View Single Post
Old 04-07-2010, 05:38 AM   #19
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Video definitions, "Aiki" and other terms.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
Hey Mark,
Thanks for the videos, now we are starting something.

In the first video, if that is what you mean by staying 90 degrees in that situation, I stand corrected. You can receive some force in this manner. When you asked the first time, I thought you meant a full force push (as I showed in my second video). To a degree, everyone can resist some force this way, but the amount is minor.
So, now that we have an agreement that it can be done, we can turn to talking about the level that it can be done.

So, if I can start to do this, then think about what someone who has been training for 10 years can do. For 20. The possibility is that someone *can* withstand a full force push to the chest at a 90 degree angle.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
This brings me to my next point about what you call "Aiki" (if these are examples of what you call "Aiki").
Oh, sorry, should have clarified more. These are examples of structure, not really aiki. But, I wanted to get a base established because without good structure, there can be no aiki.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
There is a major limit to what it can do with it. Even if this limit seems better then normal, it is still very limited. For example, with my push (second video) I can do that with a normal person, I've even done it with two people pushing as hard as they can, but there is a limit. For example if a Bull were trying to push me like that, he would just run me over, his structure is stronger then mine.
There are limits to most everything. But, I keep expanding my limits with training in aiki and I see other people doing the same. I also see what can be done when someone has 10-20 years of this kind of training. And their limitations are far less than mine and it isn't what I'd call "very limited". Keep in mind that I'm just a beginner at this stuff.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
However looking at "Aiki" the way I do has no limit. You can use what I call "Aiki" on a bull easily, in fact people do it in Spain all the time.
But that isn't the aiki that Ueshiba had. That's the "aiki" that was invented by modern students. Well, perhaps not "invented". Jujutsu always had principles of timing, body placement, etc.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
My point here is, how much force must one be able to receive to be considered to have good "Aiki"? What is the point of being able to receive all this force?
Take the video where I'm practicing a push to the chest. When I can push on someone like that with full force and not be able to move them, then I consider that very good structure. Especially, since the person isn't cemented to the ground but very, very mobile with non-dedicated weight.

What is the point? Well, if you can withstand a full force push to the chest and then have that ability in a dynamic manner, why would anyone's unarmed attack have much affect on you? In armed, when a sword contacts your sword, how will the attacker move your sword? Remember, the attacker can't physically move you, how do they accomplish that from the tip of a sword?

Then add in aiki. Which we haven't even started talking about.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
Isn't lifting weights something that could compare to this, in terms of force taking ability? Besides being an interesting novelty with some application, what good is this kind of practice, why develop a whole martial art system around it?
Actually, if you do think about the *process* of lifting weights, I guess it's comparable. When lifting weights, one trains to lift heavier and heavier weights. In structure, one trains to receive more and more force/energy.

Well, so far, we've gotten to talking about structure and its uses. And you've had good questions about what it can be used for. If there are questions about the martial validity of basic structure, then we should make sure we go over them. Structure is part of aiki, IMO, but not nearly the whole thing.

Er, how about a really bad example? Let's say aiki is a custom built, very powerful, high horsepower engine. Let's say you want to use that engine in a car. So, you have a car frame made of plastic. Would it do any good to put that engine on that frame? How about a normal steel frame from a basic car? Now, what if you take that normal frame and add more structural stability to it so that it can handle the torque and stress of that engine? You rebuild the structural integrity of that frame to handle more power and stress?

So, basically if your world consists of plastic frames, you're in a silly world. Seriously, though, if you're in a world of normal frames, then you twist and collapse under torque, pressure, and stress. And it'd be hard to grasp the concept that you could withstand much greater amounts, especially when most of the rest of the world is normal frame vehicles.

But, if you rebuild your structure for that kind of environment, then you can withstand and generate a lot more. You have a few McClaren F-1s among hundreds of millions of normal cars. It's only when a normal car actually experiences the interaction with a McClaren that the normal car realizes there is more to the functionality of a car.

Or the short answer is Jonathan Livingston Seagull.