Tai Chi vs. Aikido
David O'Daniel
Chi has kicks & striking hand techs, though not sure if that "single
whip" is ever really used, assuming it's the chicken-beek hitting, since
it's never trained to hit. Aikido seems more dynamic but if no-one's
running at them or trying to fall on purpose, not sure Aikido can
attack. Anyway, not actually "in" any class of either, though have had
passing brief experience in them & an interest in them to at least read
more about the styles.
For those actually in either Tai Chi or Aikido, or perhaps even both,
what do you think?
Bojutsu1
Lynn Seiser
the expereicne that you gain insight. Go train.
Until again,
Lynn
Until again,
"We do not rise to the level of our expectations.
We fall to the level of our training."
Train well. KWATZ!
Lynn Seiser, Ph.D., MFT
Nidan Tenshinkai Aikido
Lucaylucay Kali JKD
www.AikiSolutions.com
S. McElvanney
point???
Whether you pick it up in class or have some striking knowledge first is up
to you.
Gernot Hassenpflug
Simon, it owuld be appreciated if you could explain that advice. After
all, the circular movements in aikido are supposed to be learnt
first. Doing something other than that will simply interfere with the
learning process of a beginner. And thinking that strikes are going to
make bad aikido better is a dead end. When you know what you are
doing, the strikes are a necessary part of effective self-defence, but
when you don't, then they are superfluous and you should be practicing
understanding the technique. If the instructor teaches good sword
technique, your strikes that you require doing all your techniques
will be solid - these are for example the ikkyo technique (basically
all other techniques have ikkyo in them), and the kokyu-nage
techniques.
If at the same time you have learnt how to use breath-power, and stand
in and maintain a proper hanmi, then you have a point from which to
examine other striking techniques. You also then have the ability to
generate the correct power through hip movement in irimi, and can
learn punches with understanding of how they work. Short cuts won't
help. I think that karate people who can throw a really good choku-ski
and gyaku-tsuki should be able to learn aikido and sword techniques
very quickly. Anyone want to comment (ejtorit, yojimbo?)
Regards,
Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug RASC, Kyoto University
monkey68
"David O'Daniel" <Boju...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21877-3E0...@storefull-2177.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Here's an interesting comparrison. Both are basically soft styles. Tai
> Chi has kicks & striking hand techs, though not sure if that "single
> whip" is ever really used, assuming it's the chicken-beek hitting, since
> it's never trained to hit. Aikido seems more dynamic but if no-one's
> running at them or trying to fall on purpose, not sure Aikido can
> attack. Anyway, not actually "in" any class of either, though have had
> passing brief experience in them & an interest in them to at least read
> more about the styles.
What they both have in common is that they are both highly stylised methods
of martial art which promise spectacular results which are seldom, if ever
acheived. This fact is, of course, put down to the lack of dedication,
training or understanding of the student, or the fact that his teacher
didn/t know the "real" art. What the "real" art is can be argued over
incessantly by theorists, which perhaps means that practicing these arts
will certainly hone your debating skills if nothing else.
David O'Daniel
thought it would be interesting to compair, both being ki/chi oriented.
I'm not really in either, only care mainly about the staff aspects;
though I trying to review & remember/interpret the Tai Chi form I had in
1996 (for 6 months), from my notes & internet sits. I just threw the
comparison out, for the hard-core Aikido & Tai Chi / Taiji practitioners
to speculate on, like the numerous threads of hard styles vs other hard
styles.
As for "Go train", I train Okinawan Bo Jutsu intensely. There are those
with more knowledge of history esp, than me. Yet still, do you
fenatically train Aikido & Tai Chi? If so, good for you. You then
should be able to give insight to at least comparison in theory, the 2
martial arts.
Happy Hilidays all!!
Bojtusu1
storys
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote in message
news:vc9r8ca...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
> "S. McElvanney" <simonmc...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > My advice is do not do Aikido unless you know how to strike. Whats the
> > point???
> > Whether you pick it up in class or have some striking knowledge first is
up
> > to you.
>
> Simon, it owuld be appreciated if you could explain that advice. After
> all, the circular movements in aikido are supposed to be learnt
> first.
Explain for me then why Morei Usheiba (SP?) used to require shodan level or
above in some other art BEFORE he would allow you to study Aikido??????
..............Tom..........................
Mike Sigman
> You then
> should be able to give insight to at least comparison in theory, the 2
> martial arts.
What does it matter? Go look at the Aikido in the West and you'll see that
99% of it is useless as serious combat. Go look at the "Taiji" in the West
and you'll see that 97% of it is useless in combat and the other 3% is
someone doing some other form of fighting and claiming they're doing Taiji.
It's a non-argument in the West.
If you take a top level-Taiji practitioner (not someone who does a little
bit of it and sell "discipleships" for dough) from China and match him
against a top-level Aikidoka from Japan, the Aikodist is going to be injured
almost instantly, IMO.
Mike
Jason Haynes
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v0bnuur...@corp.supernews.com...
I practiced many martial arts in UK and then settled on Aikido for several
years. One day I found in conversation that one of my near neighbours Terry
aged 62 years old at the time practised Taiji. He invited me round to have
a dabble as I had commented that I was unaware of the efficacy of Taji as
martial art or successful martial art. We discussed and then played on
various aspects I was unable with any success to complete any martial
technique or locks or anything else on him, I was impressed with the
apparent ease of use in which the Taji was displayed, my Aikido then seemed
a lower level martial art (although before that it was to me higher level
than other stuff I had trained). I no longer train in Aikido.
I remember reading on the Aikido FAQ in interview with a proficient Aikidoka
cant remember his name. Talks on about a skirmish between Wang Shu Jin &
himself Mr Aikiodoka whatisname (used the train in UK and now in America
maybe ?) where he reports that he made a crack on Wangs wrist and then Wang
threw him saying it was quite a throw. I can't remember his name, just that
he liked to blow his own trumpet about skirmishes he'd been in and the arms
of people he has broke. His comment on the Wang Shu Jin incident is that he
was thrown and it was quite a throw and then the students broke the skirmish
up, pity it wasn't in the West where us Western Students may have just
carried out watching to see the outcome!
Happy Wandering
Charlie Parker
> and you'll see that 97% of it is useless in combat and the other 3% is
> someone doing some other form of fighting and claiming they're doing
Taiji.
> It's a non-argument in the West.
Interesting that a Western guy should win in the Chen village push hands
comeptition then. Still, I'm sure he wasn't doing real taiji, which I
suppose would give him an advantage.
Chas
Hell jes;
suppose you entered a chess tournament; sat down at the table, shot
your opponent twice in the face with your .45, and hollered;
'Checkmate!'.
Are you another Kasparov?
--
Chas Clements
casemaker 303-364-0403
www.chasclements.com
http://www.kuntaosilat.com
Mike Sigman
"Jason Haynes" <sonics...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:au4qkt$lkd$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> I remember reading on the Aikido FAQ in interview with a proficient
Aikidoka
> cant remember his name. Talks on about a skirmish between Wang Shu Jin &
> himself Mr Aikiodoka whatisname (used the train in UK and now in America
> maybe ?) where he reports that he made a crack on Wangs wrist and then
Wang
> threw him saying it was quite a throw. I can't remember his name, just
that
> he liked to blow his own trumpet about skirmishes he'd been in and the
arms
> of people he has broke. His comment on the Wang Shu Jin incident is that
he
> was thrown and it was quite a throw and then the students broke the
skirmish
> up, pity it wasn't in the West where us Western Students may have just
> carried out watching to see the outcome!
Yeah, well, maybe you should pass the below onto the Aikido FAQ for general
information, if they don't already have a copy:
From: Ellis Amdur <eam...@halcyon.com>
To: Mike Sigman <mikes...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Chiba article
Date: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 4:45 PM
Mike - Pls. do me a favor.
Haven't been able to post this on the newsgroup. Would you do so for me.
David Williams Sent:
> ### Excerpt of interview with Chiba Kazuo, 8th-dan Aikido instructor ###
>
> Q: With friends like that who needs
> enemies! As we are talking about
> challenges would you mind telling
> me about your confrontation with Mr
> Wang, the Tai Chi Master from China?
>
> Chiba: Who told you about this . . . Mr Cottier
> perhaps?
>
> Q: Perhaps I'd better not tell . . .
>
> Chiba: (Laughter) O.K. then. I was in a big demonstration of Martial Arts
>in Tokyo in
> the early 1960's, and Tai Chi Chuan was being shown by Mr Wang. He was
>from Taiwan
> and he was very big indeed. He became quite famous later in Japan. Well,
>at the end of his
> display he had a number of Karateka line up in front of
> him, and each of them punched him in the belly. It had no effect on him.
>I was
> not impressed. I would have done something else (Sensei demonstrated a
>groin kick and
> face punch whilst saying this).
> So, anyway two of my private students were also studying Tai Chi under Mr
>Wang, and
> they were very impressed with him. They invited me to come along and see
>him. Eventually
> I accepted and went to watch his class.
> At the dojo my students introduced us, and he politely asked me to show
>some Aikido.
> Even though his words were warm it was still a challenge! Well, we faced
>each other, and
> Master Wang made something like Sumo posture with his hands outstretched.
>I stood and
> waited for an opening. This went on for some minutes until he moved
>forward to push me.
> So I met him, made Tai Sabaki (body evasion) and took his wrist with
Kote
> Gaeshi, (wrist crush/reversal) . . . his wrist made a loud snapping noise
>as I applied it.
> Even though I applied Kote Gaeshi strongly and injured him, he did not go
>down.
> MasterWang snatched his wrist from me, and challenged me immediately. So
>this time he
> pushed me with both hands in the belly, and threw me quite a distance
>across the room. I
> landed, but I also did not go down. It was
> an amazing throw. My students then came between us, and that was that.
>
> ### End excerpt ###
>
I will quote the story that Terry Dobson told me, which was corroborated at
another time by Donn Draeger. I also heard Terry tell this story again in
a group with Mitsugi Saotome present, who amidst laughter chimed in and
agreed. I didn't know that Ken Cottier was present but he was also part of
the group.
First, some context. Wang Shu Chin, for those who don't know, was
primarily a Pa Kua, Hsing I teacher, who also trained many years in I
Ch'uan. He was a massive man, fat over heavy muscle, in his prime, about
5'6" and about 260 lb, I'd guess. He also did t'ai chi, the syncretic form
created by Chen Pan Ling, which he did in a very different manner from
Chen (this form is, these days, often called the Guo Shu form, the
"national form" of Taiwan). Wang was the head of a neo-Taoist sect, which
strove to harmonize the major religions of the world.
As always, there are debates about how strong he really was, I studied with
him only two months when he was months away from death from melanoma. I
witnessed him knock over a very muscular kyoshinkai champion with a
side-step and belly blow, but that was a a controlled situation, not
free-style. Still, really impressive power, despite his illness. For me,
one of the most interesting measurements of his "power" was that when I
travelled in Taiwan, every teacher who was talking big and trying to
impress with his credentials claimed to have beaten Wang.
Anyway, Wang originally came over to Japan in the '60's, first to teach his
son-in-law, who had married his adopted daughter. Among the first to study
with him was Sato Kimbei. Sato, among koryu circles, was generally
considered a joke. He collected scrolls and licenses. Otsubo sensei, of
the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, told in a very public forum, of Sato apporoaching
him, asking how long it would take to get a menkyo kaiden and when Otsubo
was noncommittal, trying to bargain with him. Otsubo allowed him to train
with him and w/in two months, Sato was nowhere to be found, but years
later, he was claiming licensure in the school. Anyway, Sato hooked up
with Wang for some years, and this did give him legitimate claim to being
one of the "pioneers" of Japanese t'ai chi.
