Where Does The Power come from?

Paige Frazier wrote: I'm not sure i even grasp the concept here. Are you guys (people who think power is derived from the dirt) saying that kick power comes from kicking off of the ground ? Or , are you guys just totally zen and saying that "all power comes from the center of the earth and when i start to kick this magical nonsense runs through the magma and up into my leg to give me strength to throw my leg into the air"? I think there are people here with both points of view.

Hi Paige:

There's a trick you can do with your body if you relax and practice a lot. You can let a path from the ground run from your foot (or whatever has access to the ground; even your butt in a chair) to wherever you want. You can even stand still and move it where you want it (without having to move) and after a while it will be where it needs to be without thinking. Some people can develop the skill to where it is so strong and so automatic that if you push against them with your hand you'll feel something like a blurry pencil-eraser under the skin where you're touching. I can lie down on a massage table and counter the direction of rub from the therapist wih the ground path and he/she will comment that I feel like lead.

All the real "Kokyu Power", "Fa Jing", "power releases", etc., use this power in conjunction with "ki" (which is too involved to get into here). You use ground power for pushes, hits, kicks, withstanding blows, etc. It's the ground power that Tohei and O-Sensei and others are demonstrating in most of the pictures of "ki strength" (notice that they're usually showing some odd posture that still somehow stops a push, etc., from someone... they're showing you how they can manipulate the ground). They're demonstrating that kind of ground power because it is crucial to Aikido.... not because it's a cute parlour trick, etc., that some people think. It's a major subtopic in the issue of real "ki", not the woo-woo kind. Probably it will be your generation that breaks through and starts adding this crucial component back into Aikido in the West. So dig into it and surpass everyone.


Regards,

Mike

David Valadez wrote: As for my position in regards to the part the ground plays in kicking... Paige, "ground reaction force" is a scientific term. As I said, if folks check out the links listed above and/or just do a google search on "ground reaction force" one will see how the ground is indeed involved with the force of and the possibility of the kick. It's not advanced or theoretical physics - it's very basic stuff and it is readily available all over the net. If anything is hocus pocus, it is really the idea that one can generate force without an opposite and equal reaction.

Yes David, i realize most of us are talking about science , im not quite that dumb. But what you said was the ground was
involved with the kick. The original post said that the power for the kick comes from the ground. This is where we get into mystical nonsense , IMO.

Mike Sigman wrote: Hi Paige: There's a trick you can do with your body if you relax and practice a lot. You can let a path from the ground run from your foot (or whatever has access to the ground; even your butt in a chair) to wherever you want. You can even stand still and move it where you want it (without having to move) and after a while it will be where it needs to be without thinking. Some people can develop the skill to where it is so strong and so automatic that if you push against them with your hand you'll feel something like a blurry pencil-eraser under the skin where you're touching. I can lie down on a massage table and counter the direction of rub from the therapist wih the ground path and he/she will comment that I feel like lead. All the real "Kokyu Power", "Fa Jing", "power releases", etc., use this power in conjunction with "ki" (which is too involved to get into here). You use ground power for pushes, hits, kicks, withstanding blows, etc. It's the ground power that Tohei and O-Sensei and others are demonstrating in most of the pictures of "ki strength" (notice that they're usually showing some odd posture that still somehow stops a push, etc., from someone... they're showing you how they can manipulate the ground). They're demonstrating that kind of ground power because it is crucial to Aikido.... not because it's a cute parlour trick, etc., that some people think. It's a major subtopic in the issue of real "ki", not the woo-woo kind. Probably it will be your generation that breaks through and starts adding this crucial component back into Aikido in the West. So dig into it and surpass everyone. Regards, Mike

THIS was what i wanted to know. this kind of stuff is really not my thing. No, i dont believe in it, and this is the stuff i dont wanna talk about.

On the other hand i do believe in Ki. (no, i dont believe it is the sole power of the universe) But my take on ki is that it is something that you as person generate when you are focused and in the zone , hence breathing exercises, warmups , etc. But some kind of magical power that comes from the ground , IMO thats nonsense.

Paige Frazier wrote: THIS was what i wanted to know. this kind of stuff is really not my thing. No, i dont believe in it, and this is the stuff i dont wanna talk about.

When I read this, Paige, I wonder if you're reflecting the view within your own dojo. In other words, you're saying your Sensei doesn't teach these sorts of things, you've heard that they're not real, etc.... and so you're following along in the way you've been taught, like a good student. This is exactly why I have a thing about people being "teachers" when their knowledge is incomplete.... they often mislead sincere beginners. There's something really wrong with that part of it, regardless if they get personally "offended" that someone suggests there might be something they don't know.

Oh well.... keep an open mind, Paige. Once you're shown how to do these things, they add a lot of power to your martial arts and your daily life AND you'll see that while they're unusual body mechanics, they're not "magical". They still obey the laws of physics, even though they're something that looks like "magic" to someone who doesn't understand how they work. Who knows... learn how to do your Aikido with these things and you could become one of the first of the western Aikidoists to reach that level... passing everyone from the current generation.

Regards,

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: When I read this, Paige, I wonder if you're reflecting the view within your own dojo. In other words, you're saying your Sensei doesn't teach these sorts of things, you've heard that they're not real, etc.... and so you're following along in the way you've been taught, like a good student. This is exactly why I have a thing about people being "teachers" when their knowledge is incomplete.... they often mislead sincere beginners. There's something really wrong with that part of it, regardless if they get personally "offended" that someone suggests there might be something they don't know. Oh well.... keep an open mind, Paige. Once you're shown how to do these things, they add a lot of power to your martial arts and your daily life AND you'll see that while they're unusual body mechanics, they're not "magical". They still obey the laws of physics, even though they're something that looks like "magic" to someone who doesn't understand how they work. Who knows... learn how to do your Aikido with these things and you could become one of the first of the western Aikidoists to reach that level... passing everyone from the current generation. Regards, Mike

Let me put this in terms even you can understand. It is very offensive to hear u call my sensei unqualified or to say that his knowledge is incomplete , For your information he DOES teach these kinds of things and I as a person CHOOSE to not believe them. Dont take me for some kind of naive idiot who is a newbie to aikido , because that is not the case. I've been in aikido for 7 1/2 years.

Lets talk about being a beginner fellow 'Aikidoist' , the correct term would be Aikidoka , as i stated in one of the above posts , i DO believe in Ki , but i dont recognize it as some kind of power that would conflict with my religion. To me the idea that you can have magic from the dirt is just stupid . But like i've said a bajillion times yes , i think Ki is an essential part in aikido. You have to focus and you have to believe in yourself and you have to be strong (mentally). Ki may also be a way also for each person to get in tap with what they believe in. For instance, Im a catholic so Ki is a way for me to get in touch with God , If you are of another religion , the same applies with whatever god/goddess/cow you want to worship.

Powers, magic, fairy dust, give me a break.

Paige

Paige,

a) you are not listening

b) you are not listening

c) you are being offensive, not Mike.

Best,
Ron

Ron ,
im listening perfectly, i dont appreciate people judging me because of my beliefs. I am a very open minded person. But the way everyone is describing this power coming from the ground to me that is saying there is power other than God. I'm fairly religious and i choose not to believe this.

As far as being offensive, If anyone was offended it was me. If i offended u mike then i am truly sorry , but all i said was i do not believe in power from the ground. Mike comes at me saying " your sensei doesnt know what hes talkin about , you're a beginner , maybe once you learn you'll be good at aikido... blah blah blah"

That to me is very offensive. And i dont appreciate it. If this crap continues i'll be done with aikiweb, plain and simple. I do know when to quit.

-Paige

Paige Frazier wrote: As far as being offensive, If anyone was offended it was me. If i offended u mike then i am truly sorry , but all i said was i do not believe in power from the ground. Mike comes at me saying " your sensei doesnt know what hes talkin about , you're a beginner , maybe once you learn you'll be good at aikido... blah blah blah"

Sorry, Paige, I wasn't trying to be offensive. I don't even have any idea who your sensei is. First thing, though, is that you've just made a claim about some exact things I said. I didn't say those things, so you need to acknowledge that.

Second thing is this: Assume for a minute that the worst thing I did say (which was "incomplete knowledge", nothing more) is true. I.e., that there are a lot of teachers teaching students and many of them are missing this basic skill (it's not magic, Paige, it's physics).

If there are teachers who are doing this and when it's pointed out (with pretty darned good support from many directions) all they do is start carping about how they are "offended" or how they "have many more years in Budo than so-and-so", or any of the other conceits, then I'm still going to state my opinion. It boils down to this simple question:

Which is more important... that a bunch of people doing something demonstrably incomplete not have anyone discuss it out loud... or is it more important that there be some concern for the students of these teachers who are getting some basic element of their martial art wrong? My opinion is it's more important to discuss these things out loud. If I'm wrong, I don't have a problem listening to the reasoning or why I'm wrong or even in saying so if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's why this topic engenders silence or cries of "I'm offended".

I've been one of those students who spent years with a teacher only to find out later that I had to go back to the beginning and re-do what they taught me because they left out some things they didn't know and they didn't know enough to spot that they didn't know. I've listened to people with 20+ years when they've suddenly realized that the teacher they were so vested in turned out to not have had complete information and what they were doing was missing a crucial element. I say it's a topic worth discussing, holding people to facts, and not trying to take it to the personal level in order to get rid of it. I.e., the best way to discuss these things is to supply factual reasoning, not reasoning based on emotion or belief.

Best Regards,

Mike

Upyu wrote: WHen the kick connects, it only penetrates a couple of inches. Try it some time. Hold an airshield against your shin and have a heavy weight thai boxer kick you. It'll feel like a baseball bat slammed into it, but it won't actually disrupt your center that much. Btw, if you watch a decent kyokushin guy miss with a kick, he'll spin full circle too, so that's not really a measure of "penetration" at all. It's actually the generation of "circular" force, rather than relying on gravity and body's natural structure which impedes more "penetration". I'll see if I can't get a video up sometime w/ the difference.

Kyokushin fighters kick in a way that is very similar to thai boxers.

I don't see how you can use gravity much more than thai boxers already do... kicking up and then arching back down into the thigh or neck as you turn your body so your hips face slightly downward as well.


senshincenter,
I read a couple of those links when you first posted them. No where do they say that the ground reaction force allows the kick to be powerful- Newton's third law which you seem so fond of proves you wrong. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you stand on the ground, gravity is pushing you down. The ground pushes you back up. In order for that to cause the power in the kick, the GRF would need to push back HARDER than you push down which is impossible. The only way to generate power using the ground is to push against it by extending your leg, and that isn't what's done in the thai roundhouse. The ground is merely what you pivot on.

Since you guys seem to want to discuss mystical nonsense I don't think there's any need for me to post on this thread anymore.

Well perhaps we can ease things down a bit. Let us find some common ground here.

We have to all see that this for most involved here does remain a science question and/or at least it is thought to be dealing with "natural" forces. I do not see either (recent) party as suggesting that some kind of paranormal force is involved. Perhaps this, Paige, is what Ron is referring to when he is suggesting that you are not hearing what Mike is saying. In simplest terms, without all the polemical statements (which might indeed and rightly be causing the reactionary rejections), Mike is suggesting that there is a way to use natural forces, forces such as GRF, etc., to gain higher power outputs. The capacity to use these forces and/or to increase one's force at impact or at a bracing angle, etc., is relative to one's skill at transferring such force as desired or needed along the body. This is really just describing a process of basic energy transference and/or the redirection of energy (to use a more familiar phrase), etc. From this perspective, one can see that this is not only well within the grounds of scientific thought, it is also the very core strategic assumption behind all Aikido. In this sense, what he is saying is really beyond rejection.

The "hard to swallow" part someone may feel when hearing of such things is, as Mike suggests, partly do to one's inexperience in practicing energy transference martially and/or at such subtle levels. It is accurate to say that most aikidoka are indeed only experienced in energy transference when it comes to gross examples, such as uke does a tsuki at jodan level and nage does an inward parry, affecting the strike, and uke's center of gravity, line of gravity, Base of Support, etc.

That said, there is another reason why the message may feel "hard to swallow." This side has nothing really to do with a lack of common experience. As Paige might take better note of what she is hearing, if I may respectfully suggest to both parties, Mike's message might be better served if it came without the usual or "popular" rhetoric that is indeed traditionally associated with folks that want to talk about more "magical" things. Such things are, for example, the jabs at teachers, the division of West and East, the overly great significance given to specific training techniques, the notion of a "Golden Past," and the delivered sense of "I know, but I can't tell you." It is not only that such things give of an air of elitism, which some might take an aversion too, it is, more importantly, that such things seem to fly in the face of the first and most important message: That such skill at energy transference, etc., is perfectly natural and well within scientific theory. In short, these things make it hard for someone to hear what Mike is saying because they in essence contradict his original position that he is addressing something natural and well within scientific understanding, etc.

