Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Non-Aikido Martial Traditions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-17-2012, 10:30 PM   #76
ashe
 
ashe's Avatar
Dojo: Tempe Arizona I Liq Chuan
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 145
United_States
Offline
Re: Two centers making a connection or one- in a bujutsu body?

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Hi Ryan
Sam's comment...my present is your future....matches my own. (gee what a surprise!)
well, sort of...

Sifu's comment is more of a description of an expanded mental state (as a cause), as opposed to a physical skill or skill set (i.e the effect / outcome on an opponent) , although it [awareness] will increase your physical skill. it's a description of the result of advanced awareness, which can be applied to your shen fa (body method).

the expanded awareness allows you to notice change sooner, monitor more variables and adjust.

if we compare using mindfulness to improve your shen fa to a fire, adding more fuel / wood (mindfulness) results in more flame, but wood itself is not the flame in the same way that awareness is not the shen fa itself.

most people train their shen fa into a reflexive kind of habit, which is a very different approach than what Sifu is advocating.

from an ILC point of view, our skill on touch is dependent on mindfulness, but mindfulness itself is independent of the skill, which is why meditation is such an important part of the ILC training process.

tiger at the gate
-----------------------
discipline, concentration & wisdom
Twitter-@luoyegongfu
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 09:05 AM   #77
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Aikido
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 928
United_States
Offline
Re: Two centers making a connection or one- in a bujutsu body?

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Training to link the inside to the outside is a requirement and is far more difficult to do correctly IMO than people give credit to. And.....it has nothing to do with connecting to someone else's center.
Let's break it down into component parts. Train the insides to be connected. Manage the up-down ground-gravity that's always applying. Make any external force part of the system that you control. Any disagreements so far? I know, it's a simplification and there's a lot more. But as you start to go down the path below of applying value statements to a specific slice of an approach to train a very specific things - and then seem to broaden that perspective into how you're going to then apply the entirety of the skillset in the realm of sparring and fighting, seems specious to me at best and lacks credibility. If I train a sensitivity skill drill where I close my eyes to better feel what's happening around me, does that somehow mean that in a fight I will keep my eyes closed? In a contest?

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
I think you, and many others advocating this lower level (lower/high level- not low level) work of connecting centers are missing some very important key factors that can see you undone at higher levels. And you are beginning...in the wrong direction. Try thinking of this. If you pushed on a Tibetin prayer wheel attached to a post and it turned...would have made a connection to your center? Or would its structure have just moved and you lost yours. Now, thinking of internals without or with movement; you can move inside or inside to outside, in a such a way that it doesn't expose your center, and anyone touching you, becomes part of you as ....you move. And it can be done without exposing your center to them but having theirs exposed to yours.
I have a nice paper somewhere arguing for that understanding out of China. And there was a nice video talking about hiding your center while taking theirs done by one of the Chen guys. No matter. I am sure everyone is happy doing there thing.
Ah, but I think where we're going to have to agree to disagree is around the common understanding of some of the interpretations of just what you're describing above. I have some papers and testimonials and personal experiences too at this point, and like you said, I'm sure everyone is happy doing their thing. But if I look just academically at what you describe above - you're saying that the internal action required isn't as important as the external frame managing things? (Tibetan wheel example) I don't think that's what you're saying but can you see how it comes across that way (and thus creates a false impression)? If it is what you're saying, then I'd argue your understanding of what's actually being advocated (that you keep bringing up and arguing against) may be a tad off . .

