Name anyone else who has even attempted to put this stuff in a rigorous bio-mechanical framework. Certainly not those guys -- which is again NOT a criticism, simply a point of fact. Nor even some of the technically minded people they have worked with, who have been mentioned. The reason is that the categories of information involved on either side (East and West) do not map on-for-one between data sets. The traditional terminology and concepts in the history of these arts and the more common mechanical conventions and concepts that we would use (usually force-vector or f=ma) cannot be trivially substituted. To do so is meaningless and misleading. But they are BOTH coherent and they BOTH relate -- once you break them down into parts and definitions that WILL relate correctly . There are many more than one convention available to use in defining a physical problem or dynamic state. This is what I have done, and it does not take more than a knowledge of a certain branch of 18th c. mechanics and a little late 20th c. knowledge of neuro-muscular functions to grasp the essential working points on the Western side. I am frankly constantly amazed at the resistance to trying to look at it in this way. Amazed, I say. Who knows, they might even prove me wrong....
Bogus. You aren't putting the movement of aikido into a rigorous biomechanical framework. This is because doing that would require you to conduct instrumented testing to objectively verify your conclusions. You haven't done that.
What you have is narrative. You are using the tools of legal analysis, i.e. hermeneutics
. You pick out some bio-mechanical concept and try to show, through narrative and definitional games, how it is "the same" as a certain aikido movement. This is standard first year legal reasoning, which is entirely appropriate in court. It does not analyze motion.
One should not use kinematics to resolve thorny social problems. Likewise, one should not use hermeneutics to analyze motion.