View Single Post
Old 10-19-2012, 09:46 AM   #79
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Aikido
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 928
United_States
Offline
Re: Two centers making a connection or one- in a bujutsu body?

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
There not the same thing. I'm saying training to connect the centers or training to retain the center are two different approaches, not steps or stages along the same path. So what I am discussing as solo practice retains the same value down the path toward push hands, sparring etc. For that reason it is not the same as me saying you would spar with eyes closed and then open them. Its a different paradigm of movement internal to external.
I know we disagree on this and I think I get your perspective. That said, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree as the only options I see from my perspective are either 1) The connection part I'm talking about gets included in what you're doing already (which I'm skeptical of, but don't have a definitive opinion one way or another) 2) There's a disconnect what's meant regarding the connection and force management already - which at this point of talking past each other a few times I don't think is gonna get resolved in debate. The only reason I keep pressing the point is that you keep bringing up the "make a connection" and "four-legged animal" approach as flawed (even in light of attempts at explain where I think you might be misunderstanding what's intended as a result of the approach) and I've not seen your logic support that beyond saying there's a better way to manage the body for applications and fighting. The logical path doesn't compute for me based on what I've experienced chasing the internal strength stuffs nor with the efforts I've made to put it in more live pressure testing.

Another example - the back bow and how it trains some things from a body conditioning and awareness perspective. I know some folks that get hung up on how it looks and others that don't do the appropriate work and think that the back bow is some sort of application. In either case I can see how people would write it off entirely - never minding how it changes externally the frame and then governs how force loads are delivered internally into the system - kind of an awakening moment to get the mind to understand how the body can function differently than previously thought. But the folks that get too hung up on it being either a funny looking activity or a flawed application won't be able to benefit in either case. No big whoop if they are getting the skills and conditioning some other way (Which I'm sure most think they are), but then lots of people assume they are already doing this stuff anyways

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
As for papers and testimonials: I know there are different approaches. It is one of the issues I cited years ago here when the argument was being made that all internals fit into a certain paradigm. There are many disagreements regarding approaches in solo training, when and how to introduce things, what is more important, what should be stressed and when, big...disagreements on practical applied use of that training.
And I wish it were a better playground for people to get together and try things out, have the disagreements, work through them credibly etc. I see too much posturing and opinions metamorphed into proclaimed academics - it sours me from participating outside of my little box most of the time. I figure everyone involved will all get what they're looking for one way or another.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
My example of the prayer wheel: I threw that out there to make an obvious example of external movement of something that had greater structure than the force acting upon it. I NEVER...meant, said, or alluded to..." the internal action required not being as important as the external frame." Where did you get that from? In fact I discussed the internal management of moving oneself:
from internal to the external..internals without or with movement; you can move inside or inside to outside, in a such a way that it doesn't expose your center, and anyone touching you, becomes part of you as ....you move. And it can be done without exposing your center to them but having theirs exposed to yours."

So, what I actually did say has nothing to do with your reading of it as "the internal not being as important as the external." Your going to have to explain how you understood it Budd, I'm lost to where you got your idea from. Do you really think ...that I think...that external movement is the requirement? Really?
Of course not, that's the point I was making - it's easy to take a slice of an argument or supposition and then extrapolate it in ways that defy credibility and accuracy. That's kinda how I keep scratching my head at your continued stance of decrying the "center to center connection" work. I understand that you wouldn't bring it up if you didn't think it worth mentioning, but I guess I have to fundamentally disagree once more for the record before I go about my way.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Your overall response to this idea I am stating that retaining your center FROM connecting to their center was to state ..to me.... "That works out great until you meet someone who can actually get into your center." Which is why I responded as to my own personal success and other big dogs vetting of the same model. I suppose you meant it works out fine until a practitioner (anyone) meets someone who outclasses them and -not me personally. So.....all good. Lets stick to the topic.
Actually - No. That was me saying in an offhand way that's it's easy to flip your logic around of "This will fail against X" and turning it into "That will fail against Y". See what I did there? I am in agreement that it's not credible to make such suppositions without full exposure and understanding.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
In keeping with that
The important part is how a practitioner is organizing his system internally and how that is being used with his system externally to manage load. Carrying weight on a point on the body; arm shoulder chest etc., and supporting it by creating a ground connection is not the same as "dealing" with the same load on a given point by "receiving it...at all. The requirement is there-but not the need. The ability to make change, eliminates the moment of force alighting, The method to enact change, is internal. External movement will not cover it and will in fact many times mask the failure of poor connection.
Here's where we agree

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
The differences are easy to understand and not complex. Lets assume we agree on the internal management;
1. One way is to allow external force into the practitioners body and they manage the additional force load with.... the forces being managed already in the practitioners body.
2. The other way is to not allow external force into the practitioners body and yet still do so with... the forces being managed already in the practitioners body.