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Really?
Well...I can't wait to meet em.
I will only say that in relation to the type of movement and training I am talking about, there is a quite a bit of expert opinion that agrees with me. I will also add that ....I..... did what I was challenged to do in these very pages (unlike some)....I HAVE taken it to freestyle push hands with big dog experts in open rooms. Trust me-the last f-ing thing you would EVER want to do is to "make connection"...with their centers!!! As well I am doing it with MMA fighters and a ridiculous amount of Kali, Escrima, Koryyu, Aikido and Daito ryu teachers and others....and sparred with them?????
Thus far...things have gone very well for me.
And?
Anyone else done that....yet?
Anyone?
At least ...I...am stepping up and trying and experimenting
I am not gonna comment on who you have met and what those outcomes have been. That's a zero sum game. Likewise, I tend not to talk about who I get together worth, for good or bad. Additionally likewise, I still think you're escalating a training drill with a specific purpose in mind to a full-blown approach - which puzzles me, especially as the alternative you're giving seems to be more in the realm of a physical conditioning engine - which I agree is important, but cooperative and working with rather than in replacement of.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
I have no ego about winning or losing. Nothing has changed from my wrestling days. If I win I win, if I lose I win because I learn. It's just more research for me...yeah!!!
I think that's the whole point of forcing yourself into positions of training to failure. That's one of the most effective ways to learn and see what needs to improve. Find those people that can outclass you in specific ways and keep learning from them

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
I feel the same. No more fighting and bad blood. but in all honesty...and fairness. I think it is partly because I and others have taken it out for a spin on an international scale and UNLIKE the ki war days.
We...deliver!! And in person, there isn't a damn thing that doubters have been able to say. To a man...they were stumped.
Cheers
Dan
I would agree partly that I think it's been more useful for people to get together, try things and out and see for themselves what works, what's available and where this kind of training can go. I'm glad you've had success getting this stuff out there and it's resonating with folks. The more exposure people get, the better.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 03:24 PM   #78
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Two centers making a connection or one- in a bujutsu body?

Quote:
Budd Yuhasz wrote: View Post
Let's break it down into component parts. Train the insides to be connected. Manage the up-down ground-gravity that's always applying. Make any external force part of the system that you control. Any disagreements so far? I know, it's a simplification and there's a lot more. But as you start to go down the path below of applying value statements to a specific slice of an approach to train a very specific things - and then seem to broaden that perspective into how you're going to then apply the entirety of the skillset in the realm of sparring and fighting, seems specious to me at best and lacks credibility. If I train a sensitivity skill drill where I close my eyes to better feel what's happening around me, does that somehow mean that in a fight I will keep my eyes closed? In a contest?
There not the same thing. I'm saying training to connect the centers or training to retain the center are two different approaches, not steps or stages along the same path. So what I am discussing as solo practice retains the same value down the path toward push hands, sparring etc. For that reason it is not the same as me saying you would spar with eyes closed and then open them. Its a different paradigm of movement internal to external.

Quote:
Ah, but I think where we're going to have to agree to disagree is around the common understanding of some of the interpretations of just what you're describing above. I have some papers and testimonials and personal experiences too at this point, and like you said, I'm sure everyone is happy doing their thing. But if I look just academically at what you describe above - you're saying that the internal action required isn't as important as the external frame managing things? (Tibetan wheel example) I don't think that's what you're saying but can you see how it comes across that way (and thus creates a false impression)? If it is what you're saying, then I'd argue your understanding of what's actually being advocated (that you keep bringing up and arguing against) may be a tad off . .
As for papers and testimonials: I know there are different approaches. It is one of the issues I cited years ago here when the argument was being made that all internals fit into a certain paradigm. There are many disagreements regarding approaches in solo training, when and how to introduce things, what is more important, what should be stressed and when, big...disagreements on practical applied use of that training.

My example of the prayer wheel: I threw that out there to make an obvious example of external movement of something that had greater structure than the force acting upon it. I NEVER...meant, said, or alluded to..." the internal action required not being as important as the external frame." Where did you get that from? In fact I discussed the internal management of moving oneself:
from internal to the external..internals without or with movement; you can move inside or inside to outside, in a such a way that it doesn't expose your center, and anyone touching you, becomes part of you as ....you move. And it can be done without exposing your center to them but having theirs exposed to yours."

So, what I actually did say has nothing to do with your reading of it as "the internal not being as important as the external." Your going to have to explain how you understood it Budd, I'm lost to where you got your idea from. Do you really think ...that I think...that external movement is the requirement? Really?


