"resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is described here, certainly doesn't correspond to a structural model, though it probably shows how intent can play a role. I wouldnt call this really "resisiting" because you aren't actively pushing back against the push, rather you are redirecting the force, and the resultant force causes the pusher to be pushed away.

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

Hey Hunter,

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

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

With the new diagram (new Diagram)in the second 'strong alignment' drawing. If the force is actually going into the font leg in that way, wouldn't it require more muscle to hold this position?

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

Ron

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

Ron

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

Ron

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

Best,

Chris

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

Gary

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

"In my mind my intention meets the intention of others, aiki."

Best,:)

Bernd

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

Thanks Gary, I look forward to seeing the results.

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

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

Ron

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

Like anybody could understand Phi, anyway. :D

Best,

Chris

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

I've been thinking about this problem a lot the last few days, and how to best explain the way I understand it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

Chris, I have a question. In your model what is good aikido? alignment + muscle strength while standing or moving?

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

So your definition of "internals" is basically wedging your body under the force like a door stop? That's what your diagram #1 is doing. I don't think it's even good athletics.

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

Alignment+muscle. While standing or moving, both.

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

Hey Hugh.

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT3wk...hGPKA&index=11

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

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

Ron

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

this is getting beyond the topic of 'resisting' a push.
Because of this constant movement away from the topic of 'resisting' the push, I feel that you believe that non-resistance is a key part of 'internal'. If this is so, why disagree that the athletic model I described is not the best way to 'resist' a push? If 'internal' and the belief that Aikido in naturally an 'internal' art, has to do mostly with non-resistance, then can we start to agree here? If we are talking about 'resisting' and 'internal' doesn't resist, then why argue this point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

Ron

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

Well, I wouldn't say that he is receiving much of a push.

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

We do the push test without touching uke or keeping our hands near uke's elbow. And quite a few of Dan's students would do a lot better than what is shown in this video.

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

Ron

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

Frankly, I can't tell the difference between ki and intent, except intent is less woo so maybe more acceptable to people who have burned out on ki.

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

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

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

Re: "resisting" a push part 2
 

Chris,

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

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