Resistance?

Jon Reading wrote: Kata is not free movement, so I don't really consider it part of my ultimate goal for free movement.

Once the mechanics of performing the sequence of steps required to execute a particular kata are learned, we can move beyond the mechanical practice of the form and use the form as a vehicle to explore the deeper aspects of mind/body coordination and connection in order to effect free movement.

Ultimately we leave prearranged movement behind altogether and let "technique" arise naturally from the interaction with our partners. When you are truly moving freely there's no question or concern of your partner stopping your technique since she's as responsible for the emergence of the technique as you are.[/quote]

Ron

Ron Ragusa wrote: Ultimately we leave prearranged movement behind altogether and let "technique" arise naturally from the interaction with our partners. When you are truly moving freely there's no question or concern of your partner stopping your technique since she's as responsible for the emergence of the technique as you are.

From the way you phrased your post, it is not clear to me if this is an aspiration or something you can demonstrate (at least to some extent).

I see that your PB page (https://www.facebook.com/pg/berkshir...aikido/videos/) lists a few videos, if its the latter, could you provide a link to the relevant video?

Jon Reading wrote: Well, if its stupid I should just stop. Thanks for enlightening me. I have several problems with this post.

I'm sure you do. Look, Jon, you don't see my training, I don't see your training. But you're the one who went there with the simple statement "If someone stops my movement, I am not good enough." Good enough for what? If I know what you're going do, there are any number of ways that I can "stop your movement".

You made a statement about an isolated action, and now you want to extend this to an overall approach to training. They're not the same thing.

Why do you limit yourself in your training? If you really find yourself unable to work with regular aikido people on the mat, how do you ever expect to work with one of these martial artists? If you can't work with these people, how can you learn from them?

Really, Jon? You don't see my training. I don't see my training.

Any resistance can be overcome, but the results for the uke are not conducive to continued practice, which is ultimately counter-productive. It is just training, not combat.

Steven Shimanek wrote: Any resistance can be overcome, but the results for the uke are not conducive to continued practice, which is ultimately counter-productive. It is just training, not combat.

If it is "any resistance" it is not training. If it is training you can not have "any resistance"

Personally I find it helpful, at least where I am at, to have someone try and break my technique and find holes in it. Then I can see if I react well, or badly.

The way I see it is that we are training so that our bodies act naturally with Aiki and not counter resistance. A good partner is attuned to working on the subtleties of technique that can help develop that and overcome the resistance in our mind as well as our body.

David Soroko wrote: If it is "any resistance" it is not training. If it is training you can not have "any resistance"

Can you help me understand what you mean please; that doesn't make sense in my mind. Is this something your master says or your own aphorism?

Steven Shimanek wrote: Can you help me understand what you mean please; that doesn't make sense in my mind. Is this something your master says or your own aphorism?

If it is valid for person to gouge the other person's eye out because there is an opening in a technique - it is not training.
If it is training, it is not valid to gouge the other person's eye out.

Did I misunderstand your use of the word "any" ?

I think that much of what is discussed here revolves around the meaning (and misunderstandings) of the "agreement" under which training is happening ( obviously training implies agreement otherwise it is not training ).

Different teachers / styles operate with different "agreements". In post 75 (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=75), Carl Thompson linked to a document (http://www.iwama-aikido.com/articles/resist.html) which describes some of the details of the "agreement" that is typically used in the Iwama lineage.

There can be others, that "the uke must follow the nage - if she doesn't, she will get hurt" seems to be implied by some, but you reap what you sow, and personally I find it hard to believe that a viable martial art can arise from training guided by such agreement.

There must be a lot of blind people in your dojo then. In mine, we try to train as realistically as possible while not maiming our uke.

David Soroko wrote: In post 75 (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=75), Carl Thompson linked to a document (http://www.iwama-aikido.com/articles/resist.html) which describes some of the details of the "agreement" that is typically used in the Iwama lineage.

After reading this it struck me that what's described in the article is what Maruyama sensei referred to as logical resistance. On the flip side of that coin is the application of force by uke in mind/body coordination exercises. Most of the partnered mind/body exercises involve uke pushing, pulling, compressing or lifting nage in various positions. The purpose of the exercises is to enable nage to develop an awareness of center and be able to use the power of an integrated mind and body to resist or give uke's force back in order to move from a static position to a dynamic position.

The amount of force applied to nage is appropriate with nage's experience and ability. Over time as nage becomes more adept at dealing with applied forces, the intensity of the applied force is increased. It's important that uke learn to regulate the pressure and not overwhelm nage. No one learns or improves in that scenario.

Ron

These are some intriguing posts.

Yes, kata is necessary and I don't want to imply anything negative about kata in our training. I just don't think kata is part of an argument about free movement because it occludes the can/cannot conversation.

When I play push hands and I have freedom to move, I can be stopped by someone. It's a frustrating and informative feeling. If I have been training for 20 years, ikkyo should never work on me unless I let it. In both cases, I have learned something valuable - I can improve. It's my movement. If my movement works, it works because I made it work - not because my partner made it work. My partner is a reflection of me.

The whole reason we stretch and train is to learn the best way to move and protect our bodies. The reason why we train kata is to learn the movement patterns that reduce resistance, given us ultimately the boy movement that let's us slice through our partners. In fact, we use this language all the time.

Our uke's fill a number of responsibilities throughout our training. We all have our favorite partners for different reasons and they all have value - their job is to make us better and provide the resources we need to evaluate our strengths and weaknesses honestly. Most of us are pretty fragile and the force required to screw up is pretty weak. As we improve, we should become more comfortable moving, regardless of our partner.

^^^ Jon that is an excellent little essay. Cheers.

Jon Reading wrote: When I play push hands and I have freedom to move, I can be stopped by someone.

That seems contradictory to me but maybe I'm just not seeing what you're getting at. If you maintain your freedom of movement are you, by definition, not being stopped ?

Jon Reading wrote: If I have been training for 20 years, ikkyo should never work on me unless I let it.

Doesn't that depend on the context of the situation in which ikkyo is attempted (kata/randori)? And doesn't it also depend on the relative skill of the people involved? Your assertion seems to conflict with your next sentence,

Jon Reading wrote: In both cases, I have learned something valuable - I can improve.

Improvement is a two way street in Aikido. One improves as uke, one improves as nage (hopefully, why else train?). At some point does the ability to improve as nage hit a plateau whereby nage is no longer able to apply ikkyo to a sufficiently developed uke?

A more concrete example - do you envision a time when Satome sensei will no longer be able to apply ikkyo to you unless you let it happen?

Ron

Ron Ragusa wrote: That seems contradictory to me but maybe I'm just not seeing what you're getting at. If you maintain your freedom of movement are you, by definition, not being stopped ? Doesn't that depend on the context of the situation in which ikkyo is attempted (kata/randori)? And doesn't it also depend on the relative skill of the people involved? Your assertion seems to conflict with your next sentence, Improvement is a two way street in Aikido. One improves as uke, one improves as nage (hopefully, why else train?). At some point does the ability to improve as nage hit a plateau whereby nage is no longer able to apply ikkyo to a sufficiently developed uke? A more concrete example - do you envision a time when Satome sensei will no longer be able to apply ikkyo to you unless you let it happen? Ron

Great questions...

First, if you ever play push hands with someone who freely moves, you experience a very frustrating sensation that your movement does not affect them. Conversely, when you move freely, you experience a sensation that your partner doesn't affect you. Push hands is a different perspective on free movement. It has its own limitations, of course, but its a great way to see if your movement is free. And yes, if you are stopped... you don't have free movement...

No. In application, I am training to understand my body, how it moves, how it is strong, and how it is weak. Over time, my body should learn how not to be manipulated. If I know an arm bar is a weak position, I should never allow my body to reflexively allow that position. We see this all the time when juniors have difficulty with seniors - its not that we are being difficult, it should be that our bodies don't move the same way. Yes, everything is relative - if I work out with someone who is better than I, they should be able to foil me, regardless of my response.

No. Improvement is a one-way street - me. My partner relationship is symbiotic. My partner promises to help me learn, I promise to help my partner learn. Whether my partner improves is her responsibility, not mine. And just to cut out the straw man argument... you are either helpful to your partner or you are not - if you don't bring value to the relationship it is not symbiotic, but parasitic.

I completely envision a time when my seniors can't handle me... Sensei is pretty far ahead and I don't think I'll catch him before he is done with this Earth. But you can bet I go to sleep thinking about causing trouble for all my ASU peeps. I want to show them that all they taught me, all the time they spent with me paid off. I was listening, even when I acted stupid. A good teacher always wants her student to succeed her. And when I am better, I will be a better partner for them to use. Tate hike geiko - drawing each other up through training.

I wrote:

Improvement is a two way street in Aikido. One improves as uke, one improves as nage (hopefully, why else train?). At some point does the ability to improve as nage hit a plateau whereby nage is no longer able to apply ikkyo to a sufficiently developed uke?

Jon Reading wrote: No. Improvement is a one-way street - me. My partner relationship is symbiotic. My partner promises to help me learn, I promise to help my partner learn. Whether my partner improves is her responsibility, not mine. And just to cut out the straw man argument... you are either helpful to your partner or you are not - if you don't bring value to the relationship it is not symbiotic, but parasitic.

Sorry, I can see that I didn't communicate my point at all clearly. I was talking about improvement as nage and uke in reference to an individual, not in reference to two people working together. With training, I improve as nage; I also improve as uke.

My question raises the point that if I can train myself to the point whereby ikkyo can only be applied to me if I permit it, can I also train myself to the point whereby my ikkyo cannot be resisted? If we assume that the first part of the question is correct but the second is not, does that imply that my improvement as uke can go further than my improvement as nage in terms of my performance in either role? In other words, is the "aiki body" equally at home in either role?

Personally I believe the question is only of theoretical interest because the number of variables involved in an interaction between uke and nage prohibits the prediction of the outcome. As we so often hear in professional sports, "... on any given day...".

Jon Reading wrote: I completely envision a time when my seniors can't handle me... Sensei is pretty far ahead and I don't think I'll catch him before he is done with this Earth. But you can bet I go to sleep thinking about causing trouble for all my ASU peeps. I want to show them that all they taught me, all the time they spent with me paid off. I was listening, even when I acted stupid. A good teacher always wants her student to succeed her. And when I am better, I will be a better partner for them to use. Tate hike geiko - drawing each other up through training.

Totally understand. It's a laudable goal, one every student would do well to emulate. Because students' skills grow at different rates it's a goal that can be realized with some, others perhaps not. Your last sentence is what really matters though... we all draw each other up through training.

Ron

Ron Ragusa wrote: I wrote: we all draw each other up through training. Ron

here i thought we draw each other up by our drawers, but if training work for you, great. me, i will go for the ..*soprano voice*.. drawer.

Mary Malmros wrote: Really, Jon? You don't see my training. I don't see my training. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

nope, he stopped doing that sort of thing. he subcontracted out to me. i, in turn, subcontracted to some folks in the Philippine, who subcontracted to the chinese, who subcontracted to the russian, who subcontracted out to the mexican (since jon is in the south), who has been feeding her a stead diet of street tacos and fajitas. i tell ya, those latino's foods are brutal... the portion would kill a 300 lbs man/woman/dog/cat/donkey (don't ask). you just can't resist! or maybe i just couldn't resist!

