathewjgano
08-20-2005, 09:55 PM
I'm so sure this will be redundant I almost don't want to reply, and looking at the length of this thread probably somewhat off-topic by now, but I'll give my limited understanding and see if it sparks a response.
I think the concept of power originating from hara can be described in much the same way we look at the center of the Earth as the center of its gravitational force, even though all throughout the planet each particle has gravity and it acts in all directions. You might think of hara as the net origin of force, but hara doesn't itself enact outward radiating kinetic force, your extensor-muscles do. Anything else is either twisting or contracting inward, each of which has its place in the concerted effort you're enacting.
Regardless of where the force begins, the end result should be that your whole body is acting in concert with itself, whether you're turning or moving laterally or whatever (bearing in mind Newton's law of equal and opposite actions). This is simply power though and of course it takes a keen mind to make that mindless power into something meaningfull such that it interacts with another power/force to create a desired result.
My 2-bits.
Take care,
Matt

senshincenter
08-20-2005, 10:09 PM
These kinds of skills are not that hard to understand, David. Kokyu is really a sophisticated focus and development of a body skill that we often use unconsciously... but it is deliberately cultivated to a degree that you wouldn't normally consider possible. "Ki", in the narrow, focused sense of the basic body skill ("ki" can get complex and the discussion is beyond my typing motivations), involves a principle that many of us peripherally touch in our lives (like say a weight-lifter or labourer will by necessity develop some ki but they'll just consider it part of their developed strength).... but again it is developed to a sophisticated level that we would never even imagine...The error people make is sort of like Upyu's thread on Bullshido shows.... the people who haven't seen these things don't believe they can be done or they relegate them to fantasy or they relegate them to the "pseudo-scientific", as you term it.

Mike,

Now this is getting pretty confusing. First I thought we were saying the same thing; then you said I wasn't and how I didn't know anything; then (now) it seems we are. From what I am reading, this is completely in line with my own take on both kokyu and ki, etc. - as one can easily read what I wrote in the other thread that went on to discuss Osensei's jo trick. This here is not much different from that - not at all in essence - or if it is, I would appreciate it greatly if you would point out the difference. I do very much consider what you are saying here and what I wrote elsewhere to be within scientific insight. What I am calling pseudo-scientific are particular things (e.g. "Golden Past," etc.) that come to attach themselves to this aforementioned understanding. But what is really confusing is how I can say I am agreeing with you, how I have written something very akin to what you have stated above, and how you can say I am not only not agreeing with you but that I know nothing regarding such things and how I might be embarrassed for having written such a thing.
:hypno:


I do realize you are here not to convince me - as much as I realize that I am not here to be convinced. You and I both know this is not the place for such things. Still, as always, I'm very appreciative of your efforts here.

Many thanks,
dmv

Choku Tsuki
08-20-2005, 11:10 PM
The hip is nothing without the ground. Some people call this 'base'.

O-Ren
08-21-2005, 10:57 PM
Real power comes from ki , power that circulates through the universe. Or a kiai that is a perfectly concentrated burst of energy ( termed the vital breath of life.) Kiai is usually thought of as merely the shout emitted at the instant a technique is executed, only part of which is audible. To answer your question power in a kick comes from your opposite leg and hips as a forward thrust, but don't forget to kiai.

Regards

Ron Tisdale
08-22-2005, 09:30 AM
Paige, please do not take this as patronizing...

I'd forgotten your age, because in many cases, you come across much older than you are. Please don't abandon the thread. Even if you choose not to post, keep reading. Or at least remember these conversations for the future.

When I spoke of listening, I meant to make an effort to step outside of your own perspective and 'take' on things. To make an effort to actually read the words on the page, rather than reading them through your own emotional filters. It is a tough thing to do sometimes...even two well meaning adults can find it difficult.

The interactions between some of the posters on this very thread is a good example of both how easy it is to mistake what someone is saying, and how to go about finding common ground while skipping the animosity that can come from digging deeply into a subject that is near and dear to your life and effort.

Best,
Ron

akiy
08-23-2005, 06:20 PM
The posts about "an instructor in Tokyo throwing people with his pinky" have been moved to the below thread:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8751

-- Jun

Ketsan
08-23-2005, 06:46 PM
The hip is nothing without the ground. Some people call this 'base'.

Flying/jumping kicks?

Ketsan
08-23-2005, 06:57 PM
Out of curiosity, how many people here actually kick or punch a kick/punch bag on a frequent and regular basis?

mathewjgano
08-23-2005, 08:27 PM
Flying/jumping kicks?

Gotta push off of something! ;-)

Ketsan
08-25-2005, 04:27 PM
Perhaps cars are powered by their weels. :D

mathewjgano
08-25-2005, 06:41 PM
Perhaps cars are powered by their weels. :D

I've never heard of a "weel" before! I always thought cars were powered by the expansive force of rapid oxydation! :p

guest89893
08-25-2005, 10:31 PM
I've never heard of a "weel" before! I always thought cars were powered by the expansive force of rapid oxydation! :p
Nope cars are powered by gas much like me (or so my son would tell you). Here pull my finger! ;) :D
Gene

rob_liberti
08-26-2005, 08:00 AM
Perhaps cars are powered by their weels. :D

Okay but then ask a NASCAR driver if any old wheels would do... I certainly understand that you need an engine to power the wheels. I just happen to also understand that you ALSO need something that pushes and something to push against. When people say "where does the power come from", some people will say it comes from the combination. (Okay can't argue with that!) But I think the question is asking for a way to think about things to be most helpful in terms of aikido - and few people will be in a place where that kind of thinking helps.