For example: If something is a high level of skill, and if full understanding (i.e. comprehension) requires such skill development, then there could NOT be a "Golden Past." Instead, we would see a time just like ours, no matter how far we went back. We are not looking at a "knowledge" that has disappeared and/or that is on the verge of facing extinction (like a species would face extinction). There was not a time when everyone (or most) knew it and/or when access to such things was more readily available. There was no such moment from which we are today separated from by a discontinuity of history. There have only been and will only be times when such skill level is higher and more subtle than what most will achieve. Access to such things then remains forever relative to one's commitment to achieving them. Rather than a "Golden Past" we are really looking at "golden versions" of each one of us -- versions we may cultivate ourselves as or versions we may never attain. This is an important distinction and we should take note of it before we go running off to the mountain in search of some hermit that claims to have a straight continuous line tied to "The Past." "Golden Pasts" are fictions created by folks in the present to given their subjectivity an air of objectivity -- something that is always necessary when you want to trade one form of cultural capital for another. Being a fiction, a "Golden Past" has nothing to do with what is natural or what is scientific -- not even the science of History.

Another example: If such a skill is perfectly natural -- to humanity and to the larger environment -- then we should not prioritize the various means of acquiring such a talent. In particular, if such a skill is at the heart of Aikido, every aspect of Aikido suffices as a means to acquire that skill. It is one thing to suggest that added training devices might be beneficial to one's training; it is another thing to suggest that without these devices our practice is doomed to remaining incomplete. What is actually required is a depth of training, not a breadth of training. And while breadth may indeed offer some that particular avenue to depth that they needed, it does not follow that depth cannot be achieve through current avenues and/or that additional avenues will guarantee such depth. In truth, it is because of the reasoning and events that we find in the aforementioned example that our practice may remain "incomplete" and/or "superficial" and we face this possible doom no matter what technique we may be using to refine our practice. In this sense, we do not need "ancient" techniques used to discover such skill in "the past." We can use more recent ones, new ones, ones we invent on the spot, and, to be sure, we can use Kihon Waza, etc. While old techniques may be a supplemental training aid that may do us some good, they may very well do nothing of us since we may be part of the larger mass of people that never acquire such skill. Something cannot be natural and then separated from great sections of the natural world. Because of this the aggrandizing of techniques from the East, from China, from this art, or from that teacher, etc., works against the first and only worthy premise: we are dealing here with natural forces.

Perhaps if the parties involved could look at these things in these suggested ways, the common ground of not seeing the forces as paranormal would emerge.

On an additional note: It might very well be that Paige's instructor is adopting a paranormal approach to training within some parameters -- which very well might put him "at odds" with her position but would not have him saying the same thing that Mike is suggesting.

dmv

Mike Sigman wrote: Sorry, Paige, I wasn't trying to be offensive. I don't even have any idea who your sensei is. First thing, though, is that you've just made a claim about some exact things I said. I didn't say those things, so you need to acknowledge that. Second thing is this: Assume for a minute that the worst thing I did say (which was "incomplete knowledge", nothing more) is true. I.e., that there are a lot of teachers teaching students and many of them are missing this basic skill (it's not magic, Paige, it's physics). If there are teachers who are doing this and when it's pointed out (with pretty darned good support from many directions) all they do is start carping about how they are "offended" or how they "have many more years in Budo than so-and-so", or any of the other conceits, then I'm still going to state my opinion. It boils down to this simple question: Which is more important... that a bunch of people doing something demonstrably incomplete not have anyone discuss it out loud... or is it more important that there be some concern for the students of these teachers who are getting some basic element of their martial art wrong? My opinion is it's more important to discuss these things out loud. If I'm wrong, I don't have a problem listening to the reasoning or why I'm wrong or even in saying so if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's why this topic engenders silence or cries of "I'm offended". I've been one of those students who spent years with a teacher only to find out later that I had to go back to the beginning and re-do what they taught me because they left out some things they didn't know and they didn't know enough to spot that they didn't know. I've listened to people with 20+ years when they've suddenly realized that the teacher they were so vested in turned out to not have had complete information and what they were doing was missing a crucial element. I say it's a topic worth discussing, holding people to facts, and not trying to take it to the personal level in order to get rid of it. I.e., the best way to discuss these things is to supply factual reasoning, not reasoning based on emotion or belief. Best Regards, Mike

The things i accused u of saying were said , just in different words. At least thats how i interpreted them.

As far as my sensei goes , thank u for your concern , but i promise you he is very qualified to teach and he does understand all aspects of aikido. He was taught my morihei Ueshibas grandson. He is a 3rd Dan, His name is Tom Berry. Look him up on dojo search if it would make you feel more comfortable about what i'm being taught.

Phillip Kirkan wrote: Since you guys seem to want to discuss mystical nonsense...

Thank you.

Phillip Kirkan wrote: senshincenter, I read a couple of those links when you first posted them. No where do they say that the ground reaction force allows the kick to be powerful- Newton's third law which you seem so fond of proves you wrong. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you stand on the ground, gravity is pushing you down. The ground pushes you back up. In order for that to cause the power in the kick, the GRF would need to push back HARDER than you push down which is impossible.