Your overall response to this idea I am stating that retaining your center FROM connecting to their center was to state ..to me.... "That works out great until you meet someone who can actually get into your center." Which is why I responded as to my own personal success and other big dogs vetting of the same model. I suppose you meant it works out fine until a practitioner (anyone) meets someone who outclasses them and -not me personally. So.....all good. Lets stick to the topic.

In keeping with that
The important part is how a practitioner is organizing his system internally and how that is being used with his system externally to manage load. Carrying weight on a point on the body; arm shoulder chest etc., and supporting it by creating a ground connection is not the same as "dealing" with the same load on a given point by "receiving it...at all. The requirement is there-but not the need. The ability to make change, eliminates the moment of force alighting, The method to enact change, is internal. External movement will not cover it and will in fact many times mask the failure of poor connection.

The differences are easy to understand and not complex. Lets assume we agree on the internal management;
1. One way is to allow external force into the practitioners body and they manage the additional force load with.... the forces being managed already in the practitioners body.
2. The other way is to not allow external force into the practitioners body and yet still do so with... the forces being managed already in the practitioners body.

The key issue for our purposes here is that in both models the body is supporting the load internally. one allows it to enter and be manipulated, the other has it always reside on the surface and has it manipulated. You..think this means external movement requirements. I am stating there is every bit as much internal work going on in that scenario.

In the end though it is important to realize that you can affect and take someone's center, without ever attaching yourself to theirs or revealing yours.

There are some direct teachings on this in DR and why it is too be avoided. there are even some interesting drawings floating around on the web. Other teachings exist in Koryu; discussing never receiving power from someones weapon. Something which is desperately important were you to consider facing large weapons with a sword or short sword. Other teachings exist in Taiji, where their power may never alight on your body. An interesting example of which is the famous myth of the Tai chi saint who held a bird in his hand and it couldn't fly away from his ability to neutralize it's lift.

Anyone who can do what I am talking about can easily allow force to alight on them and deal with it going through them and neutralizing or adding to their forces in a myriad of ways. Not everyone who has the skill to neutralize and generate forces in them has attained the level of having those forces reside ever present on the surface and know how to manipulate those forces while they reside on the surface. The means to do this can and are displayed with almost no movement, to obvious movement, but the qualities of that movement must move in accord with in yo and are not...not...normal movement. It is exceedingly difficult to attain, evne slowly, much less to become second nature....at speed.

I think many keep misunderstanding the use of internal strength to connect to another's center for the simple reason that they are trying to make a kata or technique "work." The process of -having- to make a kata work means many times you have to deal with their center in otherwise unnatural constructs. Lets say you have to take the slack out of -them- and you to move them. This is not a requirement in a fight or even in push hands where the need to do something is not prevalent. You can remain neutral, and be predatory and opportunistic.

Quote:
I still think you're escalating a training drill with a specific purpose in mind to a full-blown approach - which puzzles me, especially as the alternative you're giving seems to be more in the realm of a physical conditioning engine - which I agree is important, but cooperative and working with rather than in replacement of.
I think that's the whole point of forcing yourself into positions of training to failure. That's one of the most effective ways to learn and see what needs to improve. Find those people that can outclass you in specific ways and keep learning from them

I would agree partly that I think it's been more useful for people to get together, try things and out and see for themselves what works, what's available and where this kind of training can go. I'm glad you've had success getting this stuff out there and it's resonating with folks. The more exposure people get, the better.
It's not going to be conducive to the discussion to talk about each other, All I am going to say is that I will continue on this path until I meet the people you are describing who can supposedly...easily handle...the methods I am employing. As stated I was advised to keep meeting big dogs, I will continue to do so. If I get tuned I will let you know and hopefully I might get some different approaches. Rest assured when it happens, I will be all ears and having fun!!

Dan

Last edited by DH : 10-18-2012 at 03:32 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 09:46 AM   #79
Budd
 
Budd's Avatar
Dojo: Taikyoku Aikido
Location: Williamsville, NY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 928
United_States
Offline
Re: Two centers making a connection or one- in a bujutsu body?

