experiences in applying a float to waza?

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: For the clarification for those new to the subject, it refers to a force coming up from underneath the other person,

So the force is lower, correct, because it's coming from underneath.

I see a follow up to this being- the force is lower, but I am not. So my follow up question would be, what is making the force if you are not?? In order for the force to be lower (which it has to be if it's underneath) you must be lower, because you are making the force. I know you imagine bouncing the force, or the force coming from the ground up, but it's not really doing that, it's an image.

What is really happening is that you are pushing from a lower point then they are stopping the push from. That's how you "get lower than them without getting lower than them". You push from your legs (which is very low) into their higher parts, as I said it's usually the shoulder when I do it. You don't have to drop your hips.

Now what makes this hard, is when the other person knows you are doing this, and they start resisting the push from lower spots, and start working to keep you from getting into pushing high spots on them. Then when two people are skilled at this, they start dropping there hips, so they can gain advantage.

They don't drop their hips because they are ignorant of body use, quite the opposite, they are working against another skilled person who is keeping them from wedging them up- or "floating" them.

Could you clarify why you don't see this as aiki? There is a mixing of your weight/energy and your opponents which you put back on out into your opponent.

I don't call that Aiki, because I believe Aiki is the ability to understand the mind and intention of your attacker, then blend accordingly. I know other people have other definitions, and that's cool.

You don't need to find a sticking point, though it is certainly helpful and your partner's movement is certainly far more dramatic. Of course with a more and more experienced person, they won't present such a point or at least far less often and without being a limp noodle. What you really need to do, is bring that energy/force to the point of contact that they have maintained with you. You will still get movement, even if the other person is like a limp noodle as that limb is still connected through the support structures of the body to the torso.

If you don't find a sticking point, you don't have access to the connected support structures. If they don't lock them selves and you can't lock something out there is no path to the center. This might mean going all the way to the end of range of motion, but you must find this spot, or only the limb you are moving, will move.

If I only use what you give me, and only use whatever muscle I need to hold myself up, I'm not relying on muscular power.

How are you directing the force "someone gave you"? You have to use muscle to do that right? If the only thing that moves your body is muscle, and there is force coming in, you must use something to direct that force.

If you are relying on muscle to hold you up. And relying on muscle to redirect the force (what someone gave you). Are you using besides muscle? It sounds to me like you're relying on muscle...

Chris Hein wrote: So the force is lower, correct, because it's coming from underneath. I see a follow up to this being- the force is lower, but I am not. So my follow up question would be, what is making the force if you are not?? In order for the force to be lower (which it has to be if it's underneath) you must be lower, because you are making the force. I know you imagine bouncing the force, or the force coming from the ground up, but it's not really doing that, it's an image.

In your table example, how is there not an equal upwards force from the members of the table, under compression which handles the added weight of the book? Of course depending on the material, under compression, you will see a flexing of some kind. This flexing does allow for storage, much the same as a bowstring and a bow under compression (remember Hooke's law from school?), and is the foundation for the concept of store and release, but thats beyond our current discussion. You could imagine that if you could then shift that incoming load somewhere else, that the stored energy would be output (this is part of what Ark is doing in his explosive version of kokyu ho, rather than just pushing back explosively, the two don't look the same).

Now instead of allowing my body to deform, as it will under sufficient pressure, I direct that input into the front leg, through organizing my body via intent. Intent results in some sort of shift within the body, or activation of different muscular components, though it should be the lower torso which causes this to occur. The same input is received into my body, just the resultant vector has changed.

This isn't just imagery, if ones partner pops up on their heels, and feels no force on force component. For a very muscly example, with your arm bent 90 degrees receive a light push. Direct it through the bicep, then direct it through the tricep. Don't push back with it, just feel it directed one way or the other. If you can do both, then you should have some understanding of intent, and be able to do the same in the lower body with or without an additional load placed on you.

Like I state earlier, anyone studying internals should be able to demonstrate this relatively early on in their study. If you can't, one should express some concern. Speaking of which, I failed to do so at a seminar when Mike Sigman asked me to float him, which can tell you where I was at the time i had met him. Mike then showed everyone how to do it after that.

What is really happening is that you are pushing from a lower point then they are stopping the push from. That's how you "get lower than them without getting lower than them". You push from your legs (which is very low) into their higher parts, as I said it's usually the shoulder when I do it. You don't have to drop your hips.

I actually do not advocate doing this, which I will explain after the next quote.

Now what makes this hard, is when the other person knows you are doing this, and they start resisting the push from lower spots, and start working to keep you from getting into pushing high spots on them. Then when two people are skilled at this, they start dropping there hips, so they can gain advantage. They don't drop their hips because they are ignorant of body use, quite the opposite, they are working against another skilled person who is keeping them from wedging them up- or "floating" them.

I used to think this too, did the same, and saw others who work on the Aunkai method do the same. If you know how to push back with your hips, then I can source from the quads, then you source from the calf (source meaning resist or push back with), then I source from the ankles, then you source form the toes and I loose. If we both can push back at each other from the toes, then neither of us can win by pushing from a lower point than the other. Usually what happens then is both partners will drop their hips progressively lower than one another.

Then Alex Lee said to me, well you can't source (push from or resist with) power lower than the bottom of the feet now can you? Instead whoever can direct more of their weight and their opponents weigh+input force into the ground with cause the other person to move. This is Newton's Third Law in action. Thus IS becomes of study of this particular element as a foundational element, upon which you build many other things.

I will also note, that Sigman's blog says the same thing, that many people think that by sourcing power from a lower point than the other person they are thus doing IS. I now agree with Mike. By pushing back from a lower point, you aren't letting that force go into you and reflect off the ground. When looking at trying to maximize that combined force/weight to have it go into the ground and reflect back, one should realize that pushing back, even at a lower point, reduces the amount going into the ground.

I don't call that Aiki, because I believe Aiki is the ability to understand the mind and intention of your attacker, then blend accordingly. I know other people have other definitions, and that's cool.

Thats fine, we can agree to disagree here. I tend to think my explanation makes a bit more sense when you get to topics like mushin, as you don't think. Rather, the body simply redirects the energy to create waza (freeform), which seems to make sense in light of the founder's comments rather than relying on knowledge of a set form of waza.

If you don't find a sticking point, you don't have access to the connected support structures. If they don't lock them selves and you can't lock something out there is no path to the center. This might mean going all the way to the end of range of motion, but you must find this spot, or only the limb you are moving, will move.

You would certainly agree that if I exert a force on a limp arm, that eventually it will extend to a point where there is sufficient tension conveyed into the limb and into the body which will eventually cause the person to move.

None the less, if the person is holding on to you, even if their arm feels there will be a tension to some degree. This can be used as they will need to maintain their grip.

How are you directing the force "someone gave you"? You have to use muscle to do that right? If the only thing that moves your body is muscle, and there is force coming in, you must use something to direct that force. If you are relying on muscle to hold you up. And relying on muscle to redirect the force (what someone gave you). Are you using besides muscle? It sounds to me like you're relying on muscle...

If I use the lower torso/hip/inner thigh to direct a force, then sure, I'm using muscle to some degree, but it does not mean that you are pushing back with it.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: In your table example, how is there not an equal upwards force from the members of the table,

There is, the table is lower, and it's under (whatever you put on it) making force. This is why the thing- you or a table has to be lower in order to make force to push them up. Otherwise you can't "float" anything you simply push it.

This isn't just imagery, if ones partner pops up on their heels, and feels no force on force component.

No one, is saying that this result doesn't happen. But it doesn't happen the way you describe. You can't be under something without being physically lower than it is- it's not possible. You can't bounce force out of the ground and make someone pop up in the way you are describing. Even if you could, it would be much less efficient (due to force going all the way down, and coming all the way up through both of your bodies), then it would be to simply get under them and raising them up. You would lose power not gain power.

I used to think this too, did the same, and saw others who work on the Aunkai method do the same. If you know how to push back with your hips, then I can source from the quads, then you source from the calf (source meaning resist or push back with), then I source from the ankles, then you source form the toes and I loose. If we both can push back at each other from the toes, then neither of us can win by pushing from a lower point than the other. Usually what happens then is both partners will drop their hips progressively lower than one another.

This is the nature of competition. Two people with equal skills trying to "get" one another. If you are both equally skilled, there isn't a way to avoid this.

Then Alex Lee said to me, well you can't source (push from or resist with) power lower than the bottom of the feet now can you? Instead whoever can direct more of their weight and their opponents weigh+input force into the ground with cause the other person to move. This is Newton's Third Law in action. Thus IS becomes of study of this particular element as a foundational element, upon which you build many other things.

An easier way to say this would simply be, when no one can get lower, the strongest person wins. Again something we see in competition.

You would certainly agree that if I exert a force on a limp arm, that eventually it will extend to a point where there is sufficient tension conveyed into the limb and into the body which will eventually cause the person to move.

Yes, I did say that also.

None the less, if the person is holding on to you, even if their arm feels there will be a tension to some degree. This can be used as they will need to maintain their grip.

So you wouldn't call this tension a "sticking point". What do you call it? Because to me you just described a sticking point, a place where you can exert force on them. Did I miss something here?

I think all of our problems are in semantics and the confusion of imagery and what is happening.

Under has to be below. This is a good example. How can you use the word "under" and not mean that the thing that is "under" is also "lower???? Why would we even discuss this? If you're not lower than something you can't be under it- so why use the word under to describe something that is not lower?

But you do mean under, and to do that you must be lower, but you disagree that you are lower for some reason, even though all of your examples were things that are lower.

This weird semantics thing, with words that have a very clear meaning is making talking about this stuff very hard.

That's a bit of a selective response Chris, ignoring the components which make a float happen. IS is about a type of efficiency not used in normal body movement. Thats why i earlier stated I never realized the degree to which you had to relax and never push back.

I will respond fully later.

Hunter Lonsberry wrote: That's a bit of a selective response Chris, ignoring the components which make a float happen. IS is about a type of efficiency not used in normal body movement. Thats why i earlier stated I never realized the degree to which you had to relax and never push back. I will respond fully later.

It could be that I'm selecting the parts that seem relevant to me. I think that's a fair assessment.

I'm trying to find the parts where you actually explain the components of IS. When I read them, to me they just sound like a really complicated way to say something, that can be said in much more plain terms.

To me, I believe that the problem we are really having is imagery and words. I know I keep saying this. But I really think that is the difference and not an actual physical one.

I'm trying to see the difference, I'm listening.

Chris Hein wrote: It could be that I'm selecting the parts that seem relevant to me. I think that's a fair assessment. I'm trying to find the parts where you actually explain the components of IS. When I read them, to me they just sound like a really complicated way to say something, that can be said in much more plain terms. To me, I believe that the problem we are really having is imagery and words. I know I keep saying this. But I really think that is the difference and not an actual physical one. I'm trying to see the difference, I'm listening.

Well, this stuff is much easier to show in person. Thats when you can make small adjustments and you feel loads in the body move and things get heavier, or muscles which you aren't used to (stabilizers) using get fatigued very quickly.

So say we're going to do kokyu dosa and you are giving me a little bit of an input while holding my wrists. So when I first start executing whatever waza I want to do, you should be able to feel when i push on you with my biceps, then if i move to my shoulder, then if i move to my lower back, then if i push with my abs, hips, and quads. I would reset after starting to move from each part. If you then are moved, after i sequentially push with each of those parts of my body, but you don't feel me pushing from any of those parts, how can I be moving you? I can't be bracing to hold structure in place because you would feel the tension in my body that results, particularly if we are moving very slowly.

That would be an indicator, that you are moving yourself as a result of the energy you are giving me. Once you get that, it makes the waza practice very easy to do because your partner does all the work for you, you just direct them in the direction you want them to go.

I'm going to take a time out for a bit and give others who are working on this stuff a chance to discuss their experiences in floating.

was out for awhile. looked like the conversation hasn't change much.

to the OP, i usually "float" the other person when i want them to go down. i don't normally think of float, but getting under, i.e. sink the qi/ki/chi (SJT #1). many folks i dealt with tend to be physically taller than me, so floating isn't a problem. creating a purer ground path is usually more problematic. for me, as a short person, i tend to drop on top, then float, then on top, sort of a wave. since working with IS, i don't worry too much about being early, on time or late to deal with uke. the phrase "already there" has a whole new meaning. sometimes i played a bit of a game, by letting other folks slammed into me with full power to see how pure is my ground path and then proceed to do whatever techniques that we were practicing at the time. the difficult thing for me is to keep my quads from react to incomming force.

Hugh Beyer wrote: Yes, it's done with intent, not by pushing under them.

Bingo. This isn't about moving uke. It's about moving yourself. And the only person keeping you from moving - is you.

Part of the problem is that people have way too much invested in the idea that there's this big strong guy grabbing on to their arm, and they've got to deal with the strong guy and move that strong guy.

That strong guy exists only as you create him. And the more you create him, the more your arm/s becomes an extension of him. That fires up your primal brain and then - even though you've gotta keep it cool - you're still having to do tricky jitsu leverage and throw in some muscle to move him.

I've got 120 lb women who can sit in seiza and have four strong guys put their eight hands on one of her arms and grab tight. I tell the women, "Those guys don't exist. You're just hanging out by yourself and you want to turn your hand over to see if it's clean." The four strong guys all topple over on each other. Works every time. I've got little kids who can do that like it's a piece of cake.

If you can create some big guy grabbing you - with your mind. Then you can uncreate them - with your mind. Seriously, there is no spoon.

Dan Richards wrote: If you can create some big guy grabbing you - with your mind. Then you can uncreate them - with your mind. Seriously, there is no spoon.

But there is a something- your mind calls it a spoon, which is just a construct made up by your mind, but there is still a something. If that something has a will, and wants to enact it's will upon you, you'll have to deal with it.

Chris Hein wrote: But there is a something- your mind calls it a spoon, which is just a construct made up by your mind, but there is still a something. If that something has a will, and wants to enact it's will upon you, you'll have to deal with it.

Do or do not...there is no try...!!! ;0)

Chris Hein wrote: But there is a something- your mind calls it a spoon, which is just a construct made up by your mind, but there is still a something. If that something has a will, and wants to enact it's will upon you, you'll have to deal with it.

Ah, so now I have to deal with a spoon that you've created, within a mind that you've created for me. Oh, and you've created me, too. And then you've created this other something that wants to enact its will, that you've created, upon me, and I have to deal with it.

You're a pretty creative guy, Chris.

OK. So, what do you propose?