Wang used to ask a former student of Sato's to demonstrate what Sato
taught, and he and his son-in-law would pick it apart, laughing and asking
him to repeat cerain moves over and over. I also happened to be present at
a workshop when the head of the Bejing wushu society, (forgot his name -
the guy who put together the 48 movement syncretic t'ai chi form) and
another practitioner, who has won the Yang t'ai chi competition several
years running and Sato came up and told them that they weren't allowed to
teach because they hadn't asked his permission, and they looked at him like
you look at a deranged street person asking to borrow your briefcase, and
walked away shaking their heads. Sato did nothing, and left with his wife
shortly after. Sato is currently claimed as a senior infuence on the
Genbukan and Tanemura - - -Oh well.
Wang started teaching in the grounds of Meiji shrine, and somewhere along
the line a group of non-Japanese around Donn Draeger started training with
him. Draeger learned some pa-kua, Wang would also show some Hsing I, but
mostly he taught t'ai chi. Among this group was Terry Dobson, who was a
live-in student of Morihei Ueshiba of aikido. Terry's direct senior was
Chiba. Wang was doing demos in Japanese martial arts demonstrations and as
Ken Cottier put it, "here you'd have all these startched Japanese in their
crisp kiekko gi and their crisp snappy movements and then out would come
this fat Chinaman in grey flannel slacks and suspenders and he'd start
doing impossible slow t'ai chi and he'd turn around and this ass as big as
the moon would waft across the stage and then he'd challenge all comers to
have a go at him and the young karate boys would be rabid and he'd let them
punch his stomach or kick him in the groin and he'd just laugh it off but
heaven help you if you tried to punch his head. He made it clear that that
was out of bounds, and if you broke the rules, then he'd become, shall we
say, active."
Terry stated to me, (I'm quoting as best as I can remember) "the uchi-deshi
at honbu, particularly Chiba, started giving me a raft of shit that I was
being disloyal to O-sensei by studying with Wang, and I asked O-sensei, and
he said, 'sure, do what you want' but they wouldn't let up so I said, "why
don't you come and check him out for yourself." So Draeger and me took
Chiba, Saotome and Tamura. Well, we walked in, and Wang scopes out Chiba
right away, like he knows who has the attitude here, takes one look, and
says, 'come here boy.' Seriously, Wang's over sixty, paid lots of dues, is
a religious leader and all, and here comes these punks, as far as he's
concerned, in their twenties, copping an attitude. So Wang lets Chiba
punch him in the stomach. Nothing. Chiba tries again. Nothing. Well,
now Chiba loses his temper, half turns away, and then tries to sucker punch
him, thinking it's timing. This time Wang sucks the fist into his belly
and then drops, he gives it back, Chiba's arm goes shooting back behind his
ear, and he's shaking his wrist in pain. Wang then let Chiba kick him in
the groin. Nothing. So Chiba loses it, grabs Wang's wrist and puts a
nikkyo or kote-gaeshi on it, some wrist lock. I don't know what Wang did,
it was too fast, but Chiba slams on the floor and Wang's doing something to
him with one hand and he's screaming in pain. Finally Wang lets him up and
says, "You've got a little chi, why don't you come back when you acquire
more?" Then he turns to Tamura and Saotome, who were standing there with
their backs against the wall, and says, "you want to try." They both shake
their heads and we all went home. They never gave me shit about Wang
again. . . . Far as I'm concerned, Chiba lost his chance at salvation right
there. He should have quit everything and sat at Wang's feet."
The story that Dobson tells is quite congruent with my own experience with
Chiba. When he first returned to Japan in 1976, I think it was, I took his
classes for several months. For whatever it is worth, I was the first
person he threw in the first class he taught. It's relevant for this
reasib. He comes in the room, substituting for Tada, and picks the biggest
guy in the room - me. It's like he wants to make an initial impression on
everyone. First throw is shihonage, and he very deliberately bridged my
elbow over his shoulder and tries to snap it. No ambiguity at all. Not a
mistake. He was deliberately trying to hurt me. I had previously been
warned about him and was in the air the moment the throw started, yet the
elbow did momentarity slip out of the socket and back in with an audible
click. I hit the ground and came back up for the next move (jeez, I was a
loyal puppy in those days) and Chiba got the same look on his face that you
see when someone's slinking out of the porno shop with a back of goodies
under his arm, and then he sees I'm not on the ground, or nursing the arm,
and he starts in surprise, like he's been caught at something dirty, and
then covers it up. Never tried to hurt me again, seemed to like me after
that like I passed some sick test - lest some loyal students think I'm
reading too much into this, I deal with psychopaths on a daily basis for a
living, and I know that look. So I'm inclined to believe Dobson and
Draeger over Chiba's interview.
Mike Sigman
"Charlie Parker" <jaz...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:au5793$9et$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Actually, in that particular tournament, they watered the rules down so that
anyone could enter. There used to be complaints from people about bones
being broken, etc., so things were changed. In fact, a few years back it
was a Shuai Jiao player who won his weight division... but he wasn't silly
enough to proclaim that what he was doing was Taiji. It took an American
judo player to win his weight division and then turn around and claim that
what he was doing was Taiji. No one else saw it that way.
FWIW
Mike
Gernot Hassenpflug
There are many complications, and the exaplantion I wrote is for the
benefit of students today learning principles of aikido.
Morihei Ueshiba did not require a shodan in another style before you
could practice aikido. Here is the correct although not complete
explanation: you had to have a letter of introduction from two or
three respected referees who were already skilled martial artists or
influential people and known to Ueshiba. Only wealthy and upper class
Japanese could therefore enter this training. Usually such people in
any case studied martial arts from an early age, and some were ranked
in modern Japanese arts while others held certificates in martial arts
where ranks were not awarded on the 'dan' system. Aikido is supposed
to teach principles and philosophy and their application, and teaching
this to people who had no prior proof of dedication was not the way
things were done. As to what this has to do with striking, well,
nothing. Someone from judo or kendo will know as much about punches
and strkes as your average karate person will know about cutting with
a sword.
Ji...@yahoo.com
> [snip]
> Go look at the "Taiji" in the West
> and you'll see that 97% of it is useless in combat
This actually is true all around the world. Yes, that includes China and
wherever there are Chinese communities.
There was a match between a Tai Chi Master and a White Crane master
happened in Macau long time ago. I don't recall that the White Crane
fighter was seriously hurted in any sense. Perhaps it's like what Matt
Furry said about those Shaolin Temple monks: "They're very skillful, but
they choose not to fight." Not verbatim, sorry.
Jm
David O'Daniel
thinking as I had suggested, that Taiji has strikes & kicks, or some
other line of reasoning?
No real reason but for discussion curiosity, not choosing or anything
like that, by the way.
Bojutsu1
<Mike Sigman Wrote>:
David O'Daniel
Bojutsu1
Jason Haynes
I had my doubts about Chiba (that's his name ahh...) and an Aikido teacher
in the UK I know of have told me similar horror stories, collar bone broken
with Chiba's bokken.... the sad thing is it was the collar bone of finite
female dan grade...
Thanks for the info Mike, once again nice read !
Merry Christmas !
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v0cb7qb...@corp.supernews.com...
kalis
> someone doing some other form of fighting and claiming they're doing Taiji.
;>)
Roger Taylor
>Thanks Mike that was really good information, nice read
>I had my doubts about Chiba (that's his name ahh...) and an Aikido teacher
>in the UK I know of have told me similar horror stories, collar bone broken
>with Chiba's bokken.... the sad thing is it was the collar bone of finite
>female dan grade...
Some of my friends have trained with Chiba. Initially the reason I
didn't was that I did not go to weekend courses etc but later it was out
of a sense of self-preservation from the tales that came back. He was
infamous for being 'severe' and uncompromising. I saw him at the public
demonstration at Oxford with Kisshomaru Ueshiba when he knocked a guy
out with some pitiless pole-axing throw. His aikido was formidable but,
in my opinion, he was a poor role model and a poor ambassador for
aikido. It's possible he's changed of course but I'd strongly recommend
anyone wanting to train with him to watch him first
Just two penn'rth
Cheers and Merry Christmas
Roger Taylor
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/ki.htm
www.hawklan.demon.co.uk/sales.html
www.2asisters.org/english/
The IRA's codename for Tony Blair - 'naive idiot'
Mike Sigman
<Ji...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3E06B27A...@yahoo.com...
> There was a match between a Tai Chi Master and a White Crane master
> happened in Macau long time ago. I don't recall that the White Crane
> fighter was seriously hurted in any sense. Perhaps it's like what Matt
> Furry said about those Shaolin Temple monks: "They're very skillful, but
> they choose not to fight." Not verbatim, sorry.
Wu Gung Yi versus Chan Hak Fu (White Crane). Perhaps the worst "fight" I
have ever seen. However, bear in mind that there were tons of pre-fight
negotiations about what was allowed and what was not allowed, yada, yada,
yada, so that was a factor. I don't know a lot about Chan Hak Fu (he
became more famous later on and is still well known), but even among many
Wu-style people, Wu Gung Yi did not have a good reputation, did dope, etc.
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
> Thanks for the response, Mike! Can you elaborate? Such as, is your
> thinking as I had suggested, that Taiji has strikes & kicks, or some
> other line of reasoning?
>
Massive short power can be generated by real practitioners, among other
things. *Lots* of qinna. Numerous attacks that are not thought about in
Aikido training.
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
"Roger Taylor" <roger_...@hawklan.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fMks1HAS$wB+...@hawklan.demon.co.uk...
> Jason Haynes writes
> >Thanks Mike that was really good information, nice read
> >I had my doubts about Chiba (that's his name ahh...) and an Aikido
teacher
> >in the UK I know of have told me similar horror stories, collar bone
broken
> >with Chiba's bokken.... the sad thing is it was the collar bone of finite
> >female dan grade...
>
> Some of my friends have trained with Chiba. Initially the reason I
> didn't was that I did not go to weekend courses etc but later it was out
> of a sense of self-preservation from the tales that came back. He was
> infamous for being 'severe' and uncompromising. I saw him at the public
> demonstration at Oxford with Kisshomaru Ueshiba when he knocked a guy
> out with some pitiless pole-axing throw. His aikido was formidable but,
> in my opinion, he was a poor role model and a poor ambassador for
> aikido. It's possible he's changed of course but I'd strongly recommend
> anyone wanting to train with him to watch him first
>
Just to be fair, Chiba also has a lot of his students who think he is very
nice, etc. Unfortunately, where there's as much smoke as Chiba generates,
there's usually fire as well. The factor that I find queasiest is that
Chiba is known for damaging and trying to damage many people while they're
both out on the mat.... in that situation, Chiba is the "boss" (you can't
refuse, etc.) because of his rank and the Uke is deliberately making a
stylized (not real) attack, basically setting himself up for any mischief
Chiba wants to do. I.e., it is the hallmark of a bully or someone mentally
off-balance to hurt someone in that sort of situation.
FWIW
Mike
Kirk Lawson
David O'Daniel wrote:
>
> Aikido seems more dynamic but if no-one's
> running at them or trying to fall on purpose, not sure Aikido can
> attack.
Aikido has attacks called Atemi (Vital Point Striking). It's not taught
as much as I think it should be. (I don't know why all those sensei
running around teaching Aikido don't consult me!)
> For those actually in either Tai Chi or Aikido, or perhaps even both,
> what do you think?
Depends on a zillion different things.