You are not grasping the co-dependent nature of action-reaction force pairs. If you can better grasp that, you might be more able to see that there is no contradiction in my usage of Newton's third law. The physics are escaping you - I hate to point out. Perhaps we should move on.

Thanks anyways for your part in this discussion.

dmv

David Valadez wrote: Perhaps if the parties involved could look at these things in these suggested ways, the common ground of not seeing the forces as paranormal would emerge. On an additional note: It might very well be that Paige's instructor is adopting a paranormal approach to training within some parameters -- which very well might put him "at odds" with her position but would not have him saying the same thing that Mike is suggesting.

Hmmmmmm. David, I think we settled the issue in another thread that you don't understand what I'm talking about, so I don't see any reason to continue until you *do* understand. Robert John and a number of other people on the list understand what I'm talking about and I don't think any of them take it as mystical nonsense or a vague statement about "Ground Reaction Force". I'm talking about a physical skill that is obviously difficult to find information about. However, there is plenty of literature, interviews, films, etc., showing what I am talking about, so the clues are there.

There are no "JABS" in discussing a valid topic. If there's an ethics problem, as I was pointing out, the problem is with the people who haven't bothered to chase these things down and who insist that they are "teachers" of Aikido, Karate, Tai Chi, Jiu Jitsu, the "Koryu", etc., particularly in light of the number of clues about these *physically demonstrable* skills. Ultimately, the question revolves around what is owed to the people who are students.... they are not "lesser beings" just because someone has set themself up as a teacher. They deserve primary consideration.

Anyone who brings up a question that raises a concern about students is not "taking jabs" at others, unless someone wants to use that as a good reason to drop a potentially embarrassing discussion.

Assume for a minute that Ueshiba, Tohei, Abe, and others are not dunces who have good martial arts but an unfortunate propensity for playing parlour games. Suppose for a moment there is something to the ki and kokyu things that you don't know and which is very important to the core of movement in Aikido and other arts. Wouldn't you agree that these discussions about this kind of power are important? Or do you think they should be hushed up because they could be an embarrassment to people who don't know them? It's an interesting thought-puzzle, isn't it?

Of the other arts that use kokyu power and ki development, let's take karate as an example... for instance Uechi Ryu. If you went onto the Uechi Ryu karate list, you'd find almost no knowledge or even mention of kokyu power, particularly in definitive terms. Yet there are things like videos called "Karate no Kokyu Ryoku" (The "kokyu power of karate") from experts in the art. So if someone went on such a list and started making noises about kokyu power, I assure you that the established hierarchy would react very negatively toward anyone who made such a suggestion. Their status is at stake; in some cases their livelihood is involved. They would try to blow the topic off and personally attack anyone who suggested such a thing. Pretty much what you'd expect.

However, if there were indeed some knowledgeable people on the list who thought such a newcomer was simply wrong, they'd point out why, give reasons, show they knew as much or more. The behavior in the responses gives it away, David. Of course, you'd have to understand that there is indeed such a topic before you could appreciate my viewpoint. At the moment, you and I are pretty much agreed that your idea of what "kokyu" means is far off the basic body skill that I (and many others) see it as. So there's our impasse. I.e., maybe the problem isn't me or what I'm saying... maybe the problem is you and what you know. And I say that from a debate point of view, not to take an oblique shot at you.

So if we have a disagreement, which we do and which we settled in another thread, why go out of your way to invent an argument? Why don't we just leave it that your comments about kokyu are on record and you're either right or embarrassingly archived? That's the way I see my own comments, FWIW.

Regards,

Mike

Mike,

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your view. Upon reading some of the things you have written, I seem to have attached my understanding of what you are saying to statements you've made in the past that led me to believe you were talking about scientifically recognized forces. If you were, it only followed logically that the examples I brought up do indeed work against the dissemination of such insight.

I didn't mean to create one argument out of another. I was trying to find a common ground between what you and Paige were saying. If you were not talking about scientifically recognized forces and a transference of those forces, or were but were also talking about the addition of "something" else (that falls outside of the former category), you are right in what you say here, that I am not of the position that such forces exist and/or that they should be considered the height of Budo training. Along the same lines, I would also have to say that there is no common ground between what you were saying and what Paige (and others) were saying. They may seem to have understood your position better than I did. My fault is my own.

