Re: Baseline skillset
If I were to take a stab at it, it seemed that his fingertips came up under and inside the "sphere" of my grab; somehow this popped my elbows into the air, and then at that point I was so light that the slightest flick of his hands would knock me away. There were none of the large movements we normally see, eg, torso leaning forward, or elbows dropping to get underneath them my grab. There was no feeling of ordinary muscular strength in the forearms; i've done this long enough that i can tell whether tori is deriving power from his elbows, his shoulders, his biceps, etc. It was as if at the very moment of contact, he was already underneath my center--and that was all he needed. Don't know if this helps any.
R |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
The problem is, people follow the motions without understanding the basis for motion. Doesn't help when you aren't told, even if you are shown it/feel it. Raul is a good example. (Sorry dude!). He got shown, he felt it, but I'll bet Kuribayashi didn't elucidate the how... (See also my original thread on "Stealing techniques"....) So when faced with a strong, resistant uke, the natural tendency is to force the motion to conform to the demonstrated model, with more physical strength. Which leads us further and further away from what Raul described Kuribayashi did to him. Obviously, some minute (or even overt adjustment) in motion is required, to find the correct path - for the average person. But if taught and shown correctly how to source the power for the motion from the ground, using the structure, it doesn't take long before a student can find the correct path to uke's center consistently, with and without following the prescribed motion and/or rotations. How well they can do it, then becomes a matter of degree and practice.... LOTS of practice. Which is the reason why we're having this discussion in the first place. IMO, the motion is NOT what I'm talking about when I refer to baseline skill. It is the "source" of that motion, and how motion is given impetus (i.e. powered) that I'm talking about. Can you see where I'm coming from? |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
|
Re: Baseline skillset
If one could find it in mainstream aikido, we wouldn't be having this discussion... ;)
My own instructor was very "strong", but no one within the group seemed to be able to replicate his strength, and nor was he telling how to... I suspect his various interests in iaido, kyudo, shintaido etc. led him to various practices that influenced his own practice. But he passed away quite untimely at the young age of 45, from a rather nasty flu virus. So, we're all mere mortals.... even Hombu shihan... ;) |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
When you "get" the sense (and it is a sense, not technique), you literally "shake off" the attack while actually firming the connection -- if that makes any sense. His arm motion is a reflection of that same reciprocal motion as in tekubi furi -- like waves bouncing back off a hard surface. His arms become my arms as far as that the same instantaeous rotation/vibration/wave (all accurate physically) that occurs in tekubi furi or furitama -- the only difference in the kokyu tanden ho is that there is, at minimum, only a half-cycle of that reciprocal action, and then his center is going. The only large movement necessary is following uke in his fall to maintain the irimi in the kokyu. |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
The traditional modes rely on metaphors such as "sourcing" because, while they can reconcile opposites holistically, they do not have a way good way to relate the two aspects together in rigorous detail for arbitrary interactions. Finer and finer degrees of "hotness/coldness." It is as though saying that the hands should come together to make one fist, which is fine, but the detail in the interlacing of the fingers of the two different hands in becoming "one" is not captured in that entirely valid traditional prescription. That is not a criticism, merely an observation about the limitaitons of a given form of knowledge. This results, in my view, in two perspectives, that on occasion diverge in understanding when the realization that they are merely perpectives of one reality is lost (or not gained to begin with). So tradition tends to default in teaching from one pole or the other (very loosely and way overbroadly) by example -- Ki Society approach versus Aikikai and the mix between the two poles is achieved by creative unifying imagery and the repetitive "feel" of practice. It works, in both perpectives, and very well. I am not faulting either one, and the latter practice aspect can never be dispensed with. It is the former conceptual exposition (from both sides) that I am addressing. Quote:
