Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
This is spawned from the "Internal Vs External" thread. I feel it would be more productive to take a simple, basic task and discuss how that same task is accomplished by someone with an internal focus vs. someone with a traditional, athletic, external focus.
Setup: The receiver stands with their feet roughly shoulder width apart, arm raised to the side and extended, palm facing out. Their goal is to receive/resist a push to the palm of that hand while maintaining their upright structural integrity. External method: The typical way that everyone I've ever experienced, including myself, responds to this is by tensing the muscles of the arm and shoulder first. For a low force push, this is usually enough to resist it and remain stable and upright, but as the force of the push increases, so does the amount of muscle tension that's introduced to hold the frame together and keep it rigid. Once fatigue sets in or the amount of force surpasses what the persons muscles can handle, the integrity of the frame starts to break down and they will be bent, pushed over, or often times will start leaning into the push to counter the force acting against their frame, making them susceptible to being off balanced by removing that force. Someone with more muscle (aka, strength) can resist more force for longer periods of time before that frame breaks down. Internal Method: On the surface and at its most basic level, the goal is to maintain the structure of the frame. Where the two methods differ is that normally a person will flex muscle to hold the frame rigid against a force. Someone with an internal focus will instead relax those muscles, which in essence allows the joints of the body to compress upon themselves to maintain the structure of the frame. There is a significant amount of conditioning that goes into allowing this happen, so initially you can't do this against a high level of force. The muscles of the body will instinctively kick in to hold the frame, but with consistent, low force repetition the joints of the body and those 'inner muscles" become conditioned to support those forces without the major muscles of the body kicking in to support the frame. Initially you might find that while you're able to keep the shoulder relaxed against a light force, you'll notice that other muscles, your lower back muscles for instance, are firing up to hold the frame. In my experience, there is a progression of relaxing the muscles, conditioning the joints and then noticing where the muscular tension has moved and then focusing on relaxing/conditioning those areas. The end result, regardless of the amount force one can handle, is that the solidity of the ground is presented through the person's body. So that when a force acts against that body, it is in effect pushing on the ground. This is the earth in heaven and earth. It also has a side-effect of naturally keeping a persons weight down. Int Notes 1: This is meant to be a very basic view of this particular aspect of IP. At progressing levels, there are other things that come into play to augment those conditioned joints, provide additional structure to assist in handling/distributing those forces and to further remove slack from the body so that there is no movement or slippage in the body and those forces are cleanly conveyed to the ground. The tensing of muscle breaks that conveyance of force. Intent also plays a big part in both using those other structures and also manipulating and routing those forces through the body to the ground and elsewhere. Also, the point I made about the joints compressing in on themselves is meant to be the most basic of basic. With some conditioning the joints stop behaving that way and again, intent plays a big part. Int Note 2: While this may seem to be just another trick or technique, which on some level it may be, it is meant to be a system for how one carries their body, a state of being. You always carry your body this way and focus on keeping it that way, so that anything that comes in contact with your body is essentially coming in contact with the ground without the need to ready yourself or react. It's "just there" in the same way that a steel pole buried in the ground is always "just there" waiting for you to hit it and bounce off it. The steel pole doesn't have to become ready. It is always conveying the solidity of the ground back at anything that acts against it. I believe that the distinction between these two modes of body usage to accomplish the same task are pretty clear. Feel free to comment and compare, but please, keep the comments focused on the basics of what this example is meant to cover. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Standard disclaimer applies - i.e. my understanding is still a work in progress and bla-bla, reading my crap is more likely to send you astray then help you, etc. etc..