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
There not the same thing. I'm saying training to connect the centers or training to retain the center are two different approaches, not steps or stages along the same path. So what I am discussing as solo practice retains the same value down the path toward push hands, sparring etc. For that reason it is not the same as me saying you would spar with eyes closed and then open them. Its a different paradigm of movement internal to external.
I know we disagree on this and I think I get your perspective. That said, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree as the only options I see from my perspective are either 1) The connection part I'm talking about gets included in what you're doing already (which I'm skeptical of, but don't have a definitive opinion one way or another) 2) There's a disconnect what's meant regarding the connection and force management already - which at this point of talking past each other a few times I don't think is gonna get resolved in debate. The only reason I keep pressing the point is that you keep bringing up the "make a connection" and "four-legged animal" approach as flawed (even in light of attempts at explain where I think you might be misunderstanding what's intended as a result of the approach) and I've not seen your logic support that beyond saying there's a better way to manage the body for applications and fighting. The logical path doesn't compute for me based on what I've experienced chasing the internal strength stuffs nor with the efforts I've made to put it in more live pressure testing.

Another example - the back bow and how it trains some things from a body conditioning and awareness perspective. I know some folks that get hung up on how it looks and others that don't do the appropriate work and think that the back bow is some sort of application. In either case I can see how people would write it off entirely - never minding how it changes externally the frame and then governs how force loads are delivered internally into the system - kind of an awakening moment to get the mind to understand how the body can function differently than previously thought. But the folks that get too hung up on it being either a funny looking activity or a flawed application won't be able to benefit in either case. No big whoop if they are getting the skills and conditioning some other way (Which I'm sure most think they are), but then lots of people assume they are already doing this stuff anyways

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
As for papers and testimonials: I know there are different approaches. It is one of the issues I cited years ago here when the argument was being made that all internals fit into a certain paradigm. There are many disagreements regarding approaches in solo training, when and how to introduce things, what is more important, what should be stressed and when, big...disagreements on practical applied use of that training.
And I wish it were a better playground for people to get together and try things out, have the disagreements, work through them credibly etc. I see too much posturing and opinions metamorphed into proclaimed academics - it sours me from participating outside of my little box most of the time. I figure everyone involved will all get what they're looking for one way or another.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
My example of the prayer wheel: I threw that out there to make an obvious example of external movement of something that had greater structure than the force acting upon it. I NEVER...meant, said, or alluded to..." the internal action required not being as important as the external frame." Where did you get that from? In fact I discussed the internal management of moving oneself:
from internal to the external..internals without or with movement; you can move inside or inside to outside, in a such a way that it doesn't expose your center, and anyone touching you, becomes part of you as ....you move. And it can be done without exposing your center to them but having theirs exposed to yours."

So, what I actually did say has nothing to do with your reading of it as "the internal not being as important as the external." Your going to have to explain how you understood it Budd, I'm lost to where you got your idea from. Do you really think ...that I think...that external movement is the requirement? Really?
Of course not, that's the point I was making - it's easy to take a slice of an argument or supposition and then extrapolate it in ways that defy credibility and accuracy. That's kinda how I keep scratching my head at your continued stance of decrying the "center to center connection" work. I understand that you wouldn't bring it up if you didn't think it worth mentioning, but I guess I have to fundamentally disagree once more for the record before I go about my way.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Your overall response to this idea I am stating that retaining your center FROM connecting to their center was to state ..to me.... "That works out great until you meet someone who can actually get into your center." Which is why I responded as to my own personal success and other big dogs vetting of the same model. I suppose you meant it works out fine until a practitioner (anyone) meets someone who outclasses them and -not me personally. So.....all good. Lets stick to the topic.
Actually - No. That was me saying in an offhand way that's it's easy to flip your logic around of "This will fail against X" and turning it into "That will fail against Y". See what I did there? I am in agreement that it's not credible to make such suppositions without full exposure and understanding.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
In keeping with that
The important part is how a practitioner is organizing his system internally and how that is being used with his system externally to manage load. Carrying weight on a point on the body; arm shoulder chest etc., and supporting it by creating a ground connection is not the same as "dealing" with the same load on a given point by "receiving it...at all. The requirement is there-but not the need. The ability to make change, eliminates the moment of force alighting, The method to enact change, is internal. External movement will not cover it and will in fact many times mask the failure of poor connection.
Here's where we agree

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
The differences are easy to understand and not complex. Lets assume we agree on the internal management;
1. One way is to allow external force into the practitioners body and they manage the additional force load with.... the forces being managed already in the practitioners body.
2. The other way is to not allow external force into the practitioners body and yet still do so with... the forces being managed already in the practitioners body.