In general (not specifically you) -- If you think your power comes primarily from your hips, I believe you will train in a way that will produce what we (in my dojo) like to call a "strong arm bandit". If you like to think about how to move so that power comes from the ground and is distributed from the hips, I believe you have a much better chance of developing some sophistication in your aikido movement.

Rob

DH
09-25-2005, 06:38 PM
Paige

Please rethink the explanations offered to you here.
Your reply about…The power from dirt?
This is not “other worldly,” “demonic,” or “animist” belief/ powers from the earth. It is an entirely physical skill that can be enhanced by mental (think of this as enhanced focus) imagery, breathing and some other things. That said, as a practicing Christian I can tell you I would have no part of anything involving that stuff. I can also tell you that it does not, in any way, violate anything of a spiritual nature. I personally think of it as me finally getting it- as to what God made our bodies to be and how to move…naturally. Essentially what makes our bodies work better. In the oddest of twists I feel far more free all encompassing and giving when fighting this way. I actually smile.

The “ground force to any point in the body” connection can be made by anyone with the right training. The massage method that Mike mentioned is not strange at all-it is completely a physical skill, I do it when I get messaged and there are several therapists who will ask you to do it. I know of two in Seattle.
But enough of that-it can be profound as a martial technique as well. What it does do is make a physical connection “happen” in your body which is completely real, and completely rational. There is quite a sense of satisfaction at having large men hurt their arms and hands while hitting you.
The grounding force is a way to use “less” muscle to simply stand, and this allows you to use other parts of your body –and yes your breath-to increase resistive force and focused penetrating force. Think of how many could perceive what you do in Aikido as “magic” because they don’t understand what YOU are doing either.
I took three men who have never done these things and trained them in 6 months to year to duplicate them to a degree. One 150 guy had a 280 pound jujutsuka pushing on his chest at the edge of a mat and he could not move him-then the little guy threw him. As well he “absorbed” deep penetrating punches. All learned through natural, boringly repetative, exhausing......work. Please trust what I am telling you is not spiritualy compromising. These are high level physical skills only.
At any rate, lets try assuming the best instead of the worse, and ask questions about things we don’t understand.

fighting, kicks and punches, feints, chokes, throws and head hunting.....
Lets not overdo things. Push hands and connections and penetrating punches while valid and real are NOT in and of themselves; fighting. Fighting is fighting.Just as in anything else people can excel at.... these skills may or may not be able to be utilized for and against repetitive attacks and the physical skills of a trained fighter. It is best to keep a level, pragmatic head about you. There are no end of martial “artists” who do well in various limited “tests”and limited fighting who then fall apart against serious fighters. In the end, there are no shortcuts.

Cheers
Dan

aikigirl10
09-25-2005, 08:26 PM
wow... big post ^ like i said , im no longer contributing to the discussion on this thread. Private msg me if you have something u need to say.

aikigirl10
09-25-2005, 08:27 PM
but i did read it just so u know.

aikigirl10
09-25-2005, 08:30 PM
but i skipped over some of the boring stuff in the middle

Leon Aman
09-25-2005, 11:05 PM
Power comes from the power itself.

leon

Kevin Leavitt
09-26-2005, 07:11 AM
Thanks for you thoughts Dan, I enjoyed reading them, and made me think of some things. Not that I am attacking your post or you...just some thoughts....

I find it interesting when we try to dissect things down to their base elements that we somehow separate things into various "boxes". In the process we disconnect or view spirituality and physical things as separate..never shall they meet.

A punch is just a punch or throwing a 250 lbs guy at 100lbs is purely physical in nature. I suppose so, based on your own paradigm and/or religious belief system that may be true for you.

Trust me, I am no KI wizard nor do I have faith that I could physically stand in front of a moving train and focus hard enough that I could stop it with my mental powers and spirituality by praying, meditating etc. In that regard, I'd say physics would win every time. (maybe not...it is possible!)

However, I believe that you cannot separate spirituality or yourself entirely from the physicality of a punch. In order to get there many things had to happen. You had to be at the right place and the right time, be in a certain mind set, have been mentally prepared (or not!), for the punch etc....

What happens after the punch? What damage was done...not only physically, but mentally and spiritually to the other person? Did they forgive you? do they hold a grudge? Will it come back to haunt you? what justified the punch in your mind and more the norm of society?

What did you eat that morning? Did it give you the proper ENGERY to deliver the punch? Who/what put that meal there for you to eat?

My point is, that a punch is not simply a punch or a physical technique....nor is it magic, but their is a middle ground in which all this meets to make it happen. All of this is interconnected.

So while some may be able to pinpoint the power of a punch as coming from the ground, which I do support as a valid point, it comes from much more than just the ground...it comes from much more than gravity...it requires a whole world and universe in order to make it possible for that punch to happen!

thanks for the opportunity to think and express my thoughts!