Why do you perceive "internal" superior to athleticism?

Chris Hein wrote: I've never got the feeling that Aikido people are saying that you have to study Aikido in order to understand Daito ryu. That is the difference for me.

Who's saying that you have to study Daito-ryu in order to understand Aikido? Not me, not even Dan. What most of those folks are saying is that you have to study what Morihei Ueshiba was doing - and that, in the core, is the same engine that drives Daito-ryu. If studying what Morihei Ueshiba did isn't Aikido, than what is?

As for going outside - Tohei went outside, so did Shioda, Nishio, and Yamaguchi. Oh yes, even Morihei Ueshiba went outside. Why ought we to be any different?

Chris Hein wrote: Okay, so back to the original question, in what areas is IP training superior to regular Athletics training? What can an IP person do that a regular athlete not do?

OK, if we suppose that a "regular athlete" is someone who's conventionally trained in Aikido (which means little or no IP training of the type that we're talking about), then where are the equals in that group of Morihei Ueshiba, Kodo Horikawa or even Gozo Shioda?

That's the difference.

Best,

Chris

Chris Hein wrote: The idea that only a few people possess this IP, and that you have to study with them personally to understand "Aiki", is a fallacy. This idea that IP is "Aiki" suggests that your Aikido is lacking if you don't study with one of these few teachers personally. I can't let that one go.

Actually I'm with Chris on this one. Only because there is a similarly lacking definition of the types and ranges of skills that comprise "pure" IS versus the types and ranges of skills that comprise "aiki".

Like all good philosophers that never really got on with an argument without first arguing (sometimes endlessly) with definitions how much progress can be made at delineating IS from aiki or internal versus external unless we are all clear on what each constitutes?

Not to raise too much of a mess there is plenty of aiki (as I would consider it) in Shidare Yangi Ryu but not so much in the way of IS (as I understand it). Of course, I'm on the outside looking in... sounds like a different thread (but not really).

Christopher Li wrote: Who's saying that you have to study Daito-ryu in order to understand Aikido?

You miss understood me, or I didn't make myself clear. I'm saying that there is this feeling that IP people are saying that Ip is "Aiki", and that your Aikido is missing something if you don't train IP. I was making an analogy between Aikido people and Daito ryu people. I don't believe that Aikido people are saying that you have to study Aikido to understand Daito ryu; but I do feel that IP people are saying you have to study IP to understand Aikido.

As for going outside - Tohei went outside, so did Shioda, Nishio, and Yamaguchi. Oh yes, even Morihei Ueshiba went outside. Why ought we to be any different?

I train outside of Aikido all the time, I think it's a great idea. I don't think you need to study something other then Aikido to understand Aikido though.

OK, if we suppose that a "regular athlete" is someone who's conventionally trained in Aikido (which means little or no IP training of the type that we're talking about), then where are the equals in that group of Morihei Ueshiba, Kodo Horikawa or even Gozo Shioda?

I'm not exactly sure I know what you're talking about here. I guess you are saying that no one is as good as Ueshiba, Kondo, or Shioda. I don't agree with that. I think there are lot's of as good, if not better Aikido teachers out there right now.

Okay, video as I promised.

I'll be the first to say, my shikko doesn't look nearly as good as Ark's. I have also only done this exercise twice in my life, for about a total of 60 seconds. If I had a year to practice, I'm sure it would look much better. I wanted to get the video up quickly though, because I promised I would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHuWiIquTM

Eric Joyce wrote: Tim Cartmell: I think I summed up my feelings about the internal and external styles above. I would only add that I believe it is important to respect the practitioners of all types of martial arts, regardless of the style. Remaining humble with an open mind is the only way to continuous improvement. You can learn something from just about everyone. I often tell my students, "if it works for you, it's good." [/indent] I think the last comment on respecting practitioners of all types of martial arts says it best.

I agree - I think the bolded portion above should be posted on every wall in every dojo or other place of practice - it says it all...

Greg

Chris Hein wrote: but I do feel that IP people are saying you have to study IP to understand Aikido.

I feel that way too .

If you ask me, that questions's been pretty much talked out in the public forums. There are plenty of public opportunities available now - come see Dan in March when he comes back to Hawaii.

Chris Hein wrote: I'm not exactly sure I know what you're talking about here. I guess you are saying that no one is as good as Ueshiba, Kondo, or Shioda. I don't agree with that. I think there are lot's of as good, if not better Aikido teachers out there right now.

