Thread: Chinkon Kishin
View Single Post
Old 02-04-2008, 12:26 AM   #176
TomW
Dojo: Kodokan
Location: Portland, OR
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 54
Offline
Re: Chinkon Kishin

Quote:
Erick Mead wrote: View Post
We can also call the sea dry, but that doesn't make it so. You mean to say that the small degree of non-equilibirum in normal functions can be discounted. In a nonlinear system we are expressly training to drive outside the "normal" parameters it cannot be discounted without some significant evidence of no effect. Differences in initial conditions far too small for trivial measurement can have hugely disproportionate results.

Really? Then why train at all?

Micrometers in the soleus and gastrocnemius still allow for hip sways the width of the space between the hip joints or better. The sways are only partially damped by ankle stiffness, and the micrometer movements of the soleus, for example, merely initiates the sagittal sway/countersway, it does not actuate it through the entire range of motion like a hydraulic piston -- never mind the torso core controlling the other major pendulum attached to the top of the hips.

Not mine. In this case, that would be Loram, Magnaris, et al.
Again pedantic Erick, but as Loram, Magnaris, et al suggest here in their analogy for us laymen:

Quote:
Here is a simple analogy that illustrates the impulsive ballistic nature of the process. Imagine trying to maintain a heavy ball as still as possible on a hillside. The ball is controlled by striking it with a bat at a relatively fixed rate. The motion of the ball will be caused by the blows themselves. It will move sometimes up the hill (because the effect of the blows are greater than gravity) and sometimes down the hill (effect of blows less than gravity), but not in any regular way. It can be maintained near the top of the hill or near the bottom or at any point in between. To do this, the batter has to judge the size of each blow. We suggest that in essence it is this never ending, trial and error process which has to be carried out in human standing. The process of loss of balance and regaining balance has to be repeatedly solved under the ever changing conditions of balance and we suggest that this is a skilled, trial and error activity that improves with experience rather than a reflex process.
balance is a learned exercise of the subconscious, (teach your children to walk?) and if this is so, (and again is a reasonable assumption, since we subconsciously manage to not topple over on a daily basis) it is not beyond the realm of possibility to further refine the balance process through training to attain results well beyond the norm? Otherwise, why train at all?

And NEVER say never:
Quote:
Literally, bipedal equilibrium is a moving target you approach but NEVER get to, and are always in the process of not falling away from.
You can't know this with any amount of credible certainty. It is quite possible that the random perturbations will cause the pendulum to attain equilibrium, if only momentarily.

All this aside, I have been slightly perplexed by your refusal to accept any idea that is outside your ability to comprehend through nonlinear dynamics. Until I read your post here:

Quote:
You do not understand because you fundamentally mistake my purpose and methods. I am fully aware that there is an adversarial view among the usual suspects here. Not only do I have no wish to convert them to my way of thinking, I welcome their adversarial posture. THAT IS WHY I expound -- to see if a known and motivated opposition to my views comes up with something objective to rebut any points I have posited. That is the only test I am interested in here, and it routinely satisfies the need. By saying this plainly, of course, some may likely ignore me completely out of some misguided spite ("Shun! Shun the non-believer! Shuuuuun!) , but I do not take you, Tim, as that kind of adversary.
I now realize you aren't here looking for a model that explains what we do, (I may be a little slow at times), you're looking for a model that counters what you do. I'm not interested in providing that for you (though I think your angular momentum theory has some holes). If your model is working for you, you should use it. Personally don't care to convert you any more than you me, my posts were merely a disinformed attempt to offer some clarity. Indeed I will ignore you hence, though not out of spite, misguided or otherwise, your discourse is simply not relevant to my training.

Back to sitting on my hands.

Tom Wharton

Kodokan Aikido - Puttin' the Harm in Harmony,
  Reply With Quote