Why do so many of the folk who do have IP resist having the skill analyzed? What is it that these folks offer as analysis and explanation? Why is it that some of the IP folks say that yeah, it is just different biomechanics, and others say that biomechanics couldn't possibly explain what they do?
you have it in the opposite. the folks who do IP/IS stuffs wanted to analyze more than anyone else. we don't really care about the mystical stuffs. the thing that we stressed on is that folks who want to analyze it have to be able to produce it and not on the internet, behind some keyboard. that's the key. i wrote some stuffs on reverse breathing recently on aikiweb. did that sound like we don't want it analyze? we want to know how it work, why it work, what make it work, and most important how to train/reproduce the process. does that sound like unscientific to you? even Einstein, many of theories were/are theories until we can prove it. same here. this is a physical body skill. prove it = show me in person. prove it != long dissertation on the internet.
you might not be an olympic sprinter, but you have to prove that you can sprint and understand not just the physical, but the mental behind sprinting to get folks to listen. even if you are not olympic caliber sprinter, but you can show that your methodology produce much greater results than average sprinters, if i was an olympic caliber sprinter, i would have paid attention to your methodology. again show = prove it = sprinting results, not one, not two, but many for better statistical validity.
something that you need to understand about IP/IS. there is an old saying that governs the process: heart leads mind; mind leads qi/ki; qi/ki leads physical movements. lets make it a bit clear on that. emotions activate/affect the brain; brain/thought controls/activates various biochemical, electrical and mechanical processes; biochemical, electrical and mechanical processes control/activate physical movements. if you analyze the physical movement, you just got the tail end of the thing, i.e. 1/3 of the equation, i.e. incomplete analysis.