Well, I disagree, but that's just me.

Best,

Chris

Daniel James wrote: Wii board - excellent idea, will try to get my hands On one and see what it can do. Now for some expert subjects to test downunder...

Add an EEG
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/4/439.full.pdf
Fun starts at p. 454

Chris Hein wrote: But any areas where IP and athletics might have the same goals (moving heavy weights, dynamically using the body, explosive force etc.) why would IP be a favored method of training over common athletic training. Plyometrics, aerobics, mobility training, agility drills, are all parts of what I would call common athletics training.

Ok, we're getting somewhere...

I think your first disagreement with most people is going to be this idea that IP and athletics have the same goals. If I wanted to move heavy weights, I'd call a powerlifter or a strongman competitor, no question. But part of the point of IP is that it *doesn't* depend on having enormous physical strength. There is no chance that I can outwrestle an average-sized male simply by getting strong: the women's world records in my weight class are merely average for a 180-200lb man.

Katherine

Chris Hein wrote: The real problem I'm having here, is the theft of the word "Aiki" from the Aikido community. There is a strong vibe that Aiki is what some people call IP, IS, or what have you. I believe this to be very wrong. I believe you can learn "Aiki" from any reasonably skilled, regular, Aikido teacher. "Aiki" is already built into the system, you don't need to spend a lot of money, or go way out of your way to see one of a handful of teachers in order to study "Aiki".

Theft from the aikido community? Where do you think the word "aiki" came from in the first place?

I certainly agree that aikido as developed by Morihei Ueshiba Sensei contained aiki. I don't think anyone is claiming, though, that the average dojo head can do what O Sensei could.

So why not? Is it because he was a martial genius the likes of which comes once in a generation? Or was it because he knew something that the average dojo head does not? And what was that something?

Katherine

Robert M Watson Jr wrote: I believe the correct turn of phrase is 'bozos on the budo bus' since working this hard at things like this one has got to have a few screws loose. The bums are the ones on the side of the road watching the bus go by while yelling 'look at those bozos!'

Hah!
Well, It's an expression used by Meik Skoss. Nothing like a double Menkyo Kaiden reminding people that the arts are greater than ourselves.
All the best
Dan

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Ok, we're getting somewhere... I think your first disagreement with most people is going to be this idea that IP and athletics have the same goals. If I wanted to move heavy weights, I'd call a powerlifter or a strongman competitor, no question. But part of the point of IP is that it *doesn't* depend on having enormous physical strength. There is no chance that I can outwrestle an average-sized male simply by getting strong: the women's world records in my weight class are merely average for a 180-200lb man. Katherine

Things like being shoved into a wall full force, and being able to walk away effortlessly sounds like an issue of moving heavy weight to me. Now it could be an issue of mental suggestion, hypnosis, or some other condition of the mind. Is this what you believe IP to be doing, using the mind of your attacker against him? If this is the case, than I'm more than interested in debating it.

Men are naturally stronger then women, nothing new there. And I wouldn't suggest using strength to defeat a man if I were a woman. But how would IP help you? What does IP give you the ability to do, that is unique?

Daniel James wrote: Wii board - excellent idea, will try to get my hands On one and see what it can do. Now for some expert subjects to test downunder...

This will no doubt come in handy for 'hacking' into the devices data stream.

http://www.wiibrew.org/wiki/Balance_Board_Tools

Chris Hein wrote: Things like being shoved into a wall full force, and being able to walk away effortlessly sounds like an issue of moving heavy weight to me. Now it could be an issue of mental suggestion, hypnosis, or some other condition of the mind. Is this what you believe IP to be doing, using the mind of your attacker against him?

Or a mixture of both.

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Theft from the aikido community? Where do you think the word "aiki" came from in the first place?

The theft comes in the form of saying that Aikido training can't teach "Aiki". Yes Aikido comes from Daito ryu, but Aikido people don't suggest that you can't learn "Aiki" by studying Daito ryu. However IP people do suggest that Aikido people can't teach/don't have "Aiki".

I certainly agree that aikido as developed by Morihei Ueshiba Sensei contained aiki. I don't think anyone is claiming, though, that the average dojo head can do what O Sensei could. So why not? Is it because he was a martial genius the likes of which comes once in a generation? Or was it because he knew something that the average dojo head does not? And what was that something? Katherine

This is a very long and complicated answer. Ueshiba was a unique individual. He did training, and work that few today have gone through. He also had an understanding of human psychology that few today possess. He had good structure and alignment, understood good technique, and was a pretty good mover. But his ability to lead someone's mind was what I believe made him stand out. The ability to lead the mind, as I understand it, is not what IP people are suggesting is happening. Is this what you believe IP is?