First -- the form of the essential movement -- which is in the kokyu tanden ho, and in the waza -- and it is essentially one form -- of endless variations. Second, the substance of the connection which is sensed (best for me) in the tekubi furi exercise (and in furitama and torifune and funakogi undo and others). They are fundamentally the same thing -- but again two perspectives, and they must be unified. Making the form with that sensibility throughout the movement -- that is the essence of kokyu. If the same sense is there and the necessary form of movement is understood, that sense -- precisely followed -- in one small flick of the underlying form accomplishes the purpose entirely. The endlessly fascinating thing for me is that the paths of that form and the sense of the interaction in a particular engagement are both so varied (and ultimately unique) and yet each instance is so fundamentally similar to every other. The kind of detail to see both parts in their interaction simultaneously (thus showing their essential unity), requires a breakdown into constituents to see where the parts (the fleshy "substance" and the form-giving "bones") fit and nestle together. That kind of reduction approach is not really native to Japanese and Chinese traditional forms of knowledge. It is intended not to irrevocably divide them or prioritize them, but to allow one to relate the two very different poles of understanding in a one fundamentally concrete way -- and at very fine detail of interaction. I certinly do not have it all "right" yet -- but I think I have shown the possibilities of the fine detail that can be described. |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
One person using techniques that somehow result from believing the statement 'let your crotch weight be in his hands' can have a limited rules match against someone using techniques that do not result from believing in that statement. This is so we can assess the statements' martial validity. It also helps if the person endorsing the statement can simply rephrase the philosophy in normal terms. For example, 'oh, I mean, you employ your bodyweight against your opponent', instead of being cryptic. |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
|
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
You know the old sales technique - sell the sizzle not the sausage? Yeah, the sizzle (i.e. form) smells great.... BUT what I want to know is WHERE'S THE BEEF (i.e. substance)? I'm sure others do too... If form was the be-all and end-all of aikido, then everyone practising the FORM of aikido would be great masters surely... Wasn't it Terry Dobson who wrote: "The form of aikido is the enemy of aikido"? |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Quote:
What do YOU mean by the "substance" so as to separate it from the form. I have made a case that it is not really separate, except in our various limited perspectives. The form is the means to extend the same substance to the actions of my partner as well as my own, to join them and bring his actions within my sphere of control. I can do tekubi furi all day long and I am feeling the "substance" of kokyu, but it is not connected to anything but me. It is like an engine without an transmission, it needs appropriate linkage to engage that power. Form of movement gives that connection to my opponent -- the same essential form as the "substance" but never a fixed movement. |
Re: Baseline skillset
I get what you mean... but that still doesn't help in any way to advance the understanding of what we're attempting to discuss. I think it is necessary to separate the form from the substance for the purposes of discussion. To me, the substance is what we're concerned with when we're talking about "baseline" skills - the "engine" as you say. Obviously there must be some form, some structure for that transmission of power. But can I suggest, the form can be aikido waza, jujitsu waza, karate waza or whatever other form of movement, but the substance essentially remains the same?
Which is why IMO, form is irrelevant... knowing the substance brings all sorts of forms to fruition... vis a vis the techniques of aikido are limitless...? |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Regards, Mike Sigman |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
|
Re: Baseline skillset
Excerpt from a fellow trying to train in Daito ryu in Japan. He notes the following differences between two styles approaches.
Technique and form "I will admit that X sensei's training methods (mainline) do differ from both Y and Z's, (X) focusing more on complete techniques, starting from the simplest Ikkajo techniques and moving up with rank, and usually only does some tai-sabaki and block/strike practice at the beginning of each class........." Internal Y and Z both start with very elemental "ki-hon" training to develop the aiki pathways out through the proper channels in the hands and to perfect that proper footwork to support these channels. (internal training) Sound familiar? The more things change- the more they stay the same. The only thing to do is to train. "Technique junkies" will always rule the arts. Ata point you just give up trying to change their minds. Conserve your energy for those who see. Cheers Dan |
Re: Baseline skillset
For 'power generation' one kicks into the ground, uses muscle, etc.
As a thought experiment, say we are floating in space. We cannot push off of the ground. If someone floats over to you and does a shomen uchi, is it no longer a shomen uchi because they cannot generate power entirely the same way as when on ground? |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
http://www.wanghaijun.com/ Regards, Mike Sigman |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
I had class tonight and lots of theory floating around in my head. I noticed there were but a few things that I conciously tried to do. Stand with better posture, release the tension in my shoulders, maintain better connection, keep my center/weight down, breathe and move smoother and try not to force techniques. These kinds of things seem so vague and yet seem so important to me. As others have said, you need to feel it to understand it. And if these ideas are internal and lacking substance, would it not, therefore, be virtually impossible to teach? How does one teach what lacks form? It seems to me, after having felt these things through technique, that we assimilate both(if we're lucky) and at some point are able to express to others through technique(be it complex or simple, our choice)how we feel aikido is to us. Kind of like whistling in a way. I might be able to tell you to pucker up and blow and you might then whistle. But it's still gonna take you a little longer to zero in on how to change pitch and even longer to whistle in tune. Still, nice to ponder. :) Eddie |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Yeah, but if the people you're talking never understand these things about connection and so forth, you can still teach them the "techniques", right? They'll never be doing them correctly, but what the hey, the techniques still "work", right? In a nutshell, that's what has happened in most western Karate, Aikido, "Koryu", jujitsu, etc. And because "the techniques still work" and there are "subtle ways to apply those techniques", most people are happy that they've arrived. :) They did, but at the wrong station. Best. Mike |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been on the road. Personal experience at the hands of Tohei, Saotome, and others has shown me that the kind of forces that Mr. Sigman is talking about are real, and valuable. And information from people I know and respect, such as yourself, convince me that Mr. Sigman can do what he says he can, and I'm sorry if I seemed to indicate otherwise. But the basis of this thread is basic skills, and that was what I was responding to. I believe that any formally organized activity, be it Aikido or baseball or English composition is expressed in terms of basic principles that are more or less unique, at least in how they are combined. That's how we can tell them apart. All of these arts allow skilled practitioners to move outside the envelope, to varying degrees, but I think that one must first become competent and comfortable inside the envelope. The question, then, is what is inside it, what is basic and fundamental and gives a specific form to that art? I am right with you in thinking that there is very little that could not be called Aikido, but I believe that accretions must relate to the core forms, whatever those are. Otherwise we just up the noise-to-signal ratio. Whether or not I find Mr. Sigman's math compelling is really a side note, especially since that is not a language that I am particularly skilled in, either. I am simply saying that, to the extent that I understand the basics of Aikido, and the exercises he is talking about, I find them in conflict with one another. Now, it is very easy, as we know, to practice the kihon waza in a not-terribly-meaningful way; the form does not guarantee the elicitation and development of substance. It reminds me of something Ken Kesey once said, something like, "If you want to find inspiration, you have to hang out in areas that inspiration has been known to frequent. There's no certainty that it will show up, but if you want to see it, you have to go there." For Aikido, I think that, if inspiration is going to show up, it will show up in the kihon.If we're good, and if we're lucky, the ki/kokyu/etc. that we have been talking about will manifest. It is up to us --- and our instructors --- to do the work that will reveal the power in the practices. Then maybe down the line we can relate things like Kali and Kung Fu to the basics. |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Here's the real problem. You're arguing often directly against me and my approach, so you go to the lengths (as you did in this thread) of sniping. You didn't argue the functional aspects of the discussion, you went into some vagary about what argument appears compelling to you. In doing that, and in doing as you did in the quote above, you take a publicly-stated position that you don't understand what I'm talking about and you disagree with it. Fine. In a debate sense, I could be wrong. In a functional sense, though, I can and have shown these things well enough and with enough disparate people and groups over a long-enough time that I'm more than certain I can bet every dime I have that I am telling the functional truth, as it sits. This means that since you don't understand these fairly basic things we're discussing, you don't know them. It means that you have not