The key issue for our purposes here is that in both models the body is supporting the load internally. one allows it to enter and be manipulated, the other has it always reside on the surface and has it manipulated. You..think this means external movement requirements. I am stating there is every bit as much internal work going on in that scenario.

In the end though it is important to realize that you can affect and take someone's center, without ever attaching yourself to theirs or revealing yours.
I think you're extrapolating the example I gave of the validity of arguing against a whole approach based on a flawed understanding of a specific model - into now I think you're moving externally. Not what I said at all. I also think you're creating a false division based on how you want to segment what you see as two approaches. While I think there are differences in approach, I wouldn't categorize or align them as you did - even while I agree in tactical application you are showing the differences of someone with a connected body taking someone's center while masking their own - versus someone leaving theirs open. I do not believe anyone is advocating leaving their center open - and my experiences with the approach you are decrying are that nobody gives up their center for the taking except in drills to give someone a dumb force to react to. (just like every other legitimate place I've seen practice)

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
There are some direct teachings on this in DR and why it is too be avoided. there are even some interesting drawings floating around on the web. Other teachings exist in Koryu; discussing never receiving power from someones weapon. Something which is desperately important were you to consider facing large weapons with a sword or short sword. Other teachings exist in Taiji, where their power may never alight on your body. An interesting example of which is the famous myth of the Tai chi saint who held a bird in his hand and it couldn't fly away from his ability to neutralize it's lift.
Another example is the Taiji man who would stand peeing off the edge of a hill/drop and offer his students the chance to push him over it from behind when he wasn't looking - many tried, none could. Yadda yadda . . the point is a developed and conditioned body is going to behave differently than someone still figuring out how ground and gravity act on them in real functional life. That's a long road to travel - lots of ways to get hung up along the way.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Anyone who can do what I am talking about can easily allow force to alight on them and deal with it going through them and neutralizing or adding to their forces in a myriad of ways. Not everyone who has the skill to neutralize and generate forces in them has attained the level of having those forces reside ever present on the surface and know how to manipulate those forces while they reside on the surface. The means to do this can and are displayed with almost no movement, to obvious movement, but the qualities of that movement must move in accord with in yo and are not...not...normal movement. It is exceedingly difficult to attain, evne slowly, much less to become second nature....at speed.
Yup and at speed is where things more easily break down depending on what's been conditioned and how the skill level allows for it to be applied and made manifest. Nobody's arguing against that, either.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
I think many keep misunderstanding the use of internal strength to connect to another's center for the simple reason that they are trying to make a kata or technique "work." The process of -having- to make a kata work means many times you have to deal with their center in otherwise unnatural constructs. Lets say you have to take the slack out of -them- and you to move them. This is not a requirement in a fight or even in push hands where the need to do something is not prevalent. You can remain neutral, and be predatory and opportunistic.
Whole bunch of things there. Thinking an internal strength drill means you can fight is stupid. Thinking because you can perform a choreographed kata means you can fight is stupid. Thinking your internal strength conditioning can be applied easily in a fight without having some progressive resistance training to give you a clue is stupid. None of these things are being argued for as near as I can tell, so please stop presenting them as if I am in favor of them.

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
It's not going to be conducive to the discussion to talk about each other, All I am going to say is that I will continue on this path until I meet the people you are describing who can supposedly...easily handle...the methods I am employing. As stated I was advised to keep meeting big dogs, I will continue to do so. If I get tuned I will let you know and hopefully I might get some different approaches. Rest assured when it happens, I will be all ears and having fun!!