I think it is important to note that the ground here and ground-reaction-force does not have to be special. That is, grounding force meets up here with the "balloon man" idea. If you are lightly expanded in all directions, then force can hit the surface of the balloon, ride the surface, and come out somewhere else. In the direct case, it can touch one side, and come out the other side. This is as opposed to creating a frame with specific lines through which stuff goes down, like the skeleton. There is not relaxation, per se, so much as a light tonus that is induced by making the mind work to expand the body everywhere to support that balloon, the whole internal bit. I think something I was trying to emphasize in the other thread when responding to Chris Hein, was that a simple push is almost never a simple push. The push may just look like someone pushing you from the front, but even as it boils down to physics, this applies all sorts of weirds torques and directions to the body. So just trying to set up a single pathway from the push to the ground rarely ever works out so well, and this is one of the reasons the whole balloon man thing seems to better account for all the variables - if only because your brain can't think through the micro-level physics of it - so rather than try to, just handle everything... |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
Quote:
In this set up, you need enough muscle tension to align the body. Once good alignment is achieved not much more tension is added to the muscles, because there is a clear channel to the ground. Basically it's a matter of levers. The smaller you can make your levers, in relation to their fulcrums the less muscular tension you need. If you make very good alignment the amount of tension needed, as the incoming force goes up, doesn't increase Significantly. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
One of the things I think most 'internal' proponents don't understand, is that modern athletics is using all of the same good body mechanics that 'internal' people are. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
I don't mean to sound like I'm the only one who understands athletics, sorry. However, when you sayd things like:
Quote:
The idea/theory that you can make good alignment in all directions at the same time is an interesting one. But how are we going to do that? I think this is the question, and sticking point between us. From my perspective, you describe good athletics, and describe that as being the beginning stage of 'internal'. But when I ask how it goes beyond this stage, I just keep seeing something like "it just does". That's what I'm interested in talking about- how does it do that? Are we using some sort of internal air pressure, or some kind of hydraulic system? Are we using another kind of power, other then muscles? Or are we using mental imagery to create better use of muscles? What is it that 'internal' does differently. When I ask that question I just get examples of results, and not explanations of how those results are achieved. I'm not trying to argue but I don't know how these things are suppose to work. And if no one else does, why make the assumption that something radically different is happening inside of the body? |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
1 Attachment(s)
For this "resisting a push" problem, the best way I can think of to solve the problem is to create the smallest angle between the incoming force and the ground.
(click to enlarge) Attachment 1104 The greater the angle between the force and the support (the ground) the more muscular force it will take to resist the force. By creating the smallest angle possible we will use less force from the muscles by aligning the skeletal structure.The skeletal structure will take more of the force, requiring less muscle, and taxing the muscular/energetic body less. This example cannot be done from all angles at the same time. It uses muscular force and skeletal alignment to work. I'm interested in hearing/seeing other examples of how this problem might be solved in an 'internal' way. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
Perhaps it might be helpful to attack it from a different direction -- that is: establish a baseline definition on what you think good athletes are doing using your own words, preferably using fairly neutral and mechanical terms. From there, we might be able to do a reverse mapping of what good IP people do using more neutral terms as well (or we might not), and see if they match up. To get the ball rolling, something along the lines of... "Describe how a good athlete would setup their body to resist a push of 5 lbs, 25lbs 100 lbs, 200 lbs... and so on." |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
Forrest's sink the chi Stupid Jin Trick is a representation of peng jin. You can use what I was referring to in the other thread. Structural alignment will eventually fail given enough force. When you are using jin, it doesn't quite work that way as the other person never can exert their full potential on you because they're always off balance. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
So our problem, We are standing there with our hand out to our sides, and a force is coming in, we want to resist this force. If you were 'bad' at working with your body. I wouldn't call this athletic, or external or anything other then bad body use. You wouldn't change the structure of your body, you would simply let the force come in and use all the muscular tension you could muster to fight the force. If you were 'athletic' facing the same problem. You would align your body to the force, activate only the muscle groups needed, and use your skeletal muscular body to the best possible results. So that is how I would basically outline the difference between 'bad' body use and 'good' (athletic) body use in this situation. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
Things like the other person being off balance doesn't have to do with the way you are using your body anymore, and it now has to do with how you place yourself in relation to them. These are the kinds of things I think Ueshiba was talking about. But this is not what I have been lead to believe the main interest of the "IP" community is talking about. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
I don't know if "your partner is always off balance" automatically converts the interaction from a body skill to a "relational" skill.