Chris, thank you for your reply. I've been thinking about them (letting them simmer on the back burner while I"m cooking dinner, actually, and writing while actual food simmers....).
From my perspective and mine alone, FWIW:
The exercises I'm working on plus others I hope to learn are all aimed, for me, to the goal of developing a very specific skill set. I'm not aiming to throw people harder or faster but to work on a way to connect with my partner and then undermine him without the types of muscling I have felt in a lot of mainstream aikido.
You have provided in answer to me a list of skill sets under the heading of athletic training. Some I know, some I don't. But it strikes me that they are disparate and have different goals, build different types of skills. And I don't see how any of them work on what my understanding of internal power is.

Chris Hein wrote: Okay, video as I promised. I'll be the first to say, my shikko doesn't look nearly as good as Ark's. I have also only done this exercise twice in my life, for about a total of 60 seconds. If I had a year to practice, I'm sure it would look much better. I wanted to get the video up quickly though, because I promised I would. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHuWiIquTM

Thanks for posting Chris. Appreciate you taking the time to show everyone. Good balance with the guy on your back.

Chris Hein wrote: Things like being shoved into a wall full force, and being able to walk away effortlessly sounds like an issue of moving heavy weight to me. Now it could be an issue of mental suggestion, hypnosis, or some other condition of the mind. Is this what you believe IP to be doing, using the mind of your attacker against him? If this is the case, than I'm more than interested in debating it. Men are naturally stronger then women, nothing new there. And I wouldn't suggest using strength to defeat a man if I were a woman. But how would IP help you? What does IP give you the ability to do, that is unique?

Keep in mind that, though I am not a beginner at aikido, this particular approach to it is different and new for me. I'm not claiming any particular expertise. I also cannot personally do "the wall thing" against an arbitrarily large and forceful push.

When I'm able to successfully walk forward against strong resistance, it feels pretty much like I'm just, you know, walking.

It does *not* feel like pushing a car or any other strength-driven pushing. (To test this, have the person offering resistance jump away suddenly: if you fall forward, you're doing it wrong.) Mental "tricks" have nothing to do with it: one easy test is to do it "wrong" deliberately in order to make sure that your partner isn't "helping" in that way.

(Although, we very quickly get into a discussion of the border between mind and body. If I change my partner's perception of his connection with the ground, but do it below the level of either his or my conscious awareness, is that "hypnosis," or is it using my structure to send confusing signals through his nervous system? Consider the experience of stepping off a moving platform onto solid ground.)

Katherine

Chris Hein wrote: The theft comes in the form of saying that Aikido training can't teach "Aiki".

Aikido training can. Many individual dojos and instructors don't. Is it so shocking to suggest that not all instructors are equally knowledgeable or equally blessed with teaching ability?

Katherine

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Add an EEG http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/4/439.full.pdf Fun starts at p. 454

Fascinating - THANK YOU for posting. So many of the direct quotes from the swordsman could have come directly from OSensei, neh?

As one who has learned to affect demonstrable changes in my physiology via [a form of concentration, intent, focus and relaxation that I perceive as "moving ki"] that are the same as others learn to do via meditation or biofeedback [the in the moment feedback being at least partly provided in the form of EEG] I find this particularly interesting. Like those in the study, I cannot "define" ki per se, but experience it as something real in that whatever it is called, it can be manipulated.

To bring this back to the current thread, the little bit of work I"ve started doing in IS definitely resonates with - no, to be more clear, it explains how to approach - the ki exercises I've been doing for some years and taught me how to use a different intent, focus and body while doing the same outward form everybody else on the mat, and yes as a result I do experience a difference from what I used to do that is not related to integrating, say, Pilates, into my aikido.