Though I do not write for the sake of having things archived, and though I am not motivated in my training/teaching by financial pursuits, I have no problem saying here, without the slightest bit of embarrassment, that for me, I do not consider these things (i.e. things that today adopt a scientific discourse only in attempt to gain of the cultural capital involved but remain at best a pseudo-science and at worst a superstition; things that require the rhetoric of a Golden Past in order to seem legitimate; things that make use of esoterica as an obvious polemic meant to restrict critique; etc.) to be of any worth - be that worth measured martially (i.e. the capacity to gain physical victory over an aggressive opponent) or spiritually (i.e the capacity to have a harmonious relationship with others and with the Divine). With that said, I have never set out to partition off some type of discursive territoriality. The fact that you and I disagree, that you say I "just don't understand," and that I myself may feel some impulse to return the favor, does not mean, for me, we cannot discuss things further or even repeatedly. For me, disagreement is the source of both discussion and advancing one's knowledge through discussion. It is between this and my attempts to find a common ground, so Paige wouldn't have to think you were some "loony-tune" and you wouldn't have to openly imply that her teacher "sucks," that you'll find my reason for writing here. Again, I meant no argument to follow, and I still do not see one here. If you and I disagree and if we are doomed to silence, as you suggest, there can be no argument. Unfortunately, for me, there is also no point of discussion either.

If it is not clear, and since you may be a person that is instrumental in bringing a "re-found" knowledge to others, it might be good for your message to know that the "jabs" come in when you simultaneously state that "x" is the heart/source/meaning/end all of something, that without "x" nothing can exist, and then say that someone doesn't have "x". It may be true that if someone doesn't have "x," someone doesn't have "x." That's really all you can say. But what is certainly up for debate, and is really just a matter of preference when ultimately decided, is the value of "x." For it is not true that "x" is the "end all" of every art and especially of every person's practice - this denies the individuality that marks every human pursuit. What is factual is that many people have perfectly legitimate forms of practice, be that martially oriented or spiritually oriented, and/or anything else, without seeing the manifestation of such forces and their transference as central or even desirable. You should learn to allow for that reality if you really do have some interest in having more folks come to understand what you claim is missing and that can only be grasped by the means you have come to feel as legitimate. If you do, I would suggest, you wouldn't have to expect so much from certain members of your audience when it comes to swallowing what you are saying - rather you'd be able to expect them to understand more. In short, it's not really too "wise" to say that friction is caused by a single energy - this is true for human interaction too.

My humble thanks for your reply, and, again, my apologies if I have misrepresented your position in the slightest.

dmv

David Valadez wrote: I seem to have attached my understanding of what you are saying to statements you've made in the past that led me to believe you were talking about scientifically recognized forces.

I still am talking about scientifically recognized forces, David. But because skills adhere to physical law doesn't mean that everyone knows how to do them or understands how to do them. What I'm saying is that these are body skills that you obviously don't know how to do. When I have done in-services with, for instance, the teaching staff for physiology at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, I could lead them through a basic "how-to" so most of them could do some of these things. They recognized, when shown how to do them, that they were unusual skills, but no one of us even considered the idea that those skills were outside of "scientifically recognized forces". But even though the skills obeyed the laws of physics, none of them knew how to do them. I'm suggesting that you don't know how to do them either, so there's not much you can say *knowledgeably* until we get past that hurdle. And frankly, I'm just trying to answer the peripherals of a discussion about "hip or ground", not trying to convince you of anything. I'm happy with you believing what you want to believe. And I respect you for stating your beliefs in public... it's along the lines of what I consider a real martial artist would do.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Robert John wrote: Paige: Just cuz your teacher is 3d dan doesnt mean he understands the finer aspects of body mechanics yet. We had a Shihan from Yoshinkan come to our class w/ 30+ years experience get held down in Kokyuage/sage exercises by one of Akuzawa's (Instructor) first year student (who's not that big either). He ended up writing a letter to the instructor which basically entailed him saying that "what you and I are doing are completely different, and I dont think I can start my training over at this stage, etc etc". People need to let go of their pride...

Just cuz my teacher is 3rd dan doesnt mean that he
doesnt understand the finer aspects of body mechanics.

For your information i was just stating his credentials so that people can find out for theirselves whether or not they think he is 'qualified' or whatever u want to call it.

But i promise hes not stupid, and he was trained by Yamada sensei.(Morihei Ushebas grandson, or student if i'm not mistaken) AGAIN EVERYONE thank you for your concern.

I'm so sick of this thread. This is quits for me.

Mike,

I guess we are back to square one then since you are again (having thought you said this multiple times/every time) to saying you are only talking about scientifically recognized physical laws - as this was something I said you were saying to Paige. That was the common ground i was trying to point out to her.

