View Single Post
Old 07-10-2008, 07:45 AM   #1
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Chris Parkerson and Structure (from Kotegaeshi resistance thread)

Quote:
Chris Parkerson wrote: View Post
With all due respect, I am pretty sure I can see the structure you guys are employing.
Chris, that's like watching a white belt in Aikido and saying, oh yeah, I can see what Aikido is. Seems kind of silly, don't you think? I am nowhere near a level to show good structure.

Quote:
Chris Parkerson wrote: View Post
I might make another point regarding mechanical advantage. I notice that uke has relaxed to the point that there is no real connection between his humerus/clavicle/scapula. If this connection is not made, you are just twisting his forearm like a "wet rag". Neither can you affect his COG without that connection. Often when the torque is applied to the 20+ bones in the wrist rather than on the radius and ulna, uke can remain disconnected. There is just a lot of play in the wrist.
And then you make posts like this and it's not what I understand structure to be.

Quote:
Chris Parkerson wrote: View Post
Here is a series of angles from an old tape of mine. Notice that my first angle assumes I screwed up, uke had retreated his arm as well as his COG, so I have to follow it. The rest of the angles are pretty much KG stuff.

(snip some stuff)

My uke is a 4th dan in Tomiki in the above video. He has some pretty darn good structure.
Um, well, no. I'd say that your uke in those videos was not displaying *any* kind of structure that we work on. 0%. Nothing. While he might have the kind of structure we work on (I don't know if he does or not), it was not shown on the video posted.

Please take a step back, discard any thoughts that you are doing the same stuff or know what we are doing and then look anew at things with the mental outlook that what we are working on is something completely different. Because from that one vid, my opinion is that your uke isn't showing anything of the structure that we're working on.

IMO,
Mark
  Reply With Quote