"resisting" a push part 2
1 Attachment(s)
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
Quote:
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. Quote:
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". Quote:
|
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
Quote:
Ron |
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
|
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
Ron |
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
Gary |
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
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
Quote:
Mix the two and some (many?) of those classical explanations make much less sense. Best, Chris |
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
1 Attachment(s)
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
Quote:
|
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
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
Quote:
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. Quote:
That is to say, that other things in the body can convey forces without requiring a particular structural alignment. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
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
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
These things are really getting too long. We need to agree on something very soon. |
Re: "resisting" a push part 2
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.