View Single Post
Old 01-31-2013, 02:31 PM   #24
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,646
Re: "resisting" a push part 2

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
When you get floated, you will find that your input of 10 does seem to drop, but the body of your opponent had to still deal with that 10 level of input. For me, floating someone via the front foot like I discussed, basically requires setting it up beforehand (that is to say ideally you are already under yourself all the time or if using the front foot, you have already set your body up to have a path go somewhere). Trying to get under yourself after you have a point of contact is more difficult (or even trying to establish a ground path afterwards), at least for me depending on the level of the incoming force.
When I say "floating" what I mean, and think you mean, and is physically happening, is that the person pushing on you starts to lose connection with the ground. Because of this lack of connection to the ground they lose the ability to apply force to you. Now for them they might feel that they are pushing as hard as they can, and they are, but because they are not connected to the ground as well as you are (they are "floating") they are actually applying less force to you. This means the force coming in would drop from 10 to say 6. It's like trying to apply straight horizontal force to a wedge. You keep sliding up the wedge so that you can apply direct force on the wedge.

I would mostly agree, though there are other analogues to the structure of the table within the human body for conveying forces which do not require alignment.
I agree, but this means using muscles to make that alignment. If you're not using muscles, and you're not using connective tissue or bones to align to the ground- what is resisting the force?

Obviously tendons and ligaments can convey force, and most of the body is wrapped in muscle which given that it is intraconnected through the body with other support systems can convey force (i.e. tensed muscles), or perhaps fascia (lets forgo any discussion of whether it contracts for now) given that is is a sort of a connective tissue
Ligaments, tendons, fascia, skin- and actually are all connective tissue. I believe bone is also connective tissue, but it makes since to make a distinction in our case. So we only have three kinds of things the can make force- connective tissue, muscles, and bone. If you're not making alignments with supportive structures (The ground or muscles for the most part) how are you making force to resist anything? If you aren't using the ground as your supportive structure, how is it that you are not using more muscle instead of less muscle?

That is to say, that other things in the body can convey forces without requiring a particular structural alignment.
what are the things that can make/convey force that is not one of the above listed three?

Again keeping it simple, if I don't push back and I get moved, I want to be moved such that my weight is committed straight down such that I am not unbalanced when I am moved.
this is getting beyond the topic of 'resisting' a push.
Because of this constant movement away from the topic of 'resisting' the push, I feel that you believe that non-resistance is a key part of 'internal'. If this is so, why disagree that the athletic model I described is not the best way to 'resist' a push? If 'internal' and the belief that Aikido in naturally an 'internal' art, has to do mostly with non-resistance, then can we start to agree here? If we are talking about 'resisting' and 'internal' doesn't resist, then why argue this point?

This often results in the attacker loosing their balance. There are specific drills which can work on that, but that is more complex than what we are talking about now. Generally speaking, for most people, if they are moved, they weight gets committed in the direction they are moved, in part because their body "deforms" as a result of the inputted force which compromises their posture. I assume you agree with this as indicated by your comments about having to reset/regain that structural posture.
I agree that if you move, you need to realign to maintain alignment.

Active pushing can be used in different ways than "resisting". That is to say as I touched on elsewhere in other diagrams, you can push with the force rather than against it and something else happens entirely than the typical you push/I pull dynamic. I think we both agree that pushing directly in opposition to the force is not what should be done in aikido/IS.
I agree, so can we simply say that 'internal' doesn't really have to do with resistance to pushing? If we can't say that, then how does an 'internally trained' body resist a push". If the answer is deflection of force, or something similar (redirection etc. etc.) then again, we are not talking about resistance. So are we not talking about resistance at all?

The problem of course is what can we do when your structure is compromised, or if you are in a position in which you can't use structure at all, which for most people results in pushing against that force in some manner.

For me personally, I feel zero additional muscular effort whether I direct a force to my front foot or my rear foot, though to be honest, I am really "splitting" the forces between the two.

You could use muscular tension, but that isn't "internal" and has obvious disadvantages. I stated other portions of the anatomy which can convey forces. You could use different sets of muscle pairs, which I agree could be construed as muscular tension (although the opponent won't feel it as such). You eventually want to use the musculature of the torso to direct and pull on the limbs via some of those support structures,
I don't understand these distinctions. So you are using muscles, and muscles are tensing. So how is it that if the body is not in alignment with the ground, you can use less muscular tension?

Of course the bones still convey the force, but with conditioning, other portions of the body can convey that force as well and thus don't require the limited postures of which you can utilize access good skeletal alignment.
How can this be done without requiring more muscular force. In my simple diagram I was showing how the muscles don't have to work so hard if they can align the bones, so the bones take the force. If you are not aligning with the ground (this is what would allow you to have less limited postures) and the muscles are not taking the force (requiring more muscular tension) then what other "thing" is taking the force?

This is where the internal approach differs. You don't need to reset to any particular alignment, as long as you are still "connected" or not off balance. Same thing shown in Forrest's video.
So how is it that you do not have to reset (make a new alignment) and you don't have to use more muscular force (the muscles take the force)? To me it sounds like we agree, there are only three things in the body that make force. You are eliminating two of them, and somehow making more/better force. How can you do that? What is providing the resistance? In my model only two things provide resistance the bones (aligning with the ground) and the muscle (providing active force). You seem to be saying the the connective tissue, which is soft, not having a rigid structure can keep the body upright and resist more force, then a body using bones, muscles and connective tissue. How does that happen?

These things are really getting too long. We need to agree on something very soon.

Last edited by akiy : 01-31-2013 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tags

  Reply With Quote