View Single Post
Old 08-15-2008, 05:05 PM   #113
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,403
United_States
Offline
Re: "Aiki" in Russian Video Clips

Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
Erick, I don't mean to be unfair. It comes down to demonstrative skills.
Fairness doesn't enter into it. Simple empirical questions do: What are you demonstrating? How do you measure it? One can trivially knock a masonry arch over sideways that will carry static in-plane loads of several tons. It matters how you define what you will demonstrate.

"Not moving" for example. Does it mean the hips don't move? The torso doesn't move? The feet don't move? None of the above move? Or merely that kuzushi is not obtained? Is the video of Ark doing pushout drillls an example of "not moving?" ( -- Because he is, even if subtly).

I don't have a problem with calling that a demonstration of "not moving" as long as we are clear on what that means. If you are not clear on the answer to those questions then you do not fully understand the nature of the skill you are demonstrating -- even if you can demonstrate it -- because I can always find "moving" in a jointed bipedal active dampening structure subject to a lateral eccentric load. Something WILL move, even if you deem it to satisfy what you deem "not moving." in which case your vaunted demonstrative test goes right back to being a pointless semantic dispute. If the terms WERE defined, then the dispute does not exist.

They are also not idle practical questions, if you wish to demonstrate something empirical, because "not moving" in each of the cases I laid out may mean very different things mechanically. But Dan doesn't think in such terms; he is not the analytic type, so he has never answered those kinds of questions. I don't take it amiss.

Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
Lets just look at the ability to stand there and not lose stability when someone pushes on you from any angle.
You've changed the criteria from Dan and mike's statemetn of it. They said "not moving." You say "not lose stability. " I actually take that to be helpfully narrower if slightly more abstract, in that "stability" (in most settings) implies a righting moment to regain position from distrubance. Different from "not moving."

Again, simple empirical questions: Do I get to choose what stance he demonstrates the skill from? Is it impulse (momentum) dependent or merely static load (moment) dependent? Does it start in contact or can the push be occurring as contact is obtained? Or none of the above? Does he get a blind fold or other sensory limitations? Where do you draw the line between "push" and "strike?" Does it matter for purposes of the demonstration?

Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
If anyone - anyone at all - meets up with Dan and wants to get started doing this stuff, he'll probably say okay push on me, and then he'll want to push on them.
...
To compare - if anyone goes to visit you and you say - "push on me"; and that random person pushes you - in whatever way they want - will you be able to avoid losing your balance? If there is even a question about "well - what is meant by 'push'" - then I don't think you are doing things at the same level.
As to Wang Hai Jun -- you saw that, did you, to see what that actually meant? Or did Wang 老師 tell you how it went himself?

Regardless of "the level" (What does THAT mean?) they are the SAME THINGS. Since the criteria of "level" are not defined, I feel no obligation to self-criticize myself into conformity, or pay deference. If you want me to acknowledge anything -- it is simple -- define your terms and show me wrong. I'll admit it.

I am admittedly operating from a very different perspective, but I don't see that as a "level" -- whether of understanding, performance or otherwise. My effort does not require denigrating anyone to pursue this path -- nor adulating them in the least bit either.

AND If there were no questions then why are we here?
...
Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
I'm not going after you really. I'm just saying that these simple tests of demonstrative skills buy credibility in terms of improving understanding.
I am not interested in credibility -- precisely because what I am looking towards is a system of understanding and explanation in terms that COMPLETELY NEGATE credibility as an issue.

Quote:
Rob Liberti wrote: View Post
Theory - no matter how accurate - from someone without such demonstrative skills really has no chance of being heard.
You may believe it or not but nothing I discuss has anything but a basis in experience and observation, internal and otherwise. Your preference is your own. You can ignore me at your leisure. I am not seeking acolytes, but a framework for knowledge. I don't compel anyone to read (although objective evidence suggests that some apparently do) or to respond. The adversary discovery of truth works whether one side values the interaction or not. So questioning me as to ill-defined arbitrary bona fides is irrelevant to the purpose.

I don't usually fall down or even lose balance, even when struck hard (not that getting struck is bright idea in the first place). "Shutting down" technique (as opposed to making its completion utterly immaterial) is not a such a manifest demonstration of talent in my book, so much as it is of an obstinant purpose -- not a good strategic trait, BTW. Beyond that I can't say nor care to speculate without some parameters I could honestly look at. I feel little need for vetting, even if I would fail a test, however defined, and it is by no means clear to me that I would.

Mr. Navier and Mr. Stokes never saw an airplane, much less flew one (they did not exist at the time). But no aircraft flying today has left the drawing board without consulting them. We don't have that for aiki -- but there is absolutely no reason that we shouldn't.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.