Dan
I think that's the way to go - keep genuinely seeking people that can tune you up in ways that surprise you and then learn what the hell they are doing. Best way to improve, near as I can tell and while I won't name names - I have no problem admitting that there's any number of folks in internal arts and combat sports that have been tuning me up in fun ways - which I'm okay with because I've learned a ton. With that, I think I'll bow out. Have a bunch of stuff to finish at work and gonna be traveling next week so between preparing and being away - will not be around that much.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 10:21 AM   #80
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Two centers making a connection or one- in a bujutsu body?

One last point.
Quote:
I also think you're creating a false division based on how you want to segment what you see as two approaches. While I think there are differences in approach, I wouldn't categorize or align them as you did - even while I agree in tactical application you are showing the differences of someone with a connected body taking someone's center while masking their own - versus someone leaving theirs open. I do not believe anyone is advocating leaving their center open - and my experiences with the approach you are decrying are that nobody gives up their center for the taking except in drills to give someone a dumb force to react to. (just like every other legitimate place I've seen practice)
You still haven't categorized or aligned...anything!! much less defined your distinction of the differences, Budd. Give me something to cause me pause. You haven't as yet offered anything by way of rebuttal.
Example:
I said "....It is important to realize that you can affect and take someone's center, without ever attaching yourself to theirs or revealing yours."
You replied "....nobody gives up their center for the taking except in drills...
You are not making any clear distinctions, worth discussing, that produce a benefit other than repeating it might or might not be a needed step. Whereas I have outlined why it is not needed as a step.
I will assume you know you can apply weight and force without giving your center to someone, that you can manipulate their force without giving them access to your center. You seem to understand and agree to this in your replies.So, it begs the question, since you agree this can be done, why any need to "connect" to their center at all?

Do you think you "need" to connect to someones canter to throw them? That's not even necessary in external arts, much less internal. Consider their own connection -to themselves- in the equation of forces meeting. If they are muscling through a movement, and they encounter a person who is internally connected, the connected person can let the muscle guys power pull on themselves and get placed, or arrive at a place they can't manage due to the way they carry themselves. In kata it has one result, in jujutsu it will just cause a series of positional changes to take place until one has an advantage. This is what I meant by opportunistic and predatory. In the end though, the lessor connected person ends up being reactionary as the neutralizing of forces inside the connected person carries through to the outside "on contact" in such a way that it is consistently instant and in the now by default. Empty hand or weapons no matter.

To touch a hand or arm of a connected person is a different event than touching the arm of muscle/shoulder/hip driven person. The first step in managing those forces is to manage forces in you that support any contact point and dissolve the forces so they have no entry point. Hence no need to connect to their center at all. If they are not connected they can be bounced, re-directed and hit, kicked or thrown, or re-positioned. If they are connected the game can continue.

In any event, "connecting" to their center, or having their forces go through you to connect to them is unnecessary for kuzushi to occur or be created.
Quote:
Thinking an internal strength drill means you can fight is stupid. Thinking because you can perform a choreographed kata means you can fight is stupid. Thinking your internal strength conditioning can be applied easily in a fight without having some progressive resistance training to give you a clue is stupid. None of these things are being argued for as near as I can tell, so please stop presenting them as if I am in favor of them.
They were examples of practicality in use... only for talking points. I know you enough to know you understand the practical fighting game, so I was talking ...to you.... not down to you...on shared end-use goals, Budd.
Nice talking with you and being able to debate without the B.S.
Dan

Last edited by DH : 10-20-2012 at 10:26 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Mugendo Budogu - Dogi cut to specifically to wear with hakama!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Value of atemi DustinAcuff Techniques 67 06-08-2007 08:35 AM
Training the Body for Martial Movement Upyu Training 25 01-03-2007 11:24 AM
Training the Body. Part 2: Exercesis Upyu Training 16 12-21-2006 01:54 PM
Systema Seminar with Vladimir Vasiliev, Part 1 aikibaka131 Seminars 2 07-22-2003 12:45 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate