Erick Mead wrote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Take a look at the videos of O-Sensei taking a push to his body.... his body deforms. He briefly "resists".
Then you turn around and act like that 's totally impossible, according to the way YOU interpret Aikido, Erick.
I merely apply what I have been told and shown to resolve some useful consistency between them. And I do not claim it is "impossible" to do the things done. I just think you are incorrect in asserting how they are or should be done in relation to aikido priinciples.
And thank you. For going on record, again, that O Sensei supposedly does "bounces" by resisting with kokyu.
Now one of the following must therefore be true, either:
1) "Bounces" by resisting are part of proper aikido training and he lied that aikido is a principle of "absolute non-resistance;" or
2) "Bounces" are part of aikido, and he performed them without using any resistance; or
3) "Bounces" are a related function but not part of proper aikido training, however they are performed.
I personally woudl tend toward number 2, based on the physics and O Sensei's videos and statements. Ledyard Sensei in his post seems to me to lean toward the agnostic position of number three, in his direct experience of Saotome doing these things. I'll defer to him on that, in either event.
The idea of "no resistance" is common as a basic tenet of all good Asian martial arts, Erick. Not just Aikido. You're still confusing "training/conditioning the body" with "technique". And you endlessly justify this confusion with the idea that you'll do what you practice when it comes to application. Does this mean that a fighter who lifts dumbells will automatically start doing dumbell-lifting motions when he gets into a fight? No. That's absurd.
I can withstand fairly strong pushes, but when I do my martial arts, I don't use resistance to an attack. Many people just stumble as soon as they touch me because I simply work with their balance/center.... and I use these "baseline skills" to do it. The "conditioning", aka the "baseline skills" are not the techniques, Erick. That has been repeated to you numerous times, even in this thread.
If you want to talk about "techniques", then no, one shouldn't "resist". Of course not. I.e., there is not head-to-head use of brute strength. Using techniques in which Uke can't even feel your presence is good. "Borrowing" Uke's force is good, too. There are two ways to "borrow" Uke's force in a direct, face-to-face way (this is true of all Asian martial arts). One is to take his push and pull it (a coarse description, but you get the point). The other is to reflect his incoming force so that his own force helps push him away. That also is considered "borrowing" and is NOT resistance. You have built some rigid definition of what you consider "resistance" and which does not conform with the not-to-be-done "resistance" discussed in martial arts.
However, we're NOT talking about resistance in techniques, in this thread... we're talking about how to train the baseline skills. Training the baseline skills will sometimes involve resistance for testing and learning. Even Tohei and Ueshiba have demonstrated these things, so this is a rather insane discussion that seems to on ad absurdum.
The debate is in how he moves, and more particulalrly, whether he moves to deform his structure in resisting so as to "spring" back -- or moves in such a way to keep his structure from being deformed, and to magnify the force applied back to the attacker, or to dissipate it. In other words, what mechanical principle is operating -- that is the debate, and whether the mode of action you propose is within the training purposes of aikido.
I'm going to keep this simplistic. It is standard to say in terms of Ki/Qi training that the strength is not in the muscle and bones but is in the sinews and connective-tissue. Think again about a tensegrity structure. For instance Buckminster Fuller's geodesic dome (or any other polyhedric tensegrity structure) has joints, edges, and vertices. You're worried about the forces that arise from manipulating those joints. The "internal strength" aspects are more concerned with the connective tensions that unite the whole structure (in addition to the force manipulations I've mentioned, which are sort of analogous to struts within the tensegrity frame which are moved at will). I.e., you're barking up the wrong tree, Erick. And it gets more complicated because the body has to learn to move with this dependence on the cohesiveness of the "connection" of the body and also on the mind's ability to learn how to move with the addition of the mind-willed force vectors... greatly different from you idea of rotational accelerations.