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Keep in mind that, though I am not a beginner at aikido, this particular approach to it is different and new for me. I'm not claiming any particular expertise. I also cannot personally do "the wall thing" against an arbitrarily large and forceful push. When I'm able to successfully walk forward against strong resistance, it feels pretty much like I'm just, you know, walking. It does *not* feel like pushing a car or any other strength-driven pushing. (To test this, have the person offering resistance jump away suddenly: if you fall forward, you're doing it wrong.) Mental "tricks" have nothing to do with it: one easy test is to do it "wrong" deliberately in order to make sure that your partner isn't "helping" in that way. (Although, we very quickly get into a discussion of the border between mind and body. If I change my partner's perception of his connection with the ground, but do it below the level of either his or my conscious awareness, is that "hypnosis," or is it using my structure to send confusing signals through his nervous system? Consider the experience of stepping off a moving platform onto solid ground.) Katherine

Katherine,
To me it sounds like you are suggesting that IP is actually in the mind. And that you can't use IP on inanimate objects, is this correct?

Are you suggesting,that a person doing IP is somehow sending signals into their partners body, confusing their nervous system, and making them fall down, lose strength etc?

This would mean that Ip can only be used on other people, or perhaps animals, but only living things, correct?

Robert Watson wrote: Actually I'm with Chris on this one. Only because there is a similarly lacking definition of the types and ranges of skills that comprise "pure" IS versus the types and ranges of skills that comprise "aiki". Like all good philosophers that never really got on with an argument without first arguing (sometimes endlessly) with definitions how much progress can be made at delineating IS from aiki or internal versus external unless we are all clear on what each constitutes? Not to raise too much of a mess there is plenty of aiki (as I would consider it) in Shidare Yangi Ryu but not so much in the way of IS (as I understand it). Of course, I'm on the outside looking in... sounds like a different thread (but not really).

I have thought for some time that these were the issues that we need to begin addressing.

Of course, the last attempt didn't get very far, but maybe now the time is ripe.

George Ledyard wrote: The easiest way to answer is to look at the very paradigm you are describing. Athleticism declines over time. The first thing to go is speed. That's why virtually all athletic competitors in any area requiring speed are young. Then power goes. Almost every competitive sport which has folks engaging n competition throughout their lives have age divisions. It's true of fencing, golf, etc. anything in which the skills are based on athleticism. Then of course, there is the fact that athletically based skills require a division between the sexes. Almost no sports have men and women competing directly because men have more speed and power. This also applies, of course, to physical size even when we are talking about the same sex. Wrestling, Judo, Boxing, etc all have weight classes. Why? Because in standard athletically based skills size matters.

I'm very curious about this. I often get the impression that people view "IP/IT/IS" as an equalizer, maybe THE equalizer.

Not all humans respond to training in the same way. Some will reach levels on day one that others will never attain. Some will respond quickly and progress steadily. Some will make significant gains, but will require much effort. Some will have almost no response at all. You will find people everywhere along the bell curve in any endeavor you choose.

None of this is meant to discourage anyone from any type of training. Everyone will make some level of improvement. And if you enjoy the activity, by all means, do it.

Assuming "IP/IT/IS" is a form of conditioning/acquired through conditioning, would it be reasonable to assume that not all people will respond equally to it? That people have different natural aptitudes? If so, what are the implications?

Or is this a skill that all humans can acquire and use equally? And what would explain this unusual outcome?

Chris Hein wrote: Katherine, To me it sounds like you are suggesting that IP is actually in the mind. And that you can't use IP on inanimate objects, is this correct? Are you suggesting,that a person doing IP is somehow sending signals into their partners body, confusing their nervous system, and making them fall down, lose strength etc? This would mean that Ip can only be used on other people, or perhaps animals, but only living things, correct?

I wouldn't care to try to explain it in more detail at my level. I'll leave that to those more knowledgable.

I haven't attempted to do this sort of thing with inanimate objects or with animals. My guess is that these kinds of effects depend on a complex interplay among the nervous and musculoskeletal systems (including fascia) of both partners, but not on higher (i.e. human) consciousness, at least not on the receiving side.

Katherine

Michael Varin wrote: Assuming "IP/IT/IS" is a form of conditioning/acquired through conditioning, would it be reasonable to assume that not all people will respond equally to it? That people have different natural aptitudes? If so, what are the implications?

My guess would be that variations in natural aptitude exist, but can be largely overcome through training and dedication. As is true of most aptitudes, IMO.

Katherine

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Add an EEG http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/4/439.full.pdf Fun starts at p. 454

EEG's are great for looking at cognive and perceptual tasks but any time physical activity is involved the microvolt signals tend to be washed out by muscle activity EMG where even eye blinks become problematic. So for IS investigations deconstruction to find a pivotal 'mental' task would be essential