View Single Post
Old 01-30-2013, 04:26 PM   #15
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,645
Re: "resisting" a push part 2

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
One could test it out with a couple of bathroom scales and see if by redirecting it to the front foot rather than the rear foot if more force actually goes into the front or rear foot (or try the same without a partner and see if through intent only it is possible to do). I only have one bathroom scale, so I'm not in a position to tell you if that is what actually happens, or if thats what I perceive as actually occurring.
Fair enough ( I don't even have one bathroom scale so I'm in no better position, HA! But, I'll bet you are right, I bet, from what you are describing that there will indeed be a shift in weight.

Since I do tend to feel an increase in pressure, in the front foot, I would assume that is what is happening, as that is one way in which I can "float" or get under my partner.
I would like to talk about the concept of "floating" more. I think it may end up being very important to our discussion. However, strictly speaking, changing the force they can apply to you is out side of the way I'm thinking about the problem. I'm not saying that it's not valid, but before we understand how two seemingly different body usages are receiving a similar force, I don't believe we can move to that part. So what I'm asking, is that at first, we simply look at one force coming in, we can give it a number and say it's constant- like "10". Who knows what the "10" is, but we know it's a constant. I believe when we get into things like "floating" we are changing the incoming force. This is to say if we are "floating" someone the incoming force might drop to 6, because the person applying force can't apply as much now. Again, I'm not saying this isn't part of what we are talking about. But the first think I think we need to get a consensus on is how two seemingly different body use systems would deal with the same problem (incoming force "10") in different ways. Do you think this is fair?

Well, first of all wether I'm using structure or a ground path (they aren't the same), I would not want to actively push back. Sure in a push test it doesn't matter, because it is a static drill. In reality, if you push back, the whole if you push i pull dynamic comes in, and you actually make it easier for the other person who is pushing you.. If you are letting it go into the back leg or really anywhere, you don't want to provide any push back in the same direction. That took me years to finally understand what is a really simple idea. You simply don't push back, you have to abandon any feeling of being "strong" or "Stable" and you result in feeling stronger to the person pushing you. This is something completely counter-intuitive to most training I've encountered in martial arts or sports.
Here I think we are getting into trouble. If you are 'resisting' a push there there has to be a resistance- a 'push back'. Now I believe we can make a distinction in our pushing back, kind of what I think you are getting at. We can call one pushing 'active', this kind of pushing would be like when you bench press a weight off your chest, you are using the muscles in arms a chest to 'actively push' the weight off of your chest. There is also an 'inactive' push. This is like what a table does when you set a drink on it. The table doesn't have any muscles, so it's not 'actively pushing' your drink off the ground, but because of the tables structure, it 'inactively pushes' keeping your drink from falling to the ground.

This distinction is going to become important as we look at what pushing means, and how we use our muscles to do it. I agree that, when resisting an incoming force, I would like to 'actively push' against the force as little as possible. I say this because 'active pushing' requires more muscular tension, and stronger muscles to resist more force. When I am resisting an incoming force I would like to use as much 'inactive pushing' as possible. This simply requires my bones to take the load, so I don't have to use much muscular force. Above, when you say that you don't want to "push against", I would say you are talking about 'inactive pushing' as I just described it, am I correct in this assumption?

Now with that in mind, you really don't use much of any muscular effort other than what is required to hold yourself up or to redirect the force (it shouldn't take that much since you are using intent). You should not be straining against that incoming force at all so there should be really no additional muscular effort.
Here you are describing, to me, an ideal response to incoming force. I would say that you are using alignment of the bones to take force, so the muscles can relax, and I would describe that similarly. However I think you are suggesting that you don't use bone alignment to take the force. My question then is, if you're not using the bones to take the force, what are you using? The only think I would think that you can use to resist the force, if you're not aligning the bones, is muscular tension. How do you feel about this?

If you get moved it doesn't matter, these drills are not really about how much force you can take. Its more important that if you get moved, you don't loose your balance, such as finding that you pop up on your heels or try and push back.
I would say the same thing about ideal athletic movement, except I would add, when you're moved you must re align your body to the force from the new position.

  Reply With Quote