Ever see a wobble board or bosu board? Google it if you haven't. Its a hard plastic disc, about 2 feet in diameter, with half of a squishy, wobbly ball stuck on one side. Its designed to introduce instability to exercises. If I were to hypothetically push horizontally, hands against hands, on my identical physical twin, we'd be in stalemate. Now if I were to put this wobble board between us, the rigid, hard side against my hands, but the wobbly, half sphere for my identical twin to push on - I've got a significant advantage. To me, I'm pushing a solid object. I don't have to stabilize. To my partner, he's got to constantly adjust himself because his hands are moving and sinking into this wobbly thing. Our relation to each other hasn't changed - I haven't dodged, or mentally tricked him. But my partner is constantly having to stabilize and balance and can't put the full force of his body behind his push. Pushing on people who do taiji pushhands feels like this - the inexperienced use big movements of their arms, spine, and legs to keep you from "setting yourself" - but the really experienced people barely move at all. It definitely is a body skill. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
i believed one of the problem with using structure alignment to resist a push is the power of the push pins your body in place, which is not good if you want to be mobile afterward, as the push continues. as Hunter mentioned, structure alignment will fail with sufficient force, but that's the next stage. resisting a simple direction push is only part of the requirement, but we need to understand the bigger picture of this which includes mobility, manage increasing load, and multiple directional forces. so what we do for a simple directional push must fit into the larger picture later. we can't just do one thing for this and use different set of respond for others. see Vlad comment (second hand) in this post http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...31&postcount=2
|
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
If we are talking about always unbalancing someone so they cannot apply strong force to us, we are talking about anther kind of thing- How to keep people from being able to exert strong force on us. These are different discussions, I'm up for having either/both of them, but we need to be clear about what we are discussing. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
But my question is, what else can you do? How can you better deal with strong force coming in? The way I described is the best way I know how (within the confines of 'taking' the force). If there is another way, what is that way? |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
You always want to redirect it in some other way, because if it starts to effect you, and the other guy is skilled/strong enough, you will loose. If they aren't all that skilled, then you might be able to recover, and the other person will feel it kind of switch from on-off-back on as you can re-establish within yourself. If you are able to balance those forces within yourself, the other person won't be able to compromise you, unless you screw it up within yourself when you move. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
Area 1- How I use my body to do work. Area 2- How I keep others from applying force to me. Area 1, is a large avenue of athletic practice. The main idea is simply how do I most efficiently use my body to do work. This kind of body use should apply in many different areas where the body moves in the same way. Area 2 is a more specific thing, that has to do with a specific situation involving you and an attacker. In this area how well your body can take loads and make force are not so important, however ways that you can keep others from making force on you is important. If we have a problem with a heavy rock that we need to move. 'Area 1' can help us train to move that rock. We can improve the force and function of our body so that moving the rock is possible. Study in 'Area 2' will never improve our ability to move the rock. The rock is inanimate, and simply sits there being heavy. If our problem is winning a Judo match against a physically superior athlete. If the athlete remains physically superior to us, no matter how powerful and efficient we make our body (we'll assume he is more genetically gifted and also trains his body constantly) further study in 'Area 1' will not yield improved results. However, if our competitor is only working on making his body stronger, 'Area 2' may help us overcome him. If we learn methods that will not allow him to use is physical superiority on us, we can nullify his physical advantage. I like talking about both 'Areas', but we need to keep them distinct and clear in this kind of discussion. Quote:
If we were talking about taking force in, I can understand that. The idea being that force is exerted on you, and you 'balance' that force by letting it come into the ground through your body (within you). This would keep the force from doing anything via your alignment to the ground, 'balancing it'. If you don't let the force come into you, but always more yourself so there is not much force coming in, I don't exactly see how that is 'within you'. |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
|
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
The same four principles are applicable whether you are stationary or in motion. Ron |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
so no matter what, when force comes in, if it's not knocking the person over, it's making some kind of 'ground path'. Now, how efficient that 'ground path' is is another story. In an efficient model (one where we stand the best chance of resisting the incoming force), that path should be as simple as possible. Quote:
Redirecting or dispersing is another kind of thing, more in 'Area 2'. There is a really tricky point here that I believe you're outlining. The shape of the body receiving force is important. It determines how much force can act on the body. For example: you have a surface that is angled to the incoming force, and you have a surface that is flat to the incoming force. The angled surface will receive less force because force not as fully contact the body. This is a tricky issue when we are talking about alignment. Once the force has entered the body, we are talking about 'Area 1'. Before the force enters the body we are talking about 'Area 2'. I would like to talk about both areas, but we must keep them clear. I'm not sure what you mean by "cycling". |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
|
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attach...4&d=1359157247 Quote:
Quote:
Ron |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
(Maybe draw a blindfold on the man so he can't see?) I'm interested to see! (I'm leaving my blindfold off...) |
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push
Quote:
i have experienced that expert folks can reach further than uke's shoulders. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:18 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.