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or
knowledge of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Roger Taylor
>> didn't was that I did not go to weekend courses etc but later it was out
>> of a sense of self-preservation from the tales that came back. He was
>> infamous for being 'severe' and uncompromising. I saw him at the public
>> demonstration at Oxford with Kisshomaru Ueshiba when he knocked a guy
>> out with some pitiless pole-axing throw. His aikido was formidable but,
>> in my opinion, he was a poor role model and a poor ambassador for
>> aikido. It's possible he's changed of course but I'd strongly recommend
>> anyone wanting to train with him to watch him first
>Just to be fair, Chiba also has a lot of his students who think he is very
>nice, etc. Unfortunately, where there's as much smoke as Chiba generates,
>there's usually fire as well. The factor that I find queasiest is that
>Chiba is known for damaging and trying to damage many people while they're
>both out on the mat.... in that situation, Chiba is the "boss" (you can't
>refuse, etc.) because of his rank and the Uke is deliberately making a
>stylized (not real) attack, basically setting himself up for any mischief
>Chiba wants to do. I.e., it is the hallmark of a bully or someone mentally
>off-balance to hurt someone in that sort of situation.
Couldn't agree with you more - I hate bullies so that I can taste it.
That said, the attacks required by high graded people have to be real.
I've been yelled at and I've seen others snotted for not attacking
properly. It yields interesting paradoxes - I asked one sensei a
question about attacking to which he replied 'just behave naturally', to
which I replied, 'if I was behaving naturally I wouldn't be attacking
you.' cowardice being a useful part of my nature. And, of course, the
famous double whammy - angry cry, 'You're not attacking!!' uke grimaces
and wades in only to be told, 'now you're just fighting!' So it goes
:-)
David O'Daniel
As for Kirk's "Zillion" different things.assuming equivelant equal level
comparison, 3 yrs serious trained vs 3 yrs serious trained, similar
size, etc, or top level, highest, best, the immaginary ideally supreme
master of each, utterly having perfected their respective martial arts.
Even more fantasy, to be exactly equal, say there are clones, identical
but for one training Tai Chi & other training Aikido. 1, 3, 10, 50 yrs
later, assuming they are naturals, pick everything up perfectly &
quickly, diligently train. Thus just compairing the "styles". No
size-advantage, age difference, experience level difference, no
dedication to serious training difference. As the expression goes "All
things being equal" or should be "All other things being equal" but the
style each trains, thus compairing the styles only.
Now, when a 1st year 1/2 serious student useing the principles of one
style, is able to easily beat & doinate a senior, top of their style,
world's best, still in best shape of their lives, totally fenatically
serious representative of anothr style, "then" is when the equality
stuff isn't even necessary to compair styles.
<Thinks of tossing out WTF TKD vs. most real martial arts in NON-WTF
NON-sprt rules, when kick to the groin, punch to the nose becomes so
dominatingly effective, any under 6 month vs WTF 10th Dan seems the only
hope the WTFer would have. Na, why spoil the holidays by bursting the
WTFers illusions by brining up my pet peeve>.
Anyways, Merry Christmas all, & to all a good fight, umm, I mean night!
;-)
Bojutsu1
S. McElvanney
attacking properly.
Whether you teach the circular movements first or not is up to you...not all
of us do.
David O'Daniel
Japan;
On Nickelodian I think, perhaps years & years ago, there was some short
cartoon that was shown repeatedly, of some gentle, really big hippo and
a mean "blue" cat. The only one I remember was one episode was with the
blue cat in a white gi with black-belt doing karate supposedly, and the
hippo in a red outfit doing "Tai Chi". The cat was kicking or whatever
the hippo at random, funniest was when it went behind the hippo to kick
it in the rear. Anyway, the hippo was a pacifist & did nothing, till
the cat then also tried to attack a flower or butterfly or something.
To which the hippo was ticked off and did something, I think threw the
cat or something. The cat came to about the kneecap or the hippo I
think. Then the hippo resumed doing Tai Chi.
Aaaaaanyway, was just thinking that the incident in Japan with the fat
Tai Chi master may have been the inspiration for the cartoon.
Yes 'Me too much TV', hehe.
Bojutsu1
LgeorgeX
>bit of it and sell "discipleships" for dough) from China and match him
>against a top-level Aikidoka from Japan, the Aikodist is going to be injured
>almost instantly, IMO.
Not so. Having trained in Asia with several masters, I can attest to the
incredible abilities of both Aikido and Tai Chi teachers. At the highest levels
of these martial arts, Aikido and Tai Chi begin to look alike. Earlier on,
students of Aikido learn to fall, and Tai Chi students move through their slow
dances of seemingly useless techniques. However, after many, many, many years
of practice, masters of both styles appear almost invincible, and in the same
way. When attacked, these masters seem hardly to move and yet their opposition
is knocked or thrown to the floor at stunning and quite painful speeds. Aikido
and Tai Chi both have emphasis on the redirection of motion and the use of
internal energies, rather than open attacks, strikes, and use of muscle.
-Ancalagon
LgeorgeX
>to teach principles and philosophy and their application, and teaching
>this to people who had no prior proof of dedication was not the way
>things were done
This is true of just about almost all martial arts in the past. True, the
teacher may not have required PRIOR discipline in another style, but masters
would have their students practice a stance or two for a year or more to test
dedication before teaching them the "secret art of whatever..." This was also
done because, unlike in the West where everyone wants a black belt as soon as
they can get one, in the East one was taught to perfect the basics, and drill
over and over in the simplest moves. Master Jhoon Rhee stated once that he
tried to teach his students studying for black belt to practice the simple
kicks and strikes over and over again, because the basics are the core of the
art.
-Ancalagon
Mike Sigman
"LgeorgeX" <lgeo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021224122554...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> >If you take a top level-Taiji practitioner (not someone who does a little
> >bit of it and sell "discipleships" for dough) from China and match him
> >against a top-level Aikidoka from Japan, the Aikodist is going to be
injured
> >almost instantly, IMO.
>
> Not so. Having trained in Asia with several masters, I can attest to the
> incredible abilities of both Aikido and Tai Chi teachers. At the highest
levels
> of these martial arts, Aikido and Tai Chi begin to look alike.
Having known too many people who "trained in Asia with several masters", I
would beg to differ with your perspective. You may think higher levels of
Aikido look like higher levels of Taiji, but you may want to look a little
further.
FWIW
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
All well and good except that Jhoon Rhee got embarrassingly mugged in
Washington D.C., thereby throwing your offhand reference into question.
FWIW
Mike Sigman
S. McElvanney
If these Aikido and Tai chi folks are so great how come they've never had
the desire to clear all their debts, earn some cash and put forward a great
advert for their school???
Obviously I'm asking why they haven't entered any MMA competitions and won
piss easy cos they are so good?
mikel
Most people in those arts aren't very good. Every once in a while
somebody comes along who gets how they are supposed to work and who
also has the other attributes needed to make a good fighter, and then
you get somebody who makes a big reputation, like Chen Fa Ke, for
example. But not very often.
Gernot Hassenpflug
rules. If you want to do the competition that aikido or tai chi does,
then you have to go into those competitions and to the attacks like
they want you to. To do anything else is to not practice what these
arts are trying to teach. This is not to say that the attributes that
are useful for someone wanting to get good at some karate competition,
or boxing, etc are not going to be useful to him or her when doing
something else, but I have seen big guys cry , throw up or faint after
sitting in painful seated positions for an hour or more, and as far as
I am concerned, the way to mental and bodily discipline is not
achievable solely through the door of a public tournament.
S. McElvanney
one by LgeorgeX where masters of both styles appear almost invincible.
So what you're saying is that these arts are only effective against the
attacks that they do???
And that that is the only reason they don't enter MMA?
Gernot Hassenpflug
Merry Christmas!
> My question was really directed at the few threads above...especially the
> one by LgeorgeX where masters of both styles appear almost invincible.
I reckon they appear almost invincible because they're better at what
they're practicing than the people attacking them in the way that they
are training to attack. I do not believe that extrapolating and saying
that these people are in fact almost invincible makes sense. What you
see is very controlled, and the masters are able to demonstrate
excellent mind and body control/coordination under those particular
circumstnaces of stress. That same type of movement etc would probably
not apply if the rules were different, a really good master would have
to be able to adapt and apply his or her abilities without feeling 'cramped'.
> So what you're saying is that these arts are only effective against the
> attacks that they do???
I suppose in a sense yes. If the attack is different, often there is
no sense in doing the techniques learnt. And more often than not, if
the attacker tries to attack in a 'different' way but does not have a
good enough appreciation of what distancing, positioning and stance
mean, then there will be an opening which the skilled practioner would
attack before or as the attacker makes his move.
> And that that is the only reason they don't enter MMA?
One of the reasons. On the other hand, many styles of martial art do
not lend themselves to open competition without seriously compromising
their techniques. Primarily grappling arts. No way would someone win
against more than one opponent if he allowed himself to go down on the
floor, right? Most techniques are designed to take the opponent down,
and injure and/or restrain him in some way to stop the fight. Training
for that is quite different from competition. Look to the Hayumi
school of ninjutsu for instance. I suppose competition makes sense for
practicing certiain elements, but also not so much sense for
others. Depends what you want to train. I don't have anything against
competition personally, and a lot of aikido (what I practice) schools
(Tomiki for instance) have forms of competition. Randori is pretty
rough if done to the limits of the practioners' skills. Training is
supposed to make you improve, not reward you with some trophy, so
whatever works to improve, I say go for it, competition included.
Cheers,
Gernot
vampire bovine
Its a tool just like the rest of the experience. Kick boxing for example
isgood to, for a number of things, but once you delve into things like
knife defenses and the like, it's not the best application. Then somthing
like aikido techniques become more your friend. Getting a mixing exposure
is the best overall insurance policy.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> Its a tool just like the rest of the experience. Kick boxing for example
> isgood to, for a number of things, but once you delve into things like
> knife defenses and the like, it's not the best application. Then somthing
> like aikido techniques become more your friend. Getting a mixing exposure
> is the best overall insurance policy.
I agree. It is hardest when one is exposed to something one doesn't
like or isn't used to. Especially when you don't know it is actually
good for you! That is I suppose the mark of a good teacher, he who
exposes his students to things that are good for them when they are
ready, and keeps them on the road to getting that 'insurance
policy'. If my teacher suggested I enter a tournament, or take up some
other martial art, or do something, I would do it since I trust them
with my martial future - even if I might not want to do it on my own.
Cheers,
Gernot
etorjt
Er... Simon... you ARE an aikido type, aren't you? So what's the
trolling all about?
Ernie T.
Never yell fire in a crowded gunshop.
Rob Liberti
> What they both have in common is that they are both highly stylised methods
> of martial art which promise spectacular results which are seldom, if ever
> acheived. This fact is, of course, put down to the lack of dedication,
> training or understanding of the student, or the fact that his teacher
> didn/t know the "real" art. What the "real" art is can be argued over
> incessantly by theorists, which perhaps means that practicing these arts
> will certainly hone your debating skills if nothing else.
I can't believe I'm going to reply to this. But I almost agree with
this at first glance, so I felt I needed to convince myself...
Number 1: Who promised these "spectacular results"? Osensei defeated
every challenger. All Budo techniques have been field tested over
centuries of war in Japan. If your aikido technique doesn't work it's
[Drum roll please] you. Finding a great teacher will certainly help.
But it still comes down to you. Are you a great student?
An art is NOT bad simply because there aren't many people great at it.
How many great sculptors are there? (I have no idea, but pretend it
is a low number for the sake of this point.) Does a low number mean
it is a bad art?
Number 2: How would you determine what the "real" art is?
Interpretation of external arts is intuitively obvious. The punch
either works or fails. The guy who can knock the other guys down is
doing the "real" external art.
Interpretation of internal arts is almost impossible as these two
concepts do not exist on the same level. Interpretation exists in the
relative world (dimension 4 – mind). Examples of dualist (like
yin/yang) interpretations would be things like you know what good is
relative to bad, and you know what hot is relative to cold, etc.
The practice of internal arts exists in the level of intuition – the
absolutes (dimension 5). I think Plato called them frames. He would
ask questions like "what is justice?" and students would try to
explain it as the process of righting wrongs – based on their personal
belief systems. As I understand it, he would ask them questions about
their answers until they got the point. [I believe that this was the
entire point of "honing their debating skill"!] IMHO, aikido
techniques work the same way. They ask questions that make us
challenge our beliefs, and reflect on our intuitive wisdom. Osensei
certainly progressed through many levels of martial depth. I think
that many of these different levels are worthy of pursuit.
So why aren't people getting it and becoming masters?
My interpretation of aikido is not 100% consistent with my own
teacher's interpretation (I think!). I firmly believe that my teacher
is a genius, and I don't think of myself as a bonehead either. Very
bright people are going to bring their own experiences into any art
like this and come away with different ideas. [This must happen.]
I have dedicated a major part of my life to my practice, and I have no
idea if I will ever master aikido. I just know that I will keep
trying, even though it keeps getting harder with no end in sight. I'm
actually at the point where I think what I am doing would work on many
people (probably not Master so and so). I almost don't feel like
working out right now, because I don't want to get too attached to how
I'm doing things lately because I know the next major insight I get,
I'll have to tear a lot of what I am currently doing down, and
integrate my new insight into everything. Sometimes it's VERY hard to
push yourself beyond *minor* success. If I do manage to KEEP pushing
myself, I simply may just not be talented enough to achieve mastery.
Also, look at the students mainly attracted to martial arts in the
West. Everyone knows many _not so bright_ folks in martial arts. We
also all know many people who are looking for the quick and easy way
to force their will on others. (These two groups are not mutually
exclusive by any means. I'm even more concerned about the smart,
power-abusers.)
There are also many people who started out pretty much on the right
foot, and over the years got tired of having to start all over again
every so often when they learn something new, and just stop learning
something new. They tend to call what they do "my style".
Lastly, of the students who are great at doing aikido techniques, many
of them are HORRIBLE teachers that ONLY have a chance at teaching
people who happen to share their preferred learning modality.
Teaching requires making a tremendous amount of judgments on several
multi-faceted issues every few seconds. This is not directly taught
by anyone.
Is aikido a better art than other ones? I like it more in principle,
but I would rather train with a good kung fu teacher than a bad aikido
teacher.
Rob
S. McElvanney
"etorjt" <TREMB...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nn0l0v8rnno4n1qu0...@4ax.com...
Er...did I say I wasn't motherfucker?
Mike Sigman
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote in message
news:vc9r8ca...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
> I think that karate people who can throw a really good choku-ski
> and gyaku-tsuki should be able to learn aikido and sword techniques
> very quickly. Anyone want to comment (ejtorit, yojimbo?)
>
Hi Gernot:
Perhaps you should change your name from Hassenpflug to Schwingschwert. :^)
I don't think that I agree with your analysis that a good karate person who
can well-power a gyaku-tsuki, etc., could also learn aikido and sword
techniques so quickly. Do you think that the form of power for good
karate techniques of that sort is the same sort of power that is used in
aikido?
Regards,
Mike Sigman
Gernot Hassenpflug
> "Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote baitingly
> in message news:vc9r8ca...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
>
>> I think that karate people who can throw a really good choku-ski
>> and gyaku-tsuki should be able to learn aikido and sword techniques
>> very quickly. Anyone want to comment (ejtorit, yojimbo?)
> Hi Gernot:
>
> Perhaps you should change your name from Hassenpflug to
> Schwingschwert. :^)
Hi Mike,
You're a hard man. First you challenge me to find a place to deposit
my mouth full of tea hurriedly, and below you give me opportunity to
demonstrate my lack of knowledge of martial arts! Well, if I could get
a good answer or opinion from somebody in the know (like maybe
yourself, given how many years you have put into good training) I
would be highly grateful. Having the right idea is a good help to
progress, and synthesis is also an important attribute of reason.
> I don't think that I agree with your analysis that a good karate
> person who can well-power a gyaku-tsuki, etc., could also learn
> aikido and sword techniques so quickly. Do you think that the form
> of power for good karate techniques of that sort is the same sort of
> power that is used in aikido?
I am glad to hearyou disagree. You may demolish my ideas and thereby
help me and others reading this. Here is your target. I think that the
the focus that is required to do something really well, whether
martial or otherwise, is universal and derives from the mind. If you
put a group of people with well-developed mental abilities (not just
education of expertise at some particular skill), then I figure that
if these people spend a lot of effort training themselves to focus
physical power, then they are going to be able to do it fairly equally
no matter what art they practice. Even if there are many ways to
generate power from a physics point of view, and not everyone may have
trained every type in his/her martial art, I reckon that good martial
artists will have the ability to grasp either intuitively or quite
reasonably a different way to do so if it is shown to them. In
particular I am not particularly convinced of the difference between
the so-called external and internal styles, or the superiority of one
over the other.
Long-winded part out of the way. In aikido I have come to believe that
the concept of irimi is quite central (as far as I ma concerned it
also leads to tenkan rather than both being side-by-side). Irimi done
properly generates a lot of power through a quite natural movement. If
done symmetrically, for example in kokyu-dosa, it is equated to
training in kokyu-ryoku. (The interpretation depends on which aspect
you want to consider.) In sword - and I speak here of aiki sword only
- the irimi has the important function of ensuring your safety even if
you choose not to dismember your opponent at this point (this is
aikido so you go soft on him/her). Sorry...
It seems to me that the way punches are generated has a lot in common
with irimi. In particular the irimi you don't see because it is so
small. The idea of the movement seems to be useful in generating power
for punching also. Relaxation of the entire body, rotation of hips,
channeling of power from the lower body not the shoulders, and so on.
But since I cannot claim to be an expert either in aikido or in a
striking art like karate please tell me where I am completely off the
rails!
Cheers,
Mike Sigman
>Here is your target. I think that the
> the focus that is required to do something really well, whether
> martial or otherwise, is universal and derives from the mind. If you
> put a group of people with well-developed mental abilities (not just
> education of expertise at some particular skill), then I figure that
> if these people spend a lot of effort training themselves to focus
> physical power, then they are going to be able to do it fairly equally
> no matter what art they practice. Even if there are many ways to
> generate power from a physics point of view, and not everyone may have
> trained every type in his/her martial art, I reckon that good martial
> artists will have the ability to grasp either intuitively or quite
> reasonably a different way to do so if it is shown to them. In
> particular I am not particularly convinced of the difference between
> the so-called external and internal styles, or the superiority of one
> over the other.
Hi Gernot:
Well, you are giving me an opportunity to dust off one of my favorite
theories as a response to your perspective. My theory is called the "Dumb
Old Chinese" theory and it goes something like this: Many people gloss over
the difference between "internal" and "external" styles with the idea that
"all roads lead to the top of the mountain" and so on and therefore skill in
one form of good training somehow equates to being a foot in the door that
will eventually allow you to do the same type of high level stuff as someone
who trains differently. So the "dumb old Chinese" didn't really need to do
all the different specialized trainings and they were too dumb to see to the
heart of the matter like we too-smart westerners can see after only minimal
amounts of training. In fact, even a couple of years of training a Tai Chi
form or in an Aikido dojo prbably will give most of us brilliant westerners
enough insight and information that we can begin to teach these things that
the "dumb old Chinese" (or "dumb old Japanese", take your pick) could only
see the fuzzy edges of. :^)
In short, there are 2 perspectives: 1.)"internal" is pretty much the same as
"external" in the long run and 2.) "internal" is quite different from
"external" and requires some extensive, specialized training. In the case
of Taiji ("Tai Chi" in the old Wade-Giles spelling), the years of doing a
slow form, etc., is meant as a radical re-training of the way that you move.
In the "Dumb Old Chinese" theory, many people shrug off this sort of
training and say that you can arrive at the same sort of re-trained movement
just by doing years of Shaolin training, so the "Dumb Old Chinese" just
wasted their time with all these slow forms practices. You see my drift,
I'm sure.
In the case of Aikido, I could make a somewhat similar point about the
numerous demonstrations by O-Sensei and by Koichi Tohei in regard to the "Ki
Power" that they evinced. Even allowing for the sometimes (or even oftimes)
cooperation of too-willing-to-please students, the demonstrations of "Ki
Power" are/were interesting enough that we could turn the focus of the
discussion to them. Most of the "Ki Power" demonstrations are fairly basic
examples of "internal" strength and aren't easily done by a karateka. Why
not? Shouldn't an expert in karate be able to watch and intuitively
understand how the so-called "ki-power" tricks are done?
An extension of your stance in the discussion can be found in people who
take one of the simpler "ki tricks" and explain it in terms of normal
movement. For instance, there is a fellow by the name of Stephen Goodson
(he fancies himself as a "Skeptic" who has such mental acuity that he can
pierce through the cobwebs of anything that the "dumb old Chinese" developed
and explain it as a "trick") who has a webpage somewhere in which he
purportedly unwraps the simple physics behind the "unbendable arm" trick of
Aikido. There are others like him. In essence, Goodson and others say that
the trick-demos of O-Sensei are simple demonstrations of physics and that
anyone can replicate them with a little thought and effort. My stance is
that yes, these demos are all bound by the laws of physics and yes I can
think of ways to duplicate most of them (to some extent) without a lot of
specialized training, but my main point is that these "tricks" represent a
specialized development of body strength that is not so easily come by that
studying another "external" art will lead you there. In other words, I
don't subscribe to the "dumb old Chinese" view of things. There is a method
to the madness. :^)
>
> Long-winded part out of the way. In aikido I have come to believe that
> the concept of irimi is quite central (as far as I ma concerned it
> also leads to tenkan rather than both being side-by-side). Irimi done
> properly generates a lot of power through a quite natural movement. If
> done symmetrically, for example in kokyu-dosa, it is equated to
> training in kokyu-ryoku. (The interpretation depends on which aspect
> you want to consider.) In sword - and I speak here of aiki sword only
> - the irimi has the important function of ensuring your safety even if
> you choose not to dismember your opponent at this point (this is
> aikido so you go soft on him/her). Sorry...
>
> It seems to me that the way punches are generated has a lot in common
> with irimi. In particular the irimi you don't see because it is so
> small. The idea of the movement seems to be useful in generating power
> for punching also. Relaxation of the entire body, rotation of hips,
> channeling of power from the lower body not the shoulders, and so on.
Well, I am somewhat at a loss with this part of the discussion because you
are sort of mixing a "strength" (kokyu) with a "technique" (irimi).
Although the body movement within irimi can help to generate power, it would
be easier for me if you kept the discussion to "why such and such a body
movement generates power" and left the applications out for the moment.
I.e., just look at simple body movements.
So your position in this discussion is that Aikido and Taiji (although I
realize you are not pronouncing yourself an expert in either; neither am I)
derive their power from some sort of common trained strength and certain
applications; my position is that there is indeed a reason for all this talk
about "qi" and "jin" and "extend ki", etc., and that it is easy to lose
sight of these things because most "techniques" can be replicated using
normal strength, to some extent. Perhaps another way of stating the 2
positions is:
1.) a person who has gained a certain facility with "techniques" in a
certain atmosphere will often lose interest or belief in any in-depth
pursuit of some exotic "ki strength" or "qi" since techniques and regular
conditioning seem to be more than adequate to make things work at the
dojo/kwoon versus
.2) a person cannot fully realize the extra strength that will help in Taiji
or Aikido unless he spends a certain amount of time totally changing from
the natural way he moves to a radically different form of movement.
My question would be "what do you think of the tricks/demos of O-Sensei and
Koichi Tohei and what is their relevence to Aikido?"
Regards,
Mike Sigman
etorjt
Gernot,
In general, I agree with Mike here. Having done some shotokan in
college, I found my training to be more of a nuisance than a help
when I began studying aikido many years later. However, when one
of my sons took up karate for a year or so, I joined in a
demonstration class for parents and found my aikido practice
contributed a great deal when I was doing the simple karate stuff
with my kid. Oddly, I feel far more connection to my earlier years
of boxing with regard to aikido than I do either to wrestling or
karate.
I also agree with Mike concerning the use/development of ki/chi. I
think the use of 'ki' is indeed based on physics, and I don't
believe it's some magical, invisible energy. On the other hand, I
also believe that it's no easy parlor trick to do the tricks/demos
of Koichi Tohei. For me, it's like watching masterful slight of
hand being done. Yes, you know you're being tricked by the
magician as he manipulates the cards, but the kind of skill it
takes to do those manipulations is so impressive it may as well be
real 'magic.' (Btw, Mike, as I'm sure you're aware, Gaku Homma is
one of the guys who likes to call ki demonstrations parlor tricks,
so it's not all people outside the art saying these things.)
I do have one disagreement with Mike. I concur with Seichi Sugano
Sensei's assertion that aikido is NOT an internal art in the
strict sense... i.e., we don't spend a lot of time concentrating
on how energy flows/transfers along the musculo-skeletal structure
in the same way the real internal people (Tai Chi, et al) do. We
try to stay conscious of our center or hips, and we try to
generate kokyu ryoku, so we use 'internal' power 'externally.' So
aikido would appear to me to be more of a hybrid internal/external
art that some of the Chinese arts.
Mike Sigman
> I also agree with Mike concerning the use/development of ki/chi. I
> think the use of 'ki' is indeed based on physics, and I don't
> believe it's some magical, invisible energy. On the other hand, I
> also believe that it's no easy parlor trick to do the tricks/demos
> of Koichi Tohei. For me, it's like watching masterful slight of
> hand being done. Yes, you know you're being tricked by the
> magician as he manipulates the cards, but the kind of skill it
> takes to do those manipulations is so impressive it may as well be
> real 'magic.'
That's a pretty good summation. The problem I ran into was that "qi tricks"
actually turn out to be a small group of combined skills, none of which are
found in current western training (at least not to any refined degree, since
there is *one* of those tricks that is beginning to have a use in some
western training). So these more or less unknown tricks can pass quite well
for some sort of "sleight of hand", as you indicated. And sure you can
"duplicate" some of the tricks to a neophyte (e.g. "fa jing" or "unbendable
arm", etc.) but you may not be doing a duplication that would pass muster
among the skillful. And of course I hasten to add that knowing how to do
the physical skills and being able to do them in actual fighting are 2
different subjects entirely.
> (Btw, Mike, as I'm sure you're aware, Gaku Homma is
> one of the guys who likes to call ki demonstrations parlor tricks,
> so it's not all people outside the art saying these things.)
Well, I'm aware that not all the Japanese students were shown how to do
everything. Besides, didn't Homma study mainly at the Iwama dojo, not
Hombu? I could be wrong, but I think that's the case and Saito-sensei
wouldn't be someone I would pick to be a top hand with the ki-tricks. :^)
>
> I do have one disagreement with Mike. I concur with Seichi Sugano
> Sensei's assertion that aikido is NOT an internal art in the
> strict sense... i.e., we don't spend a lot of time concentrating
> on how energy flows/transfers along the musculo-skeletal structure
> in the same way the real internal people (Tai Chi, et al) do. We
> try to stay conscious of our center or hips, and we try to
> generate kokyu ryoku, so we use 'internal' power 'externally.' So
> aikido would appear to me to be more of a hybrid internal/external
> art that some of the Chinese arts.
Well, I used to include Aikido among the so-called "internal arts", but
that's because I set a low threshold. If you're talking simply about the
use of peng jin, as I was when I said that, then O-Sensei's aikido and
Tohei's aikido fit the bill. If you talk about the full-blown skills of qi
and jin and full dantien usage then Aikido is not really an internal martial
art, IMO.
FWIW
Mike
etorjt
>
>"etorjt" <TREMB...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:tlop0v03u7rqdc52n...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>> (Btw, Mike, as I'm sure you're aware, Gaku Homma is
>> one of the guys who likes to call ki demonstrations parlor tricks,
>> so it's not all people outside the art saying these things.)
>
>Well, I'm aware that not all the Japanese students were shown how to do
>everything. Besides, didn't Homma study mainly at the Iwama dojo, not
>Hombu? I could be wrong, but I think that's the case and Saito-sensei
>wouldn't be someone I would pick to be a top hand with the ki-tricks. :^)
>
>
Yep, he did. Which brings up another point that, I'm sure, would
drive the Iwama people crazy. Many of them claim that M. Saito
Sensei taught the most 'authentic' aikido because (a) he had more
direct exposure to O Sensei for a longer period than anyone else
in aikido history and (b) because he included all the techniques
from M.U.'s Budo and Budo Renshu in his syllabus. But if other
students, such as K. Tohei, learned a different aiki from that
which M.U. taught Saito... well, there are different brands of
'authentic' I suppose. (Although I think Tohei would say he pretty
much started on his 'ki' journey with Tempu Nakamura.)
Mike Sigman
> But if other
> students, such as K. Tohei, learned a different aiki from that
> which M.U. taught Saito... well, there are different brands of
> 'authentic' I suppose. (Although I think Tohei would say he pretty
> much started on his 'ki' journey with Tempu Nakamura.)
Well, to stay focused on the point, both Ueshiba and K. Tohei fixated on the
"ki tricks" and the discussion we were having was whether there is really
any difference between the so-called "internal" and so-called "external"
ways of doing things. The pertinent element I'm suggesting is that the "ki
tricks" which you fairly equated with "sleight of hand" were a big deal to
both Ueshiba and to Tohei. In fact, when Tohei got tired of the politics
and left, he made the "ki tricks" his personal banner for the Shin Shin
Koitsu Aikido, indicating the importance of these things in his view of
Aikido... an importance that seems reinforced by all the pictures of
O-Sensei doing his own "ki-tricks" for the peanut gallery.
So the question is, would you say that a karateka or kenjitsuka, etc., be
able to intuitively know how those "ki-tricks" were done, as you first
posited?
Regards,
Mike
etorjt
>
>"etorjt" <TREMB...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:hdfq0v4mq23gg545b...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>So the question is, would you say that a karateka or kenjitsuka, etc., be
>able to intuitively know how those "ki-tricks" were done, as you first
>posited?
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
That wasn't me, Mike, it was Gernot. And as I stated in a post
above, I agree with you on this point. I absolutely do not think
the foks in the external arts would know intuitively how to pull
this stuff off.
Gernot Hassenpflug
(and yourself) since I last read news; in this article I reply only to
the first article and your reply to it.
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> writes:
> "Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote in message
> news:vc9ptrn...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
>
> Hi Gernot: Well, you are giving me an opportunity to dust off one of
> my favorite theories /snip embarassing part of being called
> 'stoopid'/
I hear you Mike. Maybe after a few more decades of training in Chinese
styles I will have an opinion closer to yours: in the meantime your
opinion gives me something to learn from, so let me take the
opportunity to get as much out of it as possible.
> In short, there are 2 perspectives: 1.)"internal" is pretty much the
> same as "external" in the long run and 2.) "internal" is quite
> different from "external" and requires some extensive, specialized
> training. In the case of Taiji ("Tai Chi" in the old Wade-Giles
> spelling), the years of doing a slow form, etc., is meant as a
> radical re-training of the way that you move.
I agree with you. When I began aikido in 1990 after 8 years of
Isshinryu karate (British sport karate off-shoot of Kyokoushinkai I
believe) I found that I had to spend years learning to retrain my
movement. Particularly relaxation. When I came to Japan in 1998 I
found I didn't know what on earth Abe Seiseki or his experienced
students were doing, and I had to retrain my thinking and movements
once again. Now I take Tai chi classes (no idea how to spell in
english, we only speak Japanese and Chinese) as well, and I am amazed
at what my teacher is capable of (being overweight and all to
boot). The movements are a whole lot more complex than aikido,
movement is different it seems to me, and I again have to rethink what
I am doing with my mind and body. In far more detail than in aikido it
appears (where it seems to be primarily important to focus on one's
centre, and relax).
> In the case of Aikido, I could make a somewhat similar point about
> the numerous demonstrations by O-Sensei and by Koichi Tohei in
> regard to the "Ki Power" that they evinced. Even allowing for the
> sometimes (or even oftimes) cooperation of too-willing-to-please
> students, the demonstrations of "Ki Power" are/were interesting
> enough that we could turn the focus of the discussion to them. Most
> of the "Ki Power" demonstrations are fairly basic examples of
> "internal" strength and aren't easily done by a karateka. Why not?
> Shouldn't an expert in karate be able to watch and intuitively
> understand how the so-called "ki-power" tricks are done?
This is my question to those who might know, and you seem to have
answered in the negative. Yet among famous karateka, there is the
enigmatic Okamura, student of Funakoshi Yoshitaka (well, maybe father
too but I don't have the details), who actually resides in Kyoto, and
whose techniques apparently mystified the well-known karate figures
that know him. It appears he may have been applying ki far more than
they were in the execution of techniques. AS far as aikido goes, many
a Japanese aikido instructor has commented on how valuable it would
have been to us now if O-Sensei had compared what he did with Chinese
martial arts while he had the chance. I have no idea what links
Japanese and Chinese martial arts may have, but I have a better idea
of how Japanese martial arts are linked together. One of the things
that keeps coming up in magazine articles is that the instructors of
kobudo stress that the understanding of ki is the key to mastering the
art. This leads me to think that if that is so, then techniques
executed with an understanding of ki should be identifiable by someone
who has an understanding of ki. There are stories about how O-Sensei
was able to learn how to do techniques of a style (naginata I think it
was) simply by watching. I also think that the extremely precise and
training 'watching' is not to be found in 99.9% of today's martial
artists.
So, I am ignorant of how ki in Japanese arts (flower arranging and tea
ceremony etc. included) relates to Ki in Chinese martial arts, and
whether training in one will make one better in the other. My Tai chi
teacher takes Capoeira classes since it gives him a chance to train
himself (there being on Tai chi dojos around here), and he says that
he trains himeself through Capoeira because, even if the other
practitioners don't see the ki in the movements, he can relate the
techniques to what he knows and apply and practice that.
> An extension of your stance in the discussion can be found in people
> who take one of the simpler "ki tricks" and explain it in terms of
> normal movement. For instance, there is a fellow by the name of
> Stephen Goodson
I don't know the person you speak of and I am not a skeptic as such. I
do know that ki 'tricks' are very specific to the situation - they are
meant to be, in order to illustrate the point. In order to stop a
fight, you then need to be able to do the right thing at the right
time, using all your understanding of ki to bring about the right
response to the moment. Tohei Koichi writes that ki is simple physics,
based on mental focus and control of the body by the mind, in other
words shin-shin-to-itsu (union of body and mind). The amount of union
relative to that of the opponent determines the success of failure of
the ki trick, or aikido technique, within the physical limits of the
power of the practitioner's body. For example, no-one can claim to be
able to move an immovable body, or redirect the ki of an oncoming car
etc. Leading the mind of the opponent seems to be the essential
technique of the Japanese martial arts masters through the ages,
beyond technique itself.
>> /irimmi snipped/
>
> Well, I am somewhat at a loss with this part of the discussion because you
> are sort of mixing a "strength" (kokyu) with a "technique" (irimi).
> Although the body movement within irimi can help to generate power, it would
> be easier for me if you kept the discussion to "why such and such a body
> movement generates power" and left the applications out for the moment.
> I.e., just look at simple body movements.
Right you are. Let me rephrase it this way (not sure if this makes
sense): if an aikido person has a good kokyu strength, then that
strength can be applied to the irimi movement. On the other hand,
without a good understanding of kokyu, the irimi movement will be
wrong, or partly incorrect. The power comes from having a good stance
in the first place (through understanding of kokyu) and then correctly
transferring that power when moving (even if that movement is
infinitisemal). In the same way I imagined that if a karate person has
the same understanding of kokyu, and therefore has a strong stance in
the way understood in aikido (no opening, immovable from any
direction, ability to move instantaneously effortlessly from either
foor in any direction), then the transfer to a new position with a
punch flowing out of it might have a lot of similarity with the irimi
in aikido, if irimi is thought of more as a basic body transfer
movement than 'entry' or 'start of technique'.
> So your position in this discussion is that Aikido and Taiji (although I
> realize you are not pronouncing yourself an expert in either; neither am I)
> derive their power from some sort of common trained strength and certain
> applications; my position is that there is indeed a reason for all this talk
> about "qi" and "jin" and "extend ki", etc., and that it is easy to lose
> sight of these things because most "techniques" can be replicated using
> normal strength, to some extent.
I am embarassed to say that I believe Tai chi to involve more detailed
and in-depth study of ki than aikido does. I do not think it is
different in essence, because I am sticking to what Tohei Koichi said
about ki being universal, and the laws of ki also being universal. He
also said that the old Chinese ways of doing things may be totally
wrong because they were based on an incorrect model of the human
body. I am not in a position to judge the accuracy of his judgements
on that. Just because many ideas were tried (different styles) to get
more ki strngth to accumulate or to flow does not mean that all of
them were correct or exclusive. Tohei also does not approve of the
accumulation of ki, because in Japan ki is thought of as a universal
everpresent flow that never stops, not as a flow which sometimes is
and sometimes is not which is the case in Chinea according to him
(which is why ki needs to be accumulated to compensate for occasions
when it is needed). This is why I am not sure what the link is between
Chinese and Japanese ideas of ki. So, I hope that the study of Tai chi
will deepen my understanding of the principle of ki, both the way the
Chinese think about it, and the way it is considered in Japan.
> Perhaps another way of stating the 2 positions is:
>
> 1.) a person who has gained a certain facility with "techniques" in
> a certain atmosphere will often lose interest or belief in any
> in-depth pursuit of some exotic "ki strength" or "qi" since
> techniques and regular conditioning seem to be more than adequate to
> make things work at the dojo/kwoon versus .2) a person cannot fully
> realize the extra strength that will help in Taiji or Aikido unless
> he spends a certain amount of time totally changing from the natural
> way he moves to a radically different form of movement.
I agree with 2) here, but see above for confusion in the basic ideas
of ki in Japan and China.
> My question would be "what do you think of the tricks/demos of
> O-Sensei and Koichi Tohei and what is their relevence to Aikido?"
Aikido is im my understanding the principle of joining with and using
the ki of the universe. Not merely the ki of the opponent. O-Sensei
and Tohei are radically different, with O-Sensei claiming spiritual
break-through as the gateway to his understanding of universal ki and
its application to life, while Tohei sees the unification of mind and
body as the gateway to the use of ki. Aikido training is done to
strive for attainment of the understanding of the universal ki through
techniques intended to help the practitioner gain that understanding
through intense training. My teacher, Abe Seiseki, taught O-Sensei
calligraphy, and he believes in the importance of misogi as taught by
O-Sensei, and the value of the kojiki and its hidden meanings to gain
insight. Quite clearly, simple training in aikido techniques is not
enough to gain understanding. What O-Sensei and Tohei demonstrated was
what could be achieved when mind and body are highly unified. The
mistake I think people make is that they train aikido thinking they
can get somewhere like that just through training in aikido. Sort of
like thinking that learning the form will make you a martial artist.
Perhaps after all this, you have disagreements on two points:
1. the idea of ki in Japan and China
2. the use of kokyu in karate and aikido (I believe it is central to
all Japanese martial arts, as practiced in Japan at least).
Regards,
Gernot
Jeff Lindqvist
> I do have one disagreement with Mike. I concur with Seichi Sugano
> Sensei's assertion that aikido is NOT an internal art in the
> strict sense... i.e., we don't spend a lot of time concentrating
> on how energy flows/transfers along the musculo-skeletal structure
> in the same way the real internal people (Tai Chi, et al) do. We
> try to stay conscious of our center or hips, and we try to
> generate kokyu ryoku, so we use 'internal' power 'externally.' So
> aikido would appear to me to be more of a hybrid internal/external
> art that some of the Chinese arts.
Finally an aikidoka says this :) A friend of mine always says how ki
plays a large part in aikido. I've asked him how, and you've explained
it similar to my thoughts. Do all Japanese "internal" arts work this
way? Is there anything close to the "Chinese way"?
BTW, I associate internal arts and chi with "being healthy", but I've
seldom seen anybody catching more colds than him...;)
Jeff Lindqvist
Mike Sigman
>
> That wasn't me, Mike, it was Gernot. And as I stated in a post
> above, I agree with you on this point. I absolutely do not think
> the foks in the external arts would know intuitively how to pull
> this stuff off.
Sorry, Ernie. It was late and I was drifting in and out of concentration.
Regards,
Mike
Mike Sigman
> > Shouldn't an expert in karate be able to watch and intuitively
> > understand how the so-called "ki-power" tricks are done?
>
> This is my question to those who might know, and you seem to have
> answered in the negative. Yet among famous karateka, there is the
> enigmatic Okamura, student of Funakoshi Yoshitaka (well, maybe father
> too but I don't have the details), who actually resides in Kyoto, and
> whose techniques apparently mystified the well-known karate figures
> that know him. It appears he may have been applying ki far more than
> they were in the execution of techniques.
Well, "Ki" or "qi" can be a number of things. Someone came up with a list
of about 400 things that can be defined as "qi" or "ki". Perhaps the best
definition of the word (in Chinese.... Japanese meaning is a tiny bit out of
phase, but close, with the Chinese) is "unknown force". So think back to
earlier, more primitive times and you get "qi" as a generic explanation of
the motive force behind various enexplained body energetics, lightning,
momentum, inertia, central nervous system responses, etc., etc. and you
begin to understand why it becomes a "universal force". And from the idea
of a "universal force" (i.e., a "universal explainer of the mechanism of
things we don't fully understand"), you can extrapolate how that is often
turned into a quasi-religious, revered thing, this "ki" or "qi".
When we talk about "ki" or "qi" in relation to the martial arts, we're more
interested in a focused set of demonstrable skills and how they are done....
just because the primitive handling of unknown forces leaves us with "qi" as
an explanation for these skills, we don't have to relinquish our thinking
capacities. :^) The question becomes, "is it really an unknown
mysterious "qi" doing these things or is it some rare body skill that is
being used?".
Go with the "rare body skills" idea and consider that the knowledge of "rare
body skills" is the wild-card that keeps floating in and out of various
martial arts, whether it is karate, Aikido, Taiji, whatever. And there are
variations of the extent and use of those well-guarded body skills. It's
possible that Okamura knew some of the skills and stuck them into his
karate... who knows, at this anecdotal level?
> I have no idea what links
> Japanese and Chinese martial arts may have, but I have a better idea
> of how Japanese martial arts are linked together. One of the things
> that keeps coming up in magazine articles is that the instructors of
> kobudo stress that the understanding of ki is the key to mastering the
> art. This leads me to think that if that is so, then techniques
> executed with an understanding of ki should be identifiable by someone
> who has an understanding of ki. There are stories about how O-Sensei
> was able to learn how to do techniques of a style (naginata I think it
> was) simply by watching. I also think that the extremely precise and
> training 'watching' is not to be found in 99.9% of today's martial
> artists.
Well, let's leave out the stories of O-Sensei learning by watching, since
this is considered a common trait of many "high level" martial artists and
it is also the reason why so many real martial artists won't display their
techniques to an outsider (how often have I heard "I watched him but I
wasn't too impressed").
I have noticed that when "ki tricks" and "qi tricks" are demonstrated by
Japanese and by Chinese, the overlap of specific tricks is too great to
ignore. I think that it is a reasonable assumption that some amount of the
"ki power" stuff was introduced by the Chinese. Certainly, a lot of the
Japanese martial arts skills related to Aikido, Aiki-jiujitsu, etc., is
derived from the things shown the Japanese by Chen Yuan Yun ((1587-1671))
(there is still a temple devoted to him on the outskirts of Tokyo, I
believe). If you take "ki" to mean contextually that it is a form of
strength that is necessary to do the "Real Thing" (tm), then many asian
martial arts will say that.
>Tohei Koichi writes that ki is simple physics,
> based on mental focus and control of the body by the mind, in other
> words shin-shin-to-itsu (union of body and mind). The amount of union
> relative to that of the opponent determines the success of failure of
> the ki trick, or aikido technique, within the physical limits of the
> power of the practitioner's body. For example, no-one can claim to be
> able to move an immovable body, or redirect the ki of an oncoming car
> etc. Leading the mind of the opponent seems to be the essential
> technique of the Japanese martial arts masters through the ages,
> beyond technique itself.
Well, again we're drifting into mixing up "technique" causals with "strength
skill" causals.
>Let me rephrase it this way (not sure if this makes
> sense): if an aikido person has a good kokyu strength, then that
> strength can be applied to the irimi movement. On the other hand,
> without a good understanding of kokyu, the irimi movement will be
> wrong, or partly incorrect.
Exactly! There is a saying in Taiji to the effect that "Taiji technique
without internal strength is not correct; internal strength without correct
technique is not correct." Same idea precisely. The people who
concentrate on Aikido technique (even technique that is bolstered by years
of experience and resultant conditioning and "smoothness") but who have no
"ki"... they are not really doing proper Aikido. Same with Taiji. And the
common comment of "well it works in a fight so I know it is 'real' "....
that's beside the point.
The power comes from having a good stance
> in the first place (through understanding of kokyu) and then correctly
> transferring that power when moving (even if that movement is
> infinitisemal). In the same way I imagined that if a karate person has
> the same understanding of kokyu, and therefore has a strong stance in
> the way understood in aikido (no opening, immovable from any
> direction, ability to move instantaneously effortlessly from either
> foor in any direction), then the transfer to a new position with a
> punch flowing out of it might have a lot of similarity with the irimi
> in aikido, if irimi is thought of more as a basic body transfer
> movement than 'entry' or 'start of technique'.
Fair enough. There is again an analagous statement in Taiji that goes
something like, "you can put Taiji into other arts, but you can't put other
arts into Taiji."
>
> I am embarassed to say that I believe Tai chi to involve more detailed
> and in-depth study of ki than aikido does.
If you're talking about the Taiji of the real experts as opposed to the Joe
Schmoes that think they know enough to teach, you're right. It does. But
think of "ki" as a group of body skills like "juggling" and think of Chinese
"juggling" as being more complex and sophisticated due to longer development
time. The Japanese learned some basic "juggling" by hook or by crook, but
the Chinese don't show each other stuff like this very freely, so you can be
sure that an outsider/gaijin is not going to get a lot.
> I do not think it is
> different in essence, because I am sticking to what Tohei Koichi said
> about ki being universal, and the laws of ki also being universal. He
> also said that the old Chinese ways of doing things may be totally
> wrong because they were based on an incorrect model of the human
> body.
Well, I would have relished believing that statement from Tohei many years
ago, but now all I can do is grin.
> Tohei also does not approve of the
> accumulation of ki, because in Japan ki is thought of as a universal
> everpresent flow that never stops, not as a flow which sometimes is
> and sometimes is not which is the case in Chinea according to him
> (which is why ki needs to be accumulated to compensate for occasions
> when it is needed). This is why I am not sure what the link is between
> Chinese and Japanese ideas of ki.
I think that what you're seeing is the turn toward a quasi-religious
attribution to "ki" by Tohei and that is the divergent thought. However, I
have to note that in some parts of China "qi" is a practical thing and in
some parts "qi" is as nearly a religious concept as Tohei makes of it.
Just goes to show developmental variances on a topic that was originated as
a core concept thousands of years ago.
> So, I hope that the study of Tai chi
> will deepen my understanding of the principle of ki, both the way the
> Chinese think about it, and the way it is considered in Japan.
Look for the practical-application parts and how it's done.
>>
> > My question would be "what do you think of the tricks/demos of
> > O-Sensei and Koichi Tohei and what is their relevence to Aikido?"
>
> Aikido is im my understanding the principle of joining with and using
> the ki of the universe. Not merely the ki of the opponent. O-Sensei
> and Tohei are radically different, with O-Sensei claiming spiritual
> break-through as the gateway to his understanding of universal ki and
> its application to life, while Tohei sees the unification of mind and
> body as the gateway to the use of ki. Aikido training is done to
> strive for attainment of the understanding of the universal ki through
> techniques intended to help the practitioner gain that understanding
> through intense training.
Well, don't invest all your funds in that last statement. It's easy to "go
with the flow" when someone has shown you how to hook your firehose up to
the spiggot. But without knowing how to do it and relying only on vague
philosophies, you'll never get to have your turn.
> My teacher, Abe Seiseki, taught O-Sensei
> calligraphy, and he believes in the importance of misogi as taught by
> O-Sensei, and the value of the kojiki and its hidden meanings to gain
> insight. Quite clearly, simple training in aikido techniques is not
> enough to gain understanding.
I'm guessing here, but I suspect that the Misogi breathing is relevant (when
done correctly after someone finally shows you how), but the references to
the Kojiki and their hidden meanings is a waste of time reflecting the
quasi-religious stuff that develops along with "ki" things.
> What O-Sensei and Tohei demonstrated was
> what could be achieved when mind and body are highly unified. The
> mistake I think people make is that they train aikido thinking they
> can get somewhere like that just through training in aikido. Sort of
> like thinking that learning the form will make you a martial artist.
Well, you can coordinate the body in ways I didn't realize was possible,
many years ago. Those odd coordinations are done by "using the mind" in a
feedback sort of way.... that's the "mind and body" part and it indeed seems
sort of mystical if no one wants to show you how to do it. Just "training
in Aikido" or just "doing the Taiji form" won't teach you, either, as you
say.
>
> Perhaps after all this, you have disagreements on two points:
>
> 1. the idea of ki in Japan and China
>
> 2. the use of kokyu in karate and aikido (I believe it is central to
> all Japanese martial arts, as practiced in Japan at least).
Well, we touched on the Japan-China relationship. The breath-power can be
developed in both karate and Aikido, on one level. I have to think about
the rest. My problem is that there is no precise black and white.... there
is some amount of overlay and blurring that goes on. I started to write
about the dantien, but I suddenly realized that I was putting myself in a
position where I was finally defining Aikido as being not truly an
"internal" martial art, albeit one that uses some jin (kokyu) and qi (ki).
The more I sit here and think about it, the more I feel it correct to back
off and say that Real Aikido (tm) uses a lot of the so-called "internal
jin", but they don't use the dantien in the way that the internal arts do,
so Aikido is not really acceptable as a pure "internal martial art",
although it's close.
Regards,
Mike
Mike Sigman
"Jeff Lindqvist" <jeff_li...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E0D90B...@hotmail.com...
>
> BTW, I associate internal arts and chi with "being healthy", but I've
> seldom seen anybody catching more colds than him...;)
Well technically, using the body skills and movement in a certain way is
known as "qi", and part of the primitive definition of the world around us
has it that good health is dependent upon having strong qi flow. So if
someone practices Taiji particularly (but since most martial arts claim to
"use qi" to some extent, most others will do, theoretically) then they are
"exercising their qi flow" and therefore they must be improving their
"health", in the qi paradigm. And I have to admit that I get tickled with
the vagaries of life that inflict a lot of qi-talkers with mundane
illnesses... a clue that many of them miss. :^)
FWIW
Mike
etorjt
There are stories about how O-Sensei
>was able to learn how to do techniques of a style (naginata I think it
>was) simply by watching.
Gernot,
I think the art in question here is Kashima Shinto-ryu, and while
it's true that O Sensei purportedly only watched the training, he
did bring a deshi with him who actually did the training.
Rob Liberti
<snip>
> Aikido is im my understanding the principle of joining with and using
> the ki of the universe. Not merely the ki of the opponent. O-Sensei
> and Tohei are radically different, with O-Sensei claiming spiritual
> break-through as the gateway to his understanding of universal ki and
> its application to life, while Tohei sees the unification of mind and
> body as the gateway to the use of ki.
Are you suggesting that O-sensei wouldn't agree that mind-body
unification as the gateway to the _use_ of ki? He set the standard of
sandan (the last beginner rank) at this level of ability. (Wouldn't
most agree?).
I certainly cannot speak for O-sensei, but I agree with _both_ ideas
as they are not in conflict. Mind-body unification is the gateway to
_using_ ki, and spiritual break-through is the gateway to
_understanding_ ki. They are just different levels of depth. First
you do it, then you become it, then you start to understand it as you
figure out what you've become. I always just assumed that Tohei
sensei just believed in this basic flow so much, that he felt he only
needed to get people started on it and the rest would take care of
itself.
Mike Sigman
"Rob Liberti" <rob_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c6997c4.02122...@posting.google.com...
> Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote in message
news:<vc9r8c2...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp>...
> <snip>
> > Aikido is im my understanding the principle of joining with and using
> > the ki of the universe. Not merely the ki of the opponent. O-Sensei
> > and Tohei are radically different, with O-Sensei claiming spiritual
> > break-through as the gateway to his understanding of universal ki and
> > its application to life, while Tohei sees the unification of mind and
> > body as the gateway to the use of ki.
> <snip>
>
> Are you suggesting that O-sensei wouldn't agree that mind-body
> unification as the gateway to the _use_ of ki? He set the standard of
> sandan (the last beginner rank) at this level of ability. (Wouldn't
> most agree?).
>
> I certainly cannot speak for O-sensei, but I agree with _both_ ideas
> as they are not in conflict. Mind-body unification is the gateway to
> _using_ ki, and spiritual break-through is the gateway to
> _understanding_ ki.
Well, could you tell us more about why you think that "spiritual
break-through is the gateway to *understanding* ki"? Isn't that a slightly
different topic than the use of ki? In other words, I think the
'understanding of ki' is somewhat more subjective than the functional usage
of ki strength/skills. And bear in mind that the "flowing with the
opponent's ki" is a nice idea, but it is effected somewhat differently in
Aikido, Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua, etc., depending on the various techniques and
strategies of those individual arts.
> They are just different levels of depth. First
> you do it, then you become it, then you start to understand it as you
> figure out what you've become. I always just assumed that Tohei
> sensei just believed in this basic flow so much, that he felt he only
> needed to get people started on it and the rest would take care of
> itself.
Tohei's basic "ki tests" are simple usages of the jin-skill that is common
to Taiji, Xingyi, and other "internal martial arts". I think that he took
those heretofore "hidden" secret skills and brought them out on display as a
means of selling his brand of Aikido after he split off from Hombu Dojo when
he was passed over for being the Doshu. YMMV. :^)
FWIW
Mike
David O'Daniel
Chinese language.
Terms:
irimi = technique?
kokyu = strength (maybe "body" physical strength)?
fa jing?
peng jin?
I assume "qi" = chi/ki, not sure of jin by it's self either. Probably
just need to get more reading done in my books but been distreaced
during the holidays.
I "think" tan-tin or something like that, may be the Chinese equivelant
of Japanese "Hara" (spelling?). In karate, we train awairness of the
hara, ki as flowing up from the 2" in & 2" below navel, through the
torso, back, shulder & arm. Focusing including a myrid of things,
body-wave, at least hip twisting or if progressive, from the
back/stationary/non-stepping foot, up leg, pivoting hips, up torso or
spine/back, through arm for whatever technique, being relaxed then tense
only at time of execution then relax again, locking in stance at point
of execution, timeing to pull it all together. Others may have a more
indepth explaining of karate use of ki. (Sidenote; staff/bo, & perhaps
all weapons, seemes messed up, as the focus should be the shoulders but
the enpty-hand hip-centricicy in martial arts keeps the suggestion from
being even considered. But that's for another discussion).
Anyway, thanks to all those resopnding. I'm learning a lot. Just hope
I can remember it (tending to do senility references these days, hehe).
Again, Happy New Year, to all!
Bojutsu1
David O'Daniel
Issinryu was invented by Tatsuo Shimabuku on Okinawa, one of the many
combinings of Shorinryu & Gojuryu, with the dragon-head-fist (thumb
up/on the side to lock the wrist more), vertical punching, known in the
USA for shorter stances (Seisan stance 1 to 1.5 shoulderwidth long), and
emphasizing "low" kicks (ankle, knee, groin as supposedly only kicking
targets, unofficially solar plexas). Though it seems the shorter
stances & lower kicks (though they could kick over their heads just
thought it was a waist of time like punching to the ankle) were common
for Okiawan karate. Just that the USA at least, has been corrupted by
the longer stances & foolishly high kicks of Shotokan and TKD (Korean
Shotokan), esp expensive sport dancing (I mean, WTF).
Kyokushin was invented by Mas Oyama, a former Shotokan Gichin Funakoshi
student, ironically Korean, who founded hisown style that focuses more
on full contact sparring, it seems. All done on mainland Japan.
Anyway, just to say that Isshinryu is way way unrelated to
Kyokushinkai/Kyokushinryu/Kyokushin as the statue of liberty has to do
with the spynxe in Egypt, hehe. Again thouhg, just a sidenote. Now, on
to the Taiji/Aikido discussion. ;-)
Bojutsu1
<just to have some quote>: "A journey of 1,000 miles may begin with just
1 step but most forget that the rest of the journey is continuing to
take one step at a time, assuming you're walking. Those that take golf
carts miss the risk of tripping but get no exrcise" hehe. Yeah, needs
work.
<Gernot wrote>:
etorjt
>Pardon, not familiar with the terms, or may be just not knowing any
>Chinese language.
>
>Terms:
>
>irimi = technique?
irimi=entering. Defender enters directly into the attacker's
space, either to the front or rear.
>
>kokyu = strength (maybe "body" physical strength)?
Fundamentally, kokyu is deep, abdominal breathing, but in aikido,
it also means coordinating movement with breathing. It's a concept
that isn't far from some notions of 'ki.'
>
>fa jing?
>
>peng jin?
I'll leave these to Mike. I don't know much about Chinese arts
(but I know what I like ;^] )
>
>I assume "qi" = chi/ki,
yes, although as Gernot has pointed out, chi and ki are similar
but not identical concepts. Each reflects the culture whence it
came.
>
>I "think" tan-tin or something like that, may be the Chinese equivelant
>of Japanese "Hara" (spelling?).
hara or tanden or seika tanden in Japanese, tan tien (dan tien) I
believe, in Chinese.
>In karate, we train awairness of the
>hara, ki as flowing up from the 2" in & 2" below navel, through the
>torso, back, shulder & arm. Focusing including a myrid of things,
>body-wave, at least hip twisting or if progressive, from the
>back/stationary/non-stepping foot, up leg, pivoting hips, up torso or
>spine/back, through arm for whatever technique, being relaxed then tense
>only at time of execution then relax again, locking in stance at point
>of execution, timeing to pull it all together. Others may have a more
>indepth explaining of karate use of ki. (Sidenote; staff/bo, & perhaps
>all weapons, seemes messed up, as the focus should be the shoulders but
>the enpty-hand hip-centricicy in martial arts keeps the suggestion from
>being even considered. But that's for another discussion).
>
>Anyway, thanks to all those resopnding. I'm learning a lot. Just hope
>I can remember it (tending to do senility references these days, hehe).
>
>Again, Happy New Year, to all!
>
>
>Bojutsu1
Gernot Hassenpflug
> Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> There are stories about how O-Sensei
>>was able to learn how to do techniques of a style (naginata I think it
>>was) simply by watching.
>
> Gernot,
>
> I think the art in question here is Kashima Shinto-ryu, and while
> it's true that O Sensei purportedly only watched the training, he
> did bring a deshi with him who actually did the training.
Thanks Ernie. Interpreting anecdotes is dicey at best :-)
Gernot Hassenpflug
> Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote in message news:<vc9r8c2...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp>...
> <snip>
>> Aikido is im my understanding the principle of joining with and using
>> the ki of the universe. Not merely the ki of the opponent. O-Sensei
>> and Tohei are radically different, with O-Sensei claiming spiritual
>> break-through as the gateway to his understanding of universal ki and
>> its application to life, while Tohei sees the unification of mind and
>> body as the gateway to the use of ki.
> <snip>
>
> Are you suggesting that O-sensei wouldn't agree that mind-body
> unification as the gateway to the _use_ of ki? He set the standard of
> sandan (the last beginner rank) at this level of ability. (Wouldn't
> most agree?).
Hi Rob,
According to Tohei and many of the people I have spoken to in Japan,
most people did not understand what O-Sensei was talking about. So I
don't suggest what O-Sensei would agree to or not, I am merely trying
to state that O-Sensei emphasized the importance of some supernatural
(although universal) force in aikido, while Tohei made it accessible
to everyone, even those not knoweledgable or interested in the Kojiki
and other arcan myths and legends of Japanese mythology/history. What
is it that O-Sensei set as standard for sandan? I did not know there
was any standard as such. Could you explain that please?
> I certainly cannot speak for O-sensei, but I agree with _both_ ideas
> as they are not in conflict. Mind-body unification is the gateway to
> _using_ ki, and spiritual break-through is the gateway to
> _understanding_ ki. They are just different levels of depth. First
> you do it, then you become it, then you start to understand it as you
> figure out what you've become. I always just assumed that Tohei
> sensei just believed in this basic flow so much, that he felt he only
> needed to get people started on it and the rest would take care of
> itself.
I'll not question that, since Mike has already.
Gernot Hassenpflug
Thanks for your post. I did not realize when I was training that there
was an Ishinryu style that came from Japan. Now that I am in Japan,
and from the description you write, I think that the Ishinryu we
practiced was not the same as you write of, although I might be
wrong. From what we were told back then ( and there was a further name
change after I left) Ticky Donovan, the British team coach, founded
this style, changing Kyokoushin to a more sport-orientated style. But
as I say, I may be wrong. If you know anything about the UK style,
please let me know.
Regards, Gernot
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> writes:
[snipping as needed]
> news:vc9r8c2...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
>
> Well, "Ki" or "qi" can be a number of things. Perhaps the best
> definition of the word (in Chinese.... Japanese meaning is a tiny
> bit out of phase, but close, with the Chinese) is "unknown force".
>
> When we talk about "ki" or "qi" in relation to the martial arts,
> we're more interested in a focused set of demonstrable skills and
> how they are done.... The question becomes, "is it really an
> unknown mysterious "qi" doing these things or is it some rare body
> skill that is being used?". Go with the "rare body skills" idea
I'll go with that, since I don't believe in supernatural forces,
except my mother-in-law.
> I have noticed that when "ki tricks" and "qi tricks" are demonstrated by
> Japanese and by Chinese, the overlap of specific tricks is too great to
> ignore.
Interesting. I have not had the chance to see or experience much in
the way of Chinese demonstrations of ki, except for my Tai-chi
teacher. There seems to be an overlap, but also far more rich amount
of application in Chinese styles.
> I think that it is a reasonable assumption that some amount of the
> "ki power" stuff was introduced by the Chinese. Certainly, a lot of
> the Japanese martial arts skills related to Aikido, Aiki-jiujitsu,
> etc., is derived from the things shown the Japanese by Chen Yuan Yun
> ((1587-1671)) (there is still a temple devoted to him on the
> outskirts of Tokyo, I believe).
The Japanese martial arts histories go to great length to debunk that
idea :-) I guess there must have been some influence, but I don't see
that being much of an impact on a martial culture that saw the likes
of Musashi, Yagyu Muneyoshi and so forth. The influence on Japan since
the Tang dynasty was formidable, and the knowledge of ki and Chinese
martial arts would have been available much much earlier no?
> If you take "ki" to mean contextually that it is a form of strength
> that is necessary to do the "Real Thing" (tm), then many asian
> martial arts will say that.
Yes, I do and they do. I suspect as a way of mystifying the art more
than anything else.
>> I am embarassed to say that I believe Tai chi to involve more detailed
>> and in-depth study of ki than aikido does.
> If you're talking about the Taiji of the real experts, you're right.
> It does. But think of "ki" as a group of body skills like
> "juggling" and think of Chinese "juggling" as being more complex and
> sophisticated due to longer development time. The Japanese learned
> some basic "juggling" by hook or by crook, but the Chinese don't
> show each other stuff like this very freely, so you can be sure that
> an outsider/gaijin is not going to get a lot.
This is the problem isn't it. If Chinese got it right through longer
development time, why do the Japanese not get it right with benefit of
the Chinese experience. Comparing to technlogy, it never takes
somebody long to copy something that someone else has invented. To do
something original is much harder, but as far as the idea of ki is
concerned, do you think that Japanese have the right idea if you take
Chinese as the yardstick? If you think that Japanese have the right
idea in their martial arts, do you think there is another reason why
they choose to develop their particular arts instead of the clearly
more complex chinese ones? If you say they don't have the right idea,
would you say it is because only long development time can lead to the
right idea, or is it something else? My opinion is that the Japanese
(and anybody else who has grasped the idea of ki essentially) have the
right idea, and those that do know it pass it on (in koryu ofr
example), while the majority of Japanese partictioners remain average
and confused just like the rest of us. Maybe the Western culture
allows quicker reasoning (and maybe also more places to go wrong)
because Japanese don't generally question anything, so their learning
is determined more by what their teacher teaches them more than
individual ability to progress. My opinion only and by no means
universal to Japanese dojos either.
>> I do not think it is different in essence, because I am sticking to
>> what Tohei Koichi said about ki being universal, and the laws of ki
>> also being universal. He also said that the old Chinese ways of
>> doing things may be totally wrong because they were based on an
>> incorrect model of the human body.
> Well, I would have relished believing that statement from Tohei many years
> ago, but now all I can do is grin.
Could you explain? I mean, I realize Tohei has some ulterior motives,
but do you disagree with the 'universal' part, or with what he says
about the Chinese? And also, whether you think that the Chinese styles
are invariably right. After all, there seems to be an opinion among
Chinese that some martial arts are more advanced than others, and that
for example White Crane is at an even higher level than Tai Chi, or am
I mistaken?
> I think that what you're seeing is the turn toward a quasi-religious
I was vastly disappointed by Tohei's books when I reached the part
about the 'ki museum', 'ki rings' and 'ki stones'.....even my Japanese
friends thought it was a bit over the top (save those who already
belong to some cult).
>> So, I hope that the study of Tai chi
>> will deepen my understanding of the principle of ki, both the way the
>> Chinese think about it, and the way it is considered in Japan.
> Look for the practical-application parts and how it's done.
I'll take that to heart, thanks. As you point out, it's only real if
you can do it yourself, at will, and understand it well enough to
teach it to others to boot.
>> > My question would be "what do you think of the tricks/demos of
>> > O-Sensei and Koichi Tohei and what is their relevence to Aikido?"
>>
>> Aikido is im my understanding the principle of joining with and
>> using the ki of the universe. Aikido training is done to strive
>> for attainment of the understanding of the universal ki through
>> techniques intended to help the practitioner gain that
>> understanding through intense training.
> Well, don't invest all your funds in that last statement. It's easy to "go
> with the flow" when someone has shown you how to hook your firehose up to
> the spiggot. But without knowing how to do it and relying only on vague
> philosophies, you'll never get to have your turn.
Could you be more explicit, I don't follow what you refer to
exactly. Do you mean that the techniques as such should not be
patterns to follow, but that a search is always underway to understand
the essence of the techniques? Or that the partner obliging you by
moving in a certain way (or attacking in a certain way) is not a good
way of understanding the essence of martial arts because you have
already skipped the beginning point to get to the part where the
attack is coming? Or something else? I am keen to understand exactly
which knowledge about oneself and the opponent is necessary at the
outset or during an interaction in order to know when and how to move
and apply techniques.
>> My teacher, Abe Seiseki, taught O-Sensei calligraphy, and he
>> believes in the importance of misogi as taught by O-Sensei, and the
>> value of the kojiki and its hidden meanings to gain insight. Quite
>> clearly, simple training in aikido techniques is not enough to gain
>> understanding.
> I'm guessing here, but I suspect that the Misogi breathing is
> relevant (when done correctly after someone finally shows you how),
> but the references to the Kojiki and their hidden meanings is a
> waste of time reflecting the quasi-religious stuff that develops
I agree with you. Most people didn't understand O-Sensei, since the
education about the mythology died out with the Occupation. As a
framework for understanding misogi it must be very useful, but a good
teacher should be capable of developing his own framework or that of
his students as they require it.
>> What O-Sensei and Tohei demonstrated was what could be achieved
> Well, you can coordinate the body in ways I didn't realize was possible,
> many years ago.
My first aikido teacher used to tell me I needed to 'relax' more
(coming from karate and training the way I had been told in Karate was
'good' -- feedback). When I got relaxed to the point that my teacher
was satisfied I was scolded by higher-ranked teachers for being too
tense.In Japan I found again that there was another level of
realxation' that needed to be attained and maintained. Starting
Tai-chi, the first things my teacher said was my thight/legs were 'too
tense' :-) I felt how relaxed he was when pushing me, and within a
week managed to train myself to not use my chest muscles when lifting
my arm, even with a sword. I never entertained the idea that it was
either possible or necessary. I am pretty sure the good aikido people
have this skill, because it sure improved my aikido, and most of my
friends were pretty amazed at the difference in 'kokyu'. As you say,
different coordination, and I suppose anybody can do it if shown what
they need to do.
> Well, we touched on the Japan-China relationship. The breath-power can be
> developed in both karate and Aikido, on one level. I have to think about
> the rest. My problem is that there is no precise black and white.... there
> is some amount of overlay and blurring that goes on. I started to write
> about the dantien, but I suddenly realized that I was putting myself in a
> position where I was finally defining Aikido as being not truly an
> "internal" martial art, albeit one that uses some jