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 > Internal Training in Aikido

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 01-24-2013, 10:18 AM   #1
chillzATL
Location: ATL
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 846
United_States
Offline
Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

This is spawned from the "Internal Vs External" thread. I feel it would be more productive to take a simple, basic task and discuss how that same task is accomplished by someone with an internal focus vs. someone with a traditional, athletic, external focus.

Setup: The receiver stands with their feet roughly shoulder width apart, arm raised to the side and extended, palm facing out. Their goal is to receive/resist a push to the palm of that hand while maintaining their upright structural integrity.

External method: The typical way that everyone I've ever experienced, including myself, responds to this is by tensing the muscles of the arm and shoulder first. For a low force push, this is usually enough to resist it and remain stable and upright, but as the force of the push increases, so does the amount of muscle tension that's introduced to hold the frame together and keep it rigid. Once fatigue sets in or the amount of force surpasses what the persons muscles can handle, the integrity of the frame starts to break down and they will be bent, pushed over, or often times will start leaning into the push to counter the force acting against their frame, making them susceptible to being off balanced by removing that force. Someone with more muscle (aka, strength) can resist more force for longer periods of time before that frame breaks down.

Internal Method: On the surface and at its most basic level, the goal is to maintain the structure of the frame. Where the two methods differ is that normally a person will flex muscle to hold the frame rigid against a force. Someone with an internal focus will instead relax those muscles, which in essence allows the joints of the body to compress upon themselves to maintain the structure of the frame. There is a significant amount of conditioning that goes into allowing this happen, so initially you can't do this against a high level of force. The muscles of the body will instinctively kick in to hold the frame, but with consistent, low force repetition the joints of the body and those 'inner muscles" become conditioned to support those forces without the major muscles of the body kicking in to support the frame. Initially you might find that while you're able to keep the shoulder relaxed against a light force, you'll notice that other muscles, your lower back muscles for instance, are firing up to hold the frame. In my experience, there is a progression of relaxing the muscles, conditioning the joints and then noticing where the muscular tension has moved and then focusing on relaxing/conditioning those areas. The end result, regardless of the amount force one can handle, is that the solidity of the ground is presented through the person's body. So that when a force acts against that body, it is in effect pushing on the ground. This is the earth in heaven and earth. It also has a side-effect of naturally keeping a persons weight down.

Int Notes 1: This is meant to be a very basic view of this particular aspect of IP. At progressing levels, there are other things that come into play to augment those conditioned joints, provide additional structure to assist in handling/distributing those forces and to further remove slack from the body so that there is no movement or slippage in the body and those forces are cleanly conveyed to the ground. The tensing of muscle breaks that conveyance of force. Intent also plays a big part in both using those other structures and also manipulating and routing those forces through the body to the ground and elsewhere. Also, the point I made about the joints compressing in on themselves is meant to be the most basic of basic. With some conditioning the joints stop behaving that way and again, intent plays a big part.

Int Note 2: While this may seem to be just another trick or technique, which on some level it may be, it is meant to be a system for how one carries their body, a state of being. You always carry your body this way and focus on keeping it that way, so that anything that comes in contact with your body is essentially coming in contact with the ground without the need to ready yourself or react. It's "just there" in the same way that a steel pole buried in the ground is always "just there" waiting for you to hit it and bounce off it. The steel pole doesn't have to become ready. It is always conveying the solidity of the ground back at anything that acts against it.

I believe that the distinction between these two modes of body usage to accomplish the same task are pretty clear. Feel free to comment and compare, but please, keep the comments focused on the basics of what this example is meant to cover.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 04:34 AM   #2
Lee Salzman
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 399
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Standard disclaimer applies - i.e. my understanding is still a work in progress and bla-bla, reading my crap is more likely to send you astray then help you, etc. etc..

I think it is important to note that the ground here and ground-reaction-force does not have to be special. That is, grounding force meets up here with the "balloon man" idea. If you are lightly expanded in all directions, then force can hit the surface of the balloon, ride the surface, and come out somewhere else. In the direct case, it can touch one side, and come out the other side. This is as opposed to creating a frame with specific lines through which stuff goes down, like the skeleton.

There is not relaxation, per se, so much as a light tonus that is induced by making the mind work to expand the body everywhere to support that balloon, the whole internal bit.

I think something I was trying to emphasize in the other thread when responding to Chris Hein, was that a simple push is almost never a simple push. The push may just look like someone pushing you from the front, but even as it boils down to physics, this applies all sorts of weirds torques and directions to the body. So just trying to set up a single pathway from the push to the ground rarely ever works out so well, and this is one of the reasons the whole balloon man thing seems to better account for all the variables - if only because your brain can't think through the micro-level physics of it - so rather than try to, just handle everything...
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:31 PM   #3
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Jason Casteel wrote: View Post
This is spawned from the "Internal Vs External" thread. I feel it would be more productive to take a simple, basic task and discuss how that same task is accomplished by someone with an internal focus vs. someone with a traditional, athletic, external focus.
Cool!

Quote:
Setup: The receiver stands with their feet roughly shoulder width apart, arm raised to the side and extended, palm facing out. Their goal is to receive/resist a push to the palm of that hand while maintaining their upright structural integrity.

External method: The typical way that everyone I've ever experienced, including myself, responds to this is by tensing the muscles of the arm and shoulder first. For a low force push, this is usually enough to resist it and remain stable and upright, but as the force of the push increases, so does the amount of muscle tension that's introduced to hold the frame together and keep it rigid. Once fatigue sets in or the amount of force surpasses what the persons muscles can handle, the integrity of the frame starts to break down and they will be bent, pushed over, or often times will start leaning into the push to counter the force acting against their frame, making them susceptible to being off balanced by removing that force. Someone with more muscle (aka, strength) can resist more force for longer periods of time before that frame breaks down.
This is correct, but a little misleading. If someone is pushing on me, and I have good alignment, they will always wear out before I do. Often when I'm showing this, I will talk effortlessly with the class, explaining the alignments, and forget about the person pushing on me. I have had Uke's fall down because they over exerted themselves. Once good alignment is achieved you can take a huge amount of force for a VERY long time.

In this set up, you need enough muscle tension to align the body. Once good alignment is achieved not much more tension is added to the muscles, because there is a clear channel to the ground.

Basically it's a matter of levers. The smaller you can make your levers, in relation to their fulcrums the less muscular tension you need. If you make very good alignment the amount of tension needed, as the incoming force goes up, doesn't increase Significantly.

Quote:
Internal Method: On the surface and at its most basic level, the goal is to maintain the structure of the frame. Where the two methods differ is that normally a person will flex muscle to hold the frame rigid against a force. Someone with an internal focus will instead relax those muscles,
I start to see trouble when we say "relax the muscles". If we are talking about a relative relaxation, good athletics teach us the same thing. If we are talking about a total relaxation, what is holding the "frame" up?

Quote:
which in essence allows the joints of the body to compress upon themselves to maintain the structure of the frame. There is a significant amount of conditioning that goes into allowing this happen,
What is being conditioned? Is it the muscles? If so, why/how? Is it the mind? If it's the mind, then what is the mind doing the work with?

Quote:
so initially you can't do this against a high level of force. The muscles of the body will instinctively kick in to hold the frame, but with consistent, low force repetition the joints of the body and those 'inner muscles" become conditioned to support those forces without the major muscles of the body kicking in to support the frame. Initially you might find that while you're able to keep the shoulder relaxed against a light force, you'll notice that other muscles, your lower back muscles for instance, are firing up to hold the frame. In my experience, there is a progression of relaxing the muscles, conditioning the joints and then noticing where the muscular tension has moved and then focusing on relaxing/conditioning those areas. The end result, regardless of the amount force one can handle, is that the solidity of the ground is presented through the person's body. So that when a force acts against that body, it is in effect pushing on the ground. This is the earth in heaven and earth. It also has a side-effect of naturally keeping a persons weight down.
This is basically how I would hold this position. It's also how I believe most athletes who practice sports involving this kind of resistance would do it.

One of the things I think most 'internal' proponents don't understand, is that modern athletics is using all of the same good body mechanics that 'internal' people are.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:50 PM   #4
chillzATL
Location: ATL
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 846
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
This is correct, but a little misleading. If someone is pushing on me, and I have good alignment, they will always wear out before I do. Often when I'm showing this, I will talk effortlessly with the class, explaining the alignments, and forget about the person pushing on me. I have had Uke's fall down because they over exerted themselves. Once good alignment is achieved you can take a huge amount of force for a VERY long time.

In this set up, you need enough muscle tension to align the body. Once good alignment is achieved not much more tension is added to the muscles, because there is a clear channel to the ground.

Basically it's a matter of levers. The smaller you can make your levers, in relation to their fulcrums the less muscular tension you need. If you make very good alignment the amount of tension needed, as the incoming force goes up, doesn't increase Significantly.
It's more than just good alignment. This example uses skeletal alignment because it's the easiest way to feel what we're talking about, but as mentioned elsewhere, alignment is not required. The point isn't simply replicating the trick over and over. The point is to feel that way all the time, still, in movement, from any direction or angle, so that the ground is always there. There is no localized muscle tension blocking the force passing through you to the ground cleanly.

Quote:
I start to see trouble when we say "relax the muscles". If we are talking about a relative relaxation, good athletics teach us the same thing. If we are talking about a total relaxation, what is holding the "frame" up?
I went on to expand on that beyond simply "relax the muscles". The way you separate it from the rest of the sentence changes the context where it does not need to be changed. What I added to it, IMO, fairly clearly separates it from normal athletics.

Quote:
What is being conditioned? Is it the muscles? If so, why/how? Is it the mind? If it's the mind, then what is the mind doing the work with?
In the beginning I think it's the muscles under the muscles, for lack of anything better. I can't say for sure though. There was a process of working that relaxed feeling in the various joints down through my body that took place, and "muscles" in those joints would get fatigued in the same way my quads would after working legs at the gym, but again, more in the joint. The mind plays a part, but in the basic example I gave, shouldn't really matter.

Quote:
This is basically how I would hold this position. It's also how I believe most athletes who practice sports involving this kind of resistance would do it.
Again, it's not about simply replicating one trick, which is what you make it out to be. I completely disagree with your assessment that most athletes are going to do this too. Go to the gym and grab a few people, put them in this position and simply say "resist my push" and see how many of them respond as I described. I'm willing to say that 100% of them will respond by physically flexing the muscles of their body, the ones people commonly train, to resist a push, 100%.

Quote:
One of the things I think most 'internal' proponents don't understand, is that modern athletics is using all of the same good body mechanics that 'internal' people are.
Do you honestly think that nobody who tries to discuss this stuff with you knows anything about athletics? Just you? That's really what this suggests.

Last edited by chillzATL : 01-25-2013 at 03:53 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 04:16 PM   #5
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

I don't mean to sound like I'm the only one who understands athletics, sorry. However, when you sayd things like:

Quote:
I completely disagree with your assessment that most athletes are going to do this too. Go to the gym and grab a few people, put them in this position and simply say "resist my push" and see how many of them respond as I described. I'm willing to say that 100% of them will respond by physically flexing the muscles of their body, the ones people commonly train, to resist a push, 100%.
It makes me have to state these things over and over. I am talking about good athletes, just like you are talking about good 'internal' people. If you go to an 'internal' seminar and did the same thing, most of the 'internal' people there would react poorly as well. Good athletes use there bodies correctly, bad athletes don't. Good internal people use their body correctly, bad internal people don't. It's just that I believe the 'good' ones on both sides of the fence are doing the same things, and you don't. So that's what we are discussing.

The idea/theory that you can make good alignment in all directions at the same time is an interesting one. But how are we going to do that? I think this is the question, and sticking point between us.

From my perspective, you describe good athletics, and describe that as being the beginning stage of 'internal'. But when I ask how it goes beyond this stage, I just keep seeing something like "it just does".

That's what I'm interested in talking about- how does it do that? Are we using some sort of internal air pressure, or some kind of hydraulic system? Are we using another kind of power, other then muscles? Or are we using mental imagery to create better use of muscles?

What is it that 'internal' does differently. When I ask that question I just get examples of results, and not explanations of how those results are achieved. I'm not trying to argue but I don't know how these things are suppose to work. And if no one else does, why make the assumption that something radically different is happening inside of the body?

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 04:47 PM   #6
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

For this "resisting a push" problem, the best way I can think of to solve the problem is to create the smallest angle between the incoming force and the ground.

(click to enlarge)
Click image for larger version

Name:	alignment-progression.jpg
Views:	209
Size:	58.3 KB
ID:	1104

The greater the angle between the force and the support (the ground) the more muscular force it will take to resist the force. By creating the smallest angle possible we will use less force from the muscles by aligning the skeletal structure.The skeletal structure will take more of the force, requiring less muscle, and taxing the muscular/energetic body less.

This example cannot be done from all angles at the same time. It uses muscular force and skeletal alignment to work.

I'm interested in hearing/seeing other examples of how this problem might be solved in an 'internal' way.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:22 PM   #7
tanthalas
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
It makes me have to state these things over and over. I am talking about good athletes, just like you are talking about good 'internal' people.
I think one of the major points of contention comes from your attempt to take descriptions from the IP language and applying them directly to what athletes are doing... or at the very least, taking people's descriptions of IP movements and simply saying "Athletes do that too!"

Perhaps it might be helpful to attack it from a different direction -- that is: establish a baseline definition on what you think good athletes are doing using your own words, preferably using fairly neutral and mechanical terms.

From there, we might be able to do a reverse mapping of what good IP people do using more neutral terms as well (or we might not), and see if they match up.

To get the ball rolling, something along the lines of... "Describe how a good athlete would setup their body to resist a push of 5 lbs, 25lbs 100 lbs, 200 lbs... and so on."

Last edited by tanthalas : 01-25-2013 at 05:33 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:49 PM   #8
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 415
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
I'm interested in hearing/seeing other examples of how this problem might be solved in an 'internal' way.
http://mikesigman.blogspot.com/2012/...her-terms.html

Forrest's sink the chi Stupid Jin Trick is a representation of peng jin.

You can use what I was referring to in the other thread.

Structural alignment will eventually fail given enough force. When you are using jin, it doesn't quite work that way as the other person never can exert their full potential on you because they're always off balance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:55 PM   #9
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Calvin On wrote: View Post
To get the ball rolling, something along the lines of... "Describe how a good athlete would setup their body to resist a push of 5 lbs, 25lbs 100 lbs, 200 lbs... and so on."
Good idea.

So our problem,

We are standing there with our hand out to our sides, and a force is coming in, we want to resist this force.

If you were 'bad' at working with your body. I wouldn't call this athletic, or external or anything other then bad body use. You wouldn't change the structure of your body, you would simply let the force come in and use all the muscular tension you could muster to fight the force.

If you were 'athletic' facing the same problem. You would align your body to the force, activate only the muscle groups needed, and use your skeletal muscular body to the best possible results.

So that is how I would basically outline the difference between 'bad' body use and 'good' (athletic) body use in this situation.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 06:01 PM   #10
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
http://mikesigman.blogspot.com/2012/...her-terms.html

Forrest's sink the chi Stupid Jin Trick is a representation of peng jin.

You can use what I was referring to in the other thread.

Structural alignment will eventually fail given enough force. When you are using jin, it doesn't quite work that way as the other person never can exert their full potential on you because they're always off balance.
Okay, now I can get on board with this. However, we are talking about something other then 'personal body skill' here. We are talking about taking the other persons ideas, and intention into account. This is leaving the arena of body skill and becoming a human relational skill.

Things like the other person being off balance doesn't have to do with the way you are using your body anymore, and it now has to do with how you place yourself in relation to them. These are the kinds of things I think Ueshiba was talking about. But this is not what I have been lead to believe the main interest of the "IP" community is talking about.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 06:46 PM   #11
Sy Labthavikul
Dojo: Aikido Academy USA of Alhambra
Location: Los Angeles area, CA
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 98
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

I don't know if "your partner is always off balance" automatically converts the interaction from a body skill to a "relational" skill.

Ever see a wobble board or bosu board? Google it if you haven't. Its a hard plastic disc, about 2 feet in diameter, with half of a squishy, wobbly ball stuck on one side. Its designed to introduce instability to exercises. If I were to hypothetically push horizontally, hands against hands, on my identical physical twin, we'd be in stalemate. Now if I were to put this wobble board between us, the rigid, hard side against my hands, but the wobbly, half sphere for my identical twin to push on - I've got a significant advantage.

To me, I'm pushing a solid object. I don't have to stabilize. To my partner, he's got to constantly adjust himself because his hands are moving and sinking into this wobbly thing.

Our relation to each other hasn't changed - I haven't dodged, or mentally tricked him. But my partner is constantly having to stabilize and balance and can't put the full force of his body behind his push. Pushing on people who do taiji pushhands feels like this - the inexperienced use big movements of their arms, spine, and legs to keep you from "setting yourself" - but the really experienced people barely move at all. It definitely is a body skill.


---------------------------------
train as if the tengu will never visit, execute as if they already have
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:34 PM   #12
phitruong
Dojo: Charlotte Aikikai Agatsu Dojo
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,744
United_States
Online
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

i believed one of the problem with using structure alignment to resist a push is the power of the push pins your body in place, which is not good if you want to be mobile afterward, as the push continues. as Hunter mentioned, structure alignment will fail with sufficient force, but that's the next stage. resisting a simple direction push is only part of the requirement, but we need to understand the bigger picture of this which includes mobility, manage increasing load, and multiple directional forces. so what we do for a simple directional push must fit into the larger picture later. we can't just do one thing for this and use different set of respond for others. see Vlad comment (second hand) in this post http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...31&postcount=2

"budo is putting on cold, wet, sweat stained gi with a smile and a snarl" - your truly
http://charlotteaikikai.org
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:26 AM   #13
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Sy Labthavikul wrote: View Post
I don't know if "your partner is always off balance" automatically converts the interaction from a body skill to a "relational" skill.

Ever see a wobble board or bosu board? Google it if you haven't. Its a hard plastic disc, about 2 feet in diameter, with half of a squishy, wobbly ball stuck on one side. Its designed to introduce instability to exercises. If I were to hypothetically push horizontally, hands against hands, on my identical physical twin, we'd be in stalemate. Now if I were to put this wobble board between us, the rigid, hard side against my hands, but the wobbly, half sphere for my identical twin to push on - I've got a significant advantage.

To me, I'm pushing a solid object. I don't have to stabilize. To my partner, he's got to constantly adjust himself because his hands are moving and sinking into this wobbly thing.

Our relation to each other hasn't changed - I haven't dodged, or mentally tricked him. But my partner is constantly having to stabilize and balance and can't put the full force of his body behind his push. Pushing on people who do taiji pushhands feels like this - the inexperienced use big movements of their arms, spine, and legs to keep you from "setting yourself" - but the really experienced people barely move at all. It definitely is a body skill.
If we are looking at a strong force coming in, and talking about the best way to resist that force, we are talking about one kind of thing- how to best use the body to resist strong force coming in.

If we are talking about always unbalancing someone so they cannot apply strong force to us, we are talking about anther kind of thing- How to keep people from being able to exert strong force on us.

These are different discussions, I'm up for having either/both of them, but we need to be clear about what we are discussing.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:27 AM   #14
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Phi Truong wrote: View Post
i believed one of the problem with using structure alignment to resist a push is the power of the push pins your body in place, which is not good if you want to be mobile afterward, as the push continues. as Hunter mentioned, structure alignment will fail with sufficient force, but that's the next stage. resisting a simple direction push is only part of the requirement, but we need to understand the bigger picture of this which includes mobility, manage increasing load, and multiple directional forces. so what we do for a simple directional push must fit into the larger picture later. we can't just do one thing for this and use different set of respond for others. see Vlad comment (second hand) in this post http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...31&postcount=2
I agree, there are lot's of problems with using structural alignment to deal with force. The reasons you sighted are good ones.

But my question is, what else can you do? How can you better deal with strong force coming in? The way I described is the best way I know how (within the confines of 'taking' the force). If there is another way, what is that way?

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:24 AM   #15
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 415
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
I agree, there are lot's of problems with using structural alignment to deal with force. The reasons you sighted are good ones.

But my question is, what else can you do? How can you better deal with strong force coming in? The way I described is the best way I know how (within the confines of 'taking' the force). If there is another way, what is that way?
The thing is, you never want to really let that force come in, because it will effect you. That is the inherent weakness in structure. If your structure is compromised, there are ways to fix it, but it is of course dangerous to you when you are trying to fix it.

You always want to redirect it in some other way, because if it starts to effect you, and the other guy is skilled/strong enough, you will loose. If they aren't all that skilled, then you might be able to recover, and the other person will feel it kind of switch from on-off-back on as you can re-establish within yourself.

If you are able to balance those forces within yourself, the other person won't be able to compromise you, unless you screw it up within yourself when you move.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 12:13 PM   #16
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Hunter Lonsberry wrote: View Post
The thing is, you never want to really let that force come in, because it will effect you. That is the inherent weakness in structure. If your structure is compromised, there are ways to fix it, but it is of course dangerous to you when you are trying to fix it.

You always want to redirect it in some other way, because if it starts to effect you, and the other guy is skilled/strong enough, you will loose. If they aren't all that skilled, then you might be able to recover, and the other person will feel it kind of switch from on-off-back on as you can re-establish within yourself.
Okay, again, this makes perfect sense to me. However this is different then body function, and gets into another area. I see these two important distinctions.

Area 1- How I use my body to do work.

Area 2- How I keep others from applying force to me.

Area 1, is a large avenue of athletic practice. The main idea is simply how do I most efficiently use my body to do work. This kind of body use should apply in many different areas where the body moves in the same way.

Area 2 is a more specific thing, that has to do with a specific situation involving you and an attacker. In this area how well your body can take loads and make force are not so important, however ways that you can keep others from making force on you is important.

If we have a problem with a heavy rock that we need to move.

'Area 1' can help us train to move that rock. We can improve the force and function of our body so that moving the rock is possible.

Study in 'Area 2' will never improve our ability to move the rock. The rock is inanimate, and simply sits there being heavy.

If our problem is winning a Judo match against a physically superior athlete.

If the athlete remains physically superior to us, no matter how powerful and efficient we make our body (we'll assume he is more genetically gifted and also trains his body constantly) further study in 'Area 1' will not yield improved results.

However, if our competitor is only working on making his body stronger, 'Area 2' may help us overcome him. If we learn methods that will not allow him to use is physical superiority on us, we can nullify his physical advantage.

I like talking about both 'Areas', but we need to keep them distinct and clear in this kind of discussion.

Quote:
If you are able to balance those forces within yourself, the other person won't be able to compromise you, unless you screw it up within yourself when you move.
I see "balance the forces within yourself" quite a lot. I'm not sure what exactly that is suppose to mean.

If we were talking about taking force in, I can understand that. The idea being that force is exerted on you, and you 'balance' that force by letting it come into the ground through your body (within you). This would keep the force from doing anything via your alignment to the ground, 'balancing it'.

If you don't let the force come into you, but always more yourself so there is not much force coming in, I don't exactly see how that is 'within you'.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 12:59 PM   #17
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 698
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
If we have a problem with a heavy rock that we need to move.
Recall the story about the rock as related by Saotome? Osensei didn't have time for silly things like levers and fulcrums - he just snatch up the rock.

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 01:06 PM   #18
RonRagusa
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 637
United_States
Online
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
Area 2- How I keep others from applying force to me.
To keep a force from being applied to you it's necessary to deny it a "resting" place within your body. So if someone is applying a push to your shoulder trying to stop the push at your shoulder will provide your partner with a point of application, a resting place, for the applied force. You need to let the force of the push flow through the shoulder and either ground it, redirect it, disperse it or cycle it around and return it to your partner. Alignment grounds, perpendicular forces redirect, angles disperse and capacitance cycles.

The same four principles are applicable whether you are stationary or in motion.

Ron

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:05 PM   #19
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
To keep a force from being applied to you it's necessary to deny it a "resting" place within your body. So if someone is applying a push to your shoulder trying to stop the push at your shoulder
While it might seem like this is possible, it's not. The shoulder isn't floating is space. The ground, through the body, is holding the shoulder up.

so no matter what, when force comes in, if it's not knocking the person over, it's making some kind of 'ground path'. Now, how efficient that 'ground path' is is another story. In an efficient model (one where we stand the best chance of resisting the incoming force), that path should be as simple as possible.

Quote:
will provide your partner with a point of application, a resting place, for the applied force. You need to let the force of the push flow through the shoulder and either ground it, redirect it, disperse it or cycle it around and return it to your partner. Alignment grounds, perpendicular forces redirect, angles disperse and capacitance cycles.

The same four principles are applicable whether you are stationary or in motion.

Ron
So, because the shoulder is connected to the ground, via the body, always, there is a 'grounding' that happens when you are resisting incoming force.

Redirecting or dispersing is another kind of thing, more in 'Area 2'.

There is a really tricky point here that I believe you're outlining. The shape of the body receiving force is important. It determines how much force can act on the body.

For example: you have a surface that is angled to the incoming force, and you have a surface that is flat to the incoming force. The angled surface will receive less force because force not as fully contact the body.

This is a tricky issue when we are talking about alignment. Once the force has entered the body, we are talking about 'Area 1'. Before the force enters the body we are talking about 'Area 2'.

I would like to talk about both areas, but we must keep them clear.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cycling".

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:06 PM   #20
ChrisHein
 
ChrisHein's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Fresno
Location: Fresno , CA
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,628
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Robert M Watson Jr wrote: View Post
Recall the story about the rock as related by Saotome? Osensei didn't have time for silly things like levers and fulcrums - he just snatch up the rock.
I have also heard many stories about how muscled Ueshiba was. He must have been a fan of 'Area 1' and 'Area 2' training.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:43 PM   #21
RonRagusa
Location: Massachusetts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 637
United_States
Online
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
The shoulder isn't floating is space. The ground, through the body, is holding the shoulder up.

so no matter what, when force comes in, if it's not knocking the person over, it's making some kind of 'ground path'. Now, how efficient that 'ground path' is is another story. In an efficient model (one where we stand the best chance of resisting the incoming force), that path should be as simple as possible.
That's what I mean by not providing a resting place for the incoming force. In order for the path you describe to be effective in grounding the force, the point of application of the force must be "open" in order for the force to travel along the path and be grounded. Locking up the point of application will prevent the force from flowing along the path resulting in a clash of forces at the point of contact.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
Redirecting or dispersing is another kind of thing, more in 'Area 2'.
In the first diagram in the series you posted (link below) imagine that the outstretched hand is being pushed. The force will be strongest at the point of contact but will be dispersed and weakened at each angle in the arm; wrist, elbow and shoulder. Try it yourself. Stand in natural stance, feet parallel with your right arm outstretched and rigid, fist clenched palm down and have a partner push on your fist. The next time around rotate your fist 90 degrees clockwise and allow your wrist, elbow and shoulder to relax until they appear as in the diagram. Keeping unbenable arm, have your partner push again. With proper coordination of mind and body you should be able to resist a much more forceful push due to dispersal of the incoming force.

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/attach...4&d=1359157247

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
There is a really tricky point here that I believe you're outlining. The shape of the body receiving force is important. It determines how much force can act on the body.
Of equal importance is the degree of mind/body coordination.

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "cycling".
Think of a capacitor. It stores energy and then releases the stored energy all at once back into the circuit. Metaphorically speaking, the same thing can be done with forces applied to the body. Interesting examples of this are found in videos of O Sensei and Gozo Shioda when they bounce ukes off hip, chest and back.

Ron

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 02:15 AM   #22
mrlizard123
Dojo: Templegate Dojo
Location: Bristol
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 128
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
For this "resisting a push" problem, the best way I can think of to solve the problem is to create the smallest angle between the incoming force and the ground.

(click to enlarge)
Attachment 1104
Nice pictures, they very much illuminate what you mean by the atheletic approach to receiving a push, but I'm curious as to how would you draw these again for the person in the diagram where the angle of force that will be applied is not known in advance of its arrival?

(Maybe draw a blindfold on the man so he can't see?)

I'm interested to see! (I'm leaving my blindfold off...)

Last edited by mrlizard123 : 01-28-2013 at 02:18 AM.

Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 07:21 AM   #23
chillzATL
Location: ATL
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 846
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
It makes me have to state these things over and over. I am talking about good athletes, just like you are talking about good 'internal' people. If you go to an 'internal' seminar and did the same thing, most of the 'internal' people there would react poorly as well. Good athletes use there bodies correctly, bad athletes don't. Good internal people use their body correctly, bad internal people don't. It's just that I believe the 'good' ones on both sides of the fence are doing the same things, and you don't. So that's what we are discussing.
What I"m describing should, on some level, be demonstrable by anyone chasing "internal". Good, great, horrible, doesn't matter. the intention and goal is the same. While top level modern athletes certain learn efficient body/muscle usage, they do NOT train and sculpt their body/muscles to the degree that they obviously do and then magically eschew the use of those very muscles that they spend so much time keeping honed and at peek condition. It just doesn't work that way Chris. As someone else said in another thread here recently, you don't spend your entire life learning to do things one way and then suddenly stop doing it that way with any level of success. You could go get Lebron James, physically, one of the most gifted and high level athletes on the planet, and put him in the scenario I gave and I'm still 200% confident he would respond exactly the same way as anyone else. Just go watch him play, watch him fight through a hard screen and you will see his body respond in a way that is congruent with the example I gave. That is, the flexing and tensing of those honed and sculpted muscles to solidify his frame while he drives through that screen. There is nothing about what he's doing that's different than what any athlete, high level or otherwise, does and none of that matches up with the mindset and goal of what I described in the demo/test.

Quote:
The idea/theory that you can make good alignment in all directions at the same time is an interesting one. But how are we going to do that? I think this is the question, and sticking point between us.
Most likely we don't completely know why, but that's only a sticking point for you. Science doesn't always know why something happens.

Quote:
From my perspective, you describe good athletics, and describe that as being the beginning stage of 'internal'. But when I ask how it goes beyond this stage, I just keep seeing something like "it just does".
I feel my example and the description of it were quite clear in separating internal from external, internal from athletics. I never intended the discussion of this to go beyond this most basic of examples.

Quote:
What is it that 'internal' does differently. When I ask that question I just get examples of results, and not explanations of how those results are achieved. I'm not trying to argue but I don't know how these things are suppose to work. And if no one else does, why make the assumption that something radically different is happening inside of the body?
Because it just doesn't matter. Science often times has results long before they have an understanding of why that result happened. The point that is made to you and others over and over again is that an increasingly high number of people, most of whom have decades of experience in martial arts (aka athletics) and other more modern activities, feel it and know it's different. You don't have to be a peak level athlete to validate it as different. At some point you have to be interested enough to get out and experience it yourself and go from there because it's more likely that none of us are going to "know" on a level that will appease you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 07:33 AM   #24
chillzATL
Location: ATL
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 846
United_States
Offline
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Chris Hein wrote: View Post
For this "resisting a push" problem, the best way I can think of to solve the problem is to create the smallest angle between the incoming force and the ground.

(click to enlarge)
Attachment 1104

The greater the angle between the force and the support (the ground) the more muscular force it will take to resist the force. By creating the smallest angle possible we will use less force from the muscles by aligning the skeletal structure.The skeletal structure will take more of the force, requiring less muscle, and taxing the muscular/energetic body less.

This example cannot be done from all angles at the same time. It uses muscular force and skeletal alignment to work.

I'm interested in hearing/seeing other examples of how this problem might be solved in an 'internal' way.
See attached. In my mind and body it's more like this. Via relaxation and mental intent you change the angles of the force and how it moves through you. It's something that has to be felt and practiced to really understand that it happens. I once heard someone use the term mentally directed force vectors and it sounded good, so sure, why not, but again, that's outside the scope of this thread, but what others have said about not giving the force anywhere to rest on you is perfectly valid. Muscle tension creates those resting spots. Oh and what you said about creating the shortest angle/distance from the force is also valid, but it's not done by using alignment.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	alignment-progression-a.jpg
Views:	67
Size:	79.3 KB
ID:	1105  

Last edited by chillzATL : 01-28-2013 at 07:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 07:51 AM   #25
phitruong
Dojo: Charlotte Aikikai Agatsu Dojo
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,744
United_States
Online
Re: Int. Vs. Ext - resisting a push

Quote:
Ron Ragusa wrote: View Post
That's what I mean by not providing a resting place for the incoming force. In order for the path you describe to be effective in grounding the force, the point of application of the force must be "open" in order for the force to travel along the path and be grounded. Locking up the point of application will prevent the force from flowing along the path resulting in a clash of forces at the point of contact.

Ron
almost forgot to chime in here. when you let the force going through you to the ground, eventually, with enough force applied, your body would loose its coherency. some of the experts have mentioned to not let the force come into your body. what if you bring the ground to uke's shoulders when he/she/it pushes on you? wouldn't that creates a backlash force within uke's body instead of you, and uke's applied power would push he/she/it away? just a thought.

i have experienced that expert folks can reach further than uke's shoulders.

"budo is putting on cold, wet, sweat stained gi with a smile and a snarl" - your truly
http://charlotteaikikai.org
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



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
One Hundred and Eighty RonRagusa External Aikido Blog Posts 2 02-01-2011 09:13 PM
YouTube: Push Test to Nikkyo MM Training 32 11-27-2009 08:22 PM
Push Test 02 MM Non-Aikido Martial Traditions 20 05-15-2009 08:35 AM
Invitation: Competition Taiji Push Hands -The Arnold Classic, Columbus, OH, March 6-8 Chris Parkerson Events Listings: Non-Aikido Martial Traditions 4 02-27-2009 11:21 AM
Push Test with Ueshiba MM Non-Aikido Martial Traditions 28 09-24-2008 11:55 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:30 PM.



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