been taught them, inferring that your teacher doesn't know them. In other words, when you go outside of the discussion of issues and attack the peripherals, it works two ways. Hopefully, based on the fact that you don't personally care for me (a totally useless tangent to *any* viable discussion, IMO), you want my discussion of basics to be wrong. What you've really done is signal to at least 40 to 50 fairly knowledgeable people that read this forum that there is a problem related to your teacher. My suggestion is, and has been, that when debating such a basic topic as skillsets like the ki/kokyu things, people should question things that need questioning, comment intelligently, ask questions if something is not clear.... but be very cautious in asserting judgements, because the assertions themselves are telling. I.e., if there is a conflict with "what you know" and the simple baseline skillset that I've mentioned... the same basics that Rob, Dan, Ushiro, etc., all seem to be focusing on... maybe the problem is closer to home? Regards, Mike Sigman |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Overgeneralizing -- engaged: In Saito's bukiwaza, particularly in the ken and jo suburi these things are very strongly developed in a small (dimensionally speaking) tight way (but never, ever stiff at all). That training is powerfully applied in the tai jutsu somewhat more expansively. This most obvious parallel to the initial example of the "fixed leg" article on Wang Hai Jun is particularly seen in irminage variations I was taught and had shown to me where seemingly contradictory hip movements result in very powerful destabilizing of uke. There are some marvelous videos of Frank Doran Sensei demonstrating some of these throws. Conversely, in Saotome's bukiwaza, in the kumitachi and kumijo a rather larger partnered weapons movement encompasses the same body movement on more expansive terms. The training delivers that same motion somewhat more compactly in the tai jutsu. There are exercises that practice this larger flowing motion (really big flinging-arm tenkan stuff, and rotary "prayer drum" action with arms flinging back and forth). That is then captured in reduced scales of movement in the typical techniques. I get every bit of what the articles on reeling silk are talking about, and they map very well onto what much of the trainig that I received actually does teach one to do. The weapons training was a very powerful part of that from my perspective -- and something that Saito's and Saotome's curriculum both focussed upon -- in their respective manner. All of these operate in the same essential spectrum - just different choices of gradient. The concepts about the uses of the hips in the "ordinary" and "contradictory" ways, (soto and uchi turns of the hips, respectively in regard to the point of conection) I have since discovered are addressed also in Muso Jikiden Eisshin-ryu iaijutsu in respect of two basic modes of cut. This adds more weight to the bukiwaza emphasis in developing properly connected movement. I was often told that if one finds trouble in a particular technique, then put an imaginary sword in the hands at the point of the problem -- and then find the way to cut him with it, within the bounds of the technique given. It cures all sorts of problems in a very intuitive way -- and the "form" in that instance precisely channels the correct "substance" in the type of movement required. |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Regards, Mike Sigman |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would call what he physically describes as a straightforward irimi/tenkan movement -- if the feet are fixed to the floor, FWIW. Carrying that all the way through and pivoting -- without lifting or sliding my feet from their initial position -- I can take a hand grab and turn 270 degrees in place and drop my partner in an iriminage, or kokyunage (depending on choice of arm position). I can reverse that position back 360 degrees on the return, if need be (i.e. 90 degrees past my initial kamae, the other way, again without lifiting or sliding the feet. Some call this "tenkan-tenkai" and may teach it as two movements at first -- but it is really one motion. I get the coiling thing fairly well, and that is from very mainstream aikido practice. Frank Doran is one the most effortless examplars of that particular use of the movement whom I have seen. Quote:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...9&postcount=50 http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=122 http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=128 Ignatius bowed out at that point in the earlier conversation, as I recall. Perhaps he will reconsider, now. My only comment on Mr. Gudge's excellent observation of Wang Hai Jun's chan si exercises is that I would qualify it to say that the legs "follow" or "capture" that natural 'figure of eight' type motion of the baalnce rather than "generate" it, exactly. I am not saying you are wrong in applying or discussing the Chinese concepts, and never have (except on the "resistance" thing, and then only in reference to aikido). I am simply saying there many more ways to also be right. |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Regards, Mike |
Re: Baseline skillset
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.