View Single Post
Old 01-29-2013, 02:00 PM   #61
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,646
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Hugh Beyer wrote: View Post
If you want to talk about IS, use the model that works for IS.
I agree- but your model was for a different problem then the one we are working on here. If you go back to the first part of this thread, I was pointing out the problem with confusing 'Area 1' (this thread) with 'Area 2' ( a thread yet to be started by anyone interested).

Hugh Beyer wrote: View Post

Let me justify those assertions, and suggest a model that might get you further.

The physical models are inadequate because they treat the body like a set of stacked blocks (as in Chris' block man diagrams) and and limit thinking to to "muscles only contract". Yes, that's fundamentally true, but the body is so complex it's irrelevant, practically speaking.
The body is complex, but the only thing making force inside of the body is muscle. So muscle cannot be considered irrelevant. "Practically speaking" the muscles are the only thing doing work. It is all driven by muscle, no matter how complex it gets.

Tendons wrap around processes and redirect force. Fascia creates a web of connections so muscle action here can affect the body over there. Parts of the body act like pullys, so a contraction down here can cause something to raise there. Scientists are still arguing about how the body works structurally
Yes, but muscle is still what drives all force in the body.

Insisting on a simplistic model of the body will make your inquiry impossible. It's like trying to study biochemistry using only particle physics—theoretically possible, practically not.
Well let's start simply then and see where we hit snags.

The way the problem has been framed the problem guarantees that it can't be understood from an IS perspective. The model of the problem people seem to be operating from is that a force comes in, and the receiver resists it (by grounding it, or whatever). High school physics states that if I have a 50-pound push on my chest and I want to stand against it, I need to counter with 50 pounds equal and opposite force. Otherwise, I'm accelerating in one direction or another. Resisting the force, however "efficiently", turns into bracing yourself against it so it doesn't push you over.
This is the problem we are working on.

[qoute]That's a fundamentally losing proposition, martially speaking. If it's a 200 pound force, I'll be crushed however efficient I am.
This is not true. The world record for a Squat is over 1000lbs, the guy doing it doesn't weight over 300lbs. He can generate, and resist much more force then he weights. In a squat you are aligned very well with the ground, the body can make tremendous amounts of force this way.

Even if I'm not, I'm pinned in place by that force and my own equal and opposite resistance. I might be totally immoveable, happy as a clam, pround as a peacock—until the guy clocks me with his other hand.
This is and is not true. It's also starting to get away from our subject. I say it's not true because professional football players resist huge amounts of incoming force, and are still able to move in relation to that force. I say it's away from our subject, because we are simply looking at incoming force right now, another thread would need to address this new issue.

So here's a better model, equally simplistic but at least it doesn't point in exactly the wrong direction.

Model the body as a sphere, gimballed so it turns freely in any direction. Any incoming force hits the surface of the sphere. If the force is off-center, even the slightest bit, the sphere turns and the force is deflected. If the force is dead on center, the slightest turn of the sphere moves it off center and deflects it. The force can't prevent that turning because the surface of the sphere moves perpendicular to the force, so the force can't counter it. We counter the 50-pound force not by opposing it, but by disrupting it so we never have to deal with it at all.
This model is an 'Area 2' model. Start a new thread and we can talk about it. This model is about deflection and not about resisting force. If you think 'internal' has nothing to do with resisting force, and only uses deflection, then all you have to say is 'internal has nothing to do with resisting force'. [See my comment about everyone is talking about different things]

Stupid experiment to try this out: Shut your eyes and push on a wall at a 45 degree angle. If you open your eyes, you'll automatically compensate. If you shut your eyes, you'll feel the wall push you off balance, out into the room.

Some implications of this model:

The receiver is totally mobile and totally free.

The harder the attacker pushes, the more they throw themselves off balance.

Because even a miniscule redirection, or none, is enough, the attacker is offbalanced immediately, with no apparent movement on the receiver's side.

Turning develops naturally (which it doesn't in the force/counterforce model), and when you add linear intent, spirals develop naturally. And therefore… Aikido develops naturally.

The reason for Dan's favorite quote, "Not a fly can alight that does not inducing turning" becomes self-explanatory.
More 'Area 2' Stuff

Experientially, this model matches better how using IS actually feels. If I'm doing it right, I don't feel like Superman holding up 200 pounds—I feel like there's no push to deal with. It's irrelevant.
Ah, here you say that you don't believe that IS ('internal') has anything to do with resisting force. So why post this in this thread that is titled "Int, Vs. Ext- RESISTING a push????

That's why I am being short with you. You are off topic. If you don't like this topic, start a new thread, addressing your topic, and I would love to talk about that.

You clearly want to talk about external strength and can't figure out how it's different from external strength. It's no wonder you're chasing your tail.
You clearly want to talk about something that is not resisting a push. This thread is not about that. That's why I "blew off your post", in an attempt not to "chase my tail". But I did it again just for you. Feel better now?

  Reply With Quote