The key issue for our purposes here is that in both models the body is supporting the load internally. one allows it to enter and be manipulated, the other has it always reside on the surface and has it manipulated. You..think this means external movement requirements. I am stating there is every bit as much internal work going on in that scenario.

In the end though it is important to realize that you can affect and take someone's center, without ever attaching yourself to theirs or revealing yours.
I think you're extrapolating the example I gave of the validity of arguing against a whole approach based on a flawed understanding of a specific model - into now I think you're moving externally. Not what I said at all. I also think you're creating a false division based on how you want to segment what you see as two approaches. While I think there are differences in approach, I wouldn't categorize or align them as you did - even while I agree in tactical application you are showing the differences of someone with a connected body taking someone's center while masking their own - versus someone leaving theirs open. I do not believe anyone is advocating leaving their center open - and my experiences with the approach you are decrying are that nobody gives up their center for the taking except in drills to give someone a dumb force to react to. (just like every other legitimate place I've seen practice)

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
There are some direct teachings on this in DR and why it is too be avoided. there are even some interesting drawings floating around on the web. Other teachings exist in Koryu; discussing never receiving power from someones weapon. Something which is desperately important were you to consider facing large weapons with a sword or short sword. Other teachings exist in Taiji, where their power may never alight on your body. An interesting example of which is the famous myth of the Tai chi saint who held a bird in his hand and it couldn't fly away from his ability to neutralize it's lift.
Another example is the Taiji man who would stand peeing off the edge of a hill/drop and offer his students the chance to push him over it from behind when he wasn't looking - many tried, none could. Yadda yadda . . the point is a developed and conditioned body is going to behave differently than someone still figuring out how ground and gravity act on them in real functional life. That's a long road to travel - lots of ways to get hung up along the way.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Anyone who can do what I am talking about can easily allow force to alight on them and deal with it going through them and neutralizing or adding to their forces in a myriad of ways. Not everyone who has the skill to neutralize and generate forces in them has attained the level of having those forces reside ever present on the surface and know how to manipulate those forces while they reside on the surface. The means to do this can and are displayed with almost no movement, to obvious movement, but the qualities of that movement must move in accord with in yo and are not...not...normal movement. It is exceedingly difficult to attain, evne slowly, much less to become second nature....at speed.
Yup and at speed is where things more easily break down depending on what's been conditioned and how the skill level allows for it to be applied and made manifest. Nobody's arguing against that, either.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
I think many keep misunderstanding the use of internal strength to connect to another's center for the simple reason that they are trying to make a kata or technique "work." The process of -having- to make a kata work means many times you have to deal with their center in otherwise unnatural constructs. Lets say you have to take the slack out of -them- and you to move them. This is not a requirement in a fight or even in push hands where the need to do something is not prevalent. You can remain neutral, and be predatory and opportunistic.
Whole bunch of things there. Thinking an internal strength drill means you can fight is stupid. Thinking because you can perform a choreographed kata means you can fight is stupid. Thinking your internal strength conditioning can be applied easily in a fight without having some progressive resistance training to give you a clue is stupid. None of these things are being argued for as near as I can tell, so please stop presenting them as if I am in favor of them.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
It's not going to be conducive to the discussion to talk about each other, All I am going to say is that I will continue on this path until I meet the people you are describing who can supposedly...easily handle...the methods I am employing. As stated I was advised to keep meeting big dogs, I will continue to do so. If I get tuned I will let you know and hopefully I might get some different approaches. Rest assured when it happens, I will be all ears and having fun!!

Dan
I think that's the way to go - keep genuinely seeking people that can tune you up in ways that surprise you and then learn what the hell they are doing. Best way to improve, near as I can tell and while I won't name names - I have no problem admitting that there's any number of folks in internal arts and combat sports that have been tuning me up in fun ways - which I'm okay with because I've learned a ton. With that, I think I'll bow out. Have a bunch of stuff to finish at work and gonna be traveling next week so between preparing and being away - will not be around that much.
  Reply With Quote