View Single Post
Old 02-02-2013, 12:11 PM   #28
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,646
Re: experiences in applying a float to waza?

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
In your table example, how is there not an equal upwards force from the members of the table,
There is, the table is lower, and it's under (whatever you put on it) making force. This is why the thing- you or a table has to be lower in order to make force to push them up. Otherwise you can't "float" anything you simply push it.

This isn't just imagery, if ones partner pops up on their heels, and feels no force on force component.
No one, is saying that this result doesn't happen. But it doesn't happen the way you describe. You can't be under something without being physically lower than it is- it's not possible. You can't bounce force out of the ground and make someone pop up in the way you are describing. Even if you could, it would be much less efficient (due to force going all the way down, and coming all the way up through both of your bodies), then it would be to simply get under them and raising them up. You would lose power not gain power.

I used to think this too, did the same, and saw others who work on the Aunkai method do the same. If you know how to push back with your hips, then I can source from the quads, then you source from the calf (source meaning resist or push back with), then I source from the ankles, then you source form the toes and I loose. If we both can push back at each other from the toes, then neither of us can win by pushing from a lower point than the other. Usually what happens then is both partners will drop their hips progressively lower than one another.
This is the nature of competition. Two people with equal skills trying to "get" one another. If you are both equally skilled, there isn't a way to avoid this.
Then Alex Lee said to me, well you can't source (push from or resist with) power lower than the bottom of the feet now can you? Instead whoever can direct more of their weight and their opponents weigh+input force into the ground with cause the other person to move. This is Newton's Third Law in action. Thus IS becomes of study of this particular element as a foundational element, upon which you build many other things.
An easier way to say this would simply be, when no one can get lower, the strongest person wins. Again something we see in competition.

You would certainly agree that if I exert a force on a limp arm, that eventually it will extend to a point where there is sufficient tension conveyed into the limb and into the body which will eventually cause the person to move.
Yes, I did say that also.

None the less, if the person is holding on to you, even if their arm feels there will be a tension to some degree. This can be used as they will need to maintain their grip.
So you wouldn't call this tension a "sticking point". What do you call it? Because to me you just described a sticking point, a place where you can exert force on them. Did I miss something here?

I think all of our problems are in semantics and the confusion of imagery and what is happening.

Under has to be below. This is a good example. How can you use the word "under" and not mean that the thing that is "under" is also "lower???? Why would we even discuss this? If you're not lower than something you can't be under it- so why use the word under to describe something that is not lower?

But you do mean under, and to do that you must be lower, but you disagree that you are lower for some reason, even though all of your examples were things that are lower.

This weird semantics thing, with words that have a very clear meaning is making talking about this stuff very hard.

  Reply With Quote