I used to be asked to "help" a beginner - by not letting them do a technique if they weren't doing it "correctly". My interpretation of that was to let them get away with minor errors at the start and be a bit more "guiding" later - (try moving me here instead of...) and pointing out why what they were doing wouldn't work if I wasn't cooperating...

Jon Reading wrote: Tate hike geiko - drawing each other up through training.

Yes agreed.
Perhaps there is resistance in service of my ego.
Perhaps there is resistance in service of my partner's training/progress.
Perhaps we consider the intent for which resistance is given and the intent for which resistance is received.
Having shared space/time on the mat, we draw each other up.

Uke's resistance should be appropriate to the level of the nage and should be in line with what the instructor is teaching.
Different kinds of resistance can help illustrate different aspects of developing correct feeling.

If you as uke find that your nage is having trouble with your resistance -- what do you do? Do you continue to resist in the same manner?

Define "having trouble". Who's "learning"? What's "appropriate"? What's "help"?

These are all relative questions. My perspective as uke (and nage) may be different than my partner. What happens when my "help" is not the help my partner wants? What happens if what I think is appropriate is not appropriate from my partner's perspective? We seem to want to answer a lot of questions on behalf of our poor, misguided, resistant uke. If only they knew what was good for them... We spend a lot of time arguing some one else's position. This thread is full of nage telling us everything that is wrong with uke.

Resistance is a resource. We become a known factor in an experiment and our partner gets to experiment. I can be the best resource available, but the learning component is the responsibility each individual. As training progresses, we can do more with the variety of the resource. Specifically, we can slide that resource to a very low level for simple experiments, or we can slide that resource to a very high level. I need to be honest in where I sit on the scale. If that happens, by partner can learn from any outcome of the experiment, not just the one I decide to frame and push forth.

It's possible to over-think things...

So Jon, do you just do whatever you want in your instructor's classes?

I do what I want! Well, ok, I'm being a bit facetious here, because what I want to do is what Sensei wants us to do, so there is no problem.

This discussion reminds me of last night's training, where I was training with one of Sensei's otomo, who is tall and grabs or attacks me with full force (as I do him) and, much to my appreciation, shows me very clearly where I'm going wrong. Don't get me wrong, if I really keep screwing it up, he shows me what I've missed though. It is clear in my mind also because my next training partner was a middle school girl. I had to go from full-on power to super gentle. That was a challenge in itself, especially with sensei watching.

There was also a visitor from one of the remote dojos I'd never met. No idea what rank he was or anything. I ended up spinning him around in training quite fast, and he, with a smile, returned the favour. I think we were grinning like idiots afterwards.

I don't know how to articulate it best, but I just tend to sense what's best with my partner most of the time after we've gone through the technique a couple of times, then it's easy to take it somewhere more challenging and fun at the same time.

Mary Eastland wrote: So Jon, do you just do whatever you want in your instructor's classes?

Yes. I always do what I want. It's my training. I am teasing, but also serious. I think many of us rely on someone else to "give" us aikido. We don't have the personal responsibility to to question our individual training. I am not having success... must be someone else's fault.

The instructor's job is to lead class with a clear curriculum. This curriculum gives direction and a subject for everyone to be on the same page with regard to a study topic. My training is about looking that the demonstrated experiment and figuring out how to replicate the success within myself. The individual study lies with the student and each of us is at a different point in our training. If the curriculum is good, everyone moves in the same direction, albeit maybe not with the same success or speed. If the curriculum is bad... well, confusion sets in.

If I cannot replicate the experiment, either the experiment is wrong or I am wrong. Or both. I am very critical of instructors who have no idea what the student base is capable of performing or where they lie on the learning spectrum. I am very critical of instruction that sets up bad experiments. In this thread, I am also critical of partners (both sides) who make the experiment bad.

As a more specific answer to your question, I will do what my partner wants to learn. Yes, sometimes my partner is more interested in doing something to me than learning - that is fine too as long as it doesn't require me to give up my body training.