It seems then that my other criticisms were what was at issue then - really. However, and truthfully, that is where what you say gets confusing for me, and apparently for others as well, since the scientific understanding of many involved is sound by any account - but also since scientific understanding does not require the things that often accompany your insight (such as things I mentioned in the earlier post - that may have rubbed you wrong). However, for me it is these reasons that some of the things you speak of sound so pseudo-scientific. Not everything, but some things. For example, your physical examples stay well within the realm of physics but the idea that one must be able to practice something before one can understand it is well outside of the realm of scientific reasoning (which includes physics). Under scientific reasoning, the fact that I speak with different terms than you, use different phrases, and note different sources, etc., means nothing more than that. It is very possible under scientific reasoning that we are discussing the same things but under different paradigms. Under pseudo-scientific thought such differences in expression state"OBVIOUSLY" - without seeing or feeling first hand and only experiencing little more than a few passing conversations - that I am incapable of understanding and/or that I am ignorant on the whole regarding such matters as energy transference and/or force production, etc. Interestingly, it also is what allows another person to say "I was thrown by someone's pinky" and to then have you go on to determine that they are capable of understanding such things. Under scientific reasoning, the fact that I have been thrown out of nowhere, been thrown with the greatest of ease, been thrown with someone's pinky or their gaze, or faced a power that seemed totally different from what we are mostly accustomed to recognizing as power, etc., when combined with my own discourse means only that I do not speak or seek to understand such things with a discourse similar to yours. Under pseudo-scientific reasoning, all of my experiences are illegitimate, my insights shallow, and my understandings false, simply because I do not speak like you speak. When you put this kind of energy out there, it's going to transfer almost always as friction. If you are insightful in terms of energy transfer, you got to see that this is what is going on and not that folks haven't learned or should learn how to take a criticism more well.

Anyway, you've motivated me to investigate your discourse further, to see if there is more than just paradigmatic differences between what we are talking about. I consider this a very positive situation, even if I do feel it as a loss of some sorts that you feel you cannot converse with me. It is a positive situation because I will either come to better understand your discourse and thereby find a way of presenting my own discourse to you without triggering your alarms as you coming across something that is "ignorant," or I will have realized some great flaw in my account of things - one that can thereby be corrected as I come to adopt a new, more accurate paradigm over a less accurate one. So I am looking forward to the future, when you might feel more like you can talk about things with me, or at least having me read your points as part of my active pursuits to follow such orientations from intellectual curiosity to practical realizations to body/mind insights.

Hoping in 20 more years you might be able to talk to someone like me,
dmv

David Valadez wrote: However, and truthfully, that is where what you say gets confusing for me, and apparently for others as well, since the scientific understanding of many involved is sound by any account - but also since scientific understanding does not require the things that often accompany your insight (such as things I mentioned in the earlier post - that may have rubbed you wrong). However, for me it is these reasons that some of the things you speak of sound so pseudo-scientific. Not everything, but some things. For example, your physical examples stay well within the realm of physics but the idea that one must be able to practice something before one can understand it is well outside of the realm of scientific reasoning (which includes physics).

These kinds of skills are not that hard to understand, David. Kokyu is really a sophisticated focus and development of a body skill that we often use unconsciously... but it is deliberately cultivated to a degree that you wouldn't normally consider possible. "Ki", in the narrow, focused sense of the basic body skill ("ki" can get complex and the discussion is beyond my typing motivations), involves a principle that many of us peripherally touch in our lives (like say a weight-lifter or labourer will by necessity develop some ki but they'll just consider it part of their developed strength).... but again it is developed to a sophisticated level that we would never even imagine. Essentially I can do these things and have done them where others have seen them. Upyu's teacher sounds like he can do them far better than I can, as a guess. The error people make is sort of like Upyu's thread on Bullshido shows.... the people who haven't seen these things don't believe they can be done or they relegate them to fantasy or they relegate them to the "pseudo-scientific", as you term it.

Again, my main point is not to try to convince you via the internet that these things are true. However, I AM saying that there is ample evidence that these things are indeed intrinsic parts of Aikido and they're not some artificial topic that I'm introducing. IF, as I'm contending, these physical skills are a part of Aikido proper, then it's an important and valid topic which should go beyond the ideas of pride or the idea that mentioning it is a "jab" at someone's esteem.

In a nutshell, these kinds of kokyu and ki 'conditioning' are unusual ways of utilizing some oddities of the body. In a way, you could say that they generally "add strength" to the body. However, they're not the same thing as adding strength through supplementary weight-lifting, cross-training, etc. The big difference is that in Aikido, Karate, Taiji, Bagua, etc., etc., many of the techniques are built around this unusual form of strength and you can't adequately do the higher levels of techniques if you don't have this basic form of strength.

What I suggest is that people go out and start pounding the pavement because it's that important and ultimately people like Upyu and a number of others are breaking ground in this area. I.e., you can't avoid the inevitable and you shouldn't try to avoid these things, seeing as how they're so blatantly a part of Aikido. I know Ushiro Sensei was doing some workshops on kokyu.... that's a start, but just because someone is showing the external exercises doesn't meant they're teaching what goes on inside. It's not going to be easy. What little I know certainly wasn't easy to obtain.

FWIW

Mike

I'm so sure this will be redundant I almost don't want to reply, and looking at the length of this thread probably somewhat off-topic by now, but I'll give my limited understanding and see if it sparks a response.
I think the concept of power originating from hara can be described in much the same way we look at the center of the Earth as the center of its gravitational force, even though all throughout the planet each particle has gravity and it acts in all directions. You might think of hara as the net origin of force, but hara doesn't itself enact outward radiating kinetic force, your extensor-muscles do. Anything else is either twisting or contracting inward, each of which has its place in the concerted effort you're enacting.
Regardless of where the force begins, the end result should be that your whole body is acting in concert with itself, whether you're turning or moving laterally or whatever (bearing in mind Newton's law of equal and opposite actions). This is simply power though and of course it takes a keen mind to make that mindless power into something meaningfull such that it interacts with another power/force to create a desired result.
My 2-bits.
Take care,
Matt

Mike Sigman wrote: These kinds of skills are not that hard to understand, David. Kokyu is really a sophisticated focus and development of a body skill that we often use unconsciously... but it is deliberately cultivated to a degree that you wouldn't normally consider possible. "Ki", in the narrow, focused sense of the basic body skill ("ki" can get complex and the discussion is beyond my typing motivations), involves a principle that many of us peripherally touch in our lives (like say a weight-lifter or labourer will by necessity develop some ki but they'll just consider it part of their developed strength).... but again it is developed to a sophisticated level that we would never even imagine...The error people make is sort of like Upyu's thread on Bullshido shows.... the people who haven't seen these things don't believe they can be done or they relegate them to fantasy or they relegate them to the "pseudo-scientific", as you term it.

Mike,

Now this is getting pretty confusing. First I thought we were saying the same thing; then you said I wasn't and how I didn't know anything; then (now) it seems we are. From what I am reading, this is completely in line with my own take on both kokyu and ki, etc. - as one can easily read what I wrote in the other thread that went on to discuss Osensei's jo trick. This here is not much different from that - not at all in essence - or if it is, I would appreciate it greatly if you would point out the difference. I do very much consider what you are saying here and what I wrote elsewhere to be within scientific insight. What I am calling pseudo-scientific are particular things (e.g. "Golden Past," etc.) that come to attach themselves to this aforementioned understanding. But what is really confusing is how I can say I am agreeing with you, how I have written something very akin to what you have stated above, and how you can say I am not only not agreeing with you but that I know nothing regarding such things and how I might be embarrassed for having written such a thing.



I do realize you are here not to convince me - as much as I realize that I am not here to be convinced. You and I both know this is not the place for such things. Still, as always, I'm very appreciative of your efforts here.

Many thanks,
dmv

The hip is nothing without the ground. Some people call this 'base'.

Real power comes from ki , power that circulates through the universe. Or a kiai that is a perfectly concentrated burst of energy ( termed the vital breath of life.) Kiai is usually thought of as merely the shout emitted at the instant a technique is executed, only part of which is audible. To answer your question power in a kick comes from your opposite leg and hips as a forward thrust, but don't forget to kiai.

Regards

Paige, please do not take this as patronizing...

I'd forgotten your age, because in many cases, you come across much older than you are. Please don't abandon the thread. Even if you choose not to post, keep reading. Or at least remember these conversations for the future.

When I spoke of listening, I meant to make an effort to step outside of your own perspective and 'take' on things. To make an effort to actually read the words on the page, rather than reading them through your own emotional filters. It is a tough thing to do sometimes...even two well meaning adults can find it difficult.

The interactions between some of the posters on this very thread is a good example of both how easy it is to mistake what someone is saying, and how to go about finding common ground while skipping the animosity that can come from digging deeply into a subject that is near and dear to your life and effort.

Best,
Ron