View Single Post
Old 08-10-2011, 02:37 PM   #47
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
Re: more basis for conceptual integration of linear and spiral?

Alex Borghgraef wrote: View Post
Yeah, I brought that on myself, eh... Well, call it connected whole body force driven by some form of shenfa. Don't want to exclude any interesting mechanisms out of 'big 3' puritanism. Not really relevant to the discussion though...
Thanks. However that's vague enough that I question(ed) the premise of "internal" with which you start your discussion. "Whole body", someone might also pipe up, what's *not* whole body? You see my point..... "internal", what's that? Etc.
First of all, you add force vectors, you get a force vectors, and vectors are by definition linear. So the entire 'linear force' schtick is both as true as 1=1, and equally useless.
Like the "internal" schtick?

Secondly, when resisting a push, if the forces along the path through the body are uniformly distributed, the summed force between dantian and hand will coincide with a line between them. But this goes for any point along the path, be it the foot or the shoulder, so that's not what makes dantian special.
That's a good point. I agree to some extent, except that I'd note that the dantien is at/near the center of mass of the body and it's on the receiving end of the legs' connection to the ground. I.e., it is not just a point on a line.

If we got into dynamics of the dantien, then I'd note that the dantien is much more than just a point on the line, but we weren't discussing dynamics.

Also, since the body is not uniform (chain of hinges remember), uniform distribution is only an approximation, something to strive for. Finally, there is no guarantee that equally distributed force is the only solution leading to this dantian-hand force vector, probably plenty of ways of doing it wrong using local force. Which is what I said to you earlier, and probably (though I won't speak for him) what Dan's saying in his criticism of your "just relax" admonition. Too vague, too many ways of doing it wrong while deluding yourself you're doing it right.

Regarding spirals, I'm sure you're capable of finding spirals in human movement (after all, you've mentioned them yourself), but they're not really relevant to the scope of my point.
So you don't have a real counterpoint, just a sort of picking at the edge of 'vagueness'? The spirals thing I dealt with in another post earlier today. I think the veil is lifted for a number of people.

My relationship to you?
Sort of like Justin Smith and Stan Baker. Very similar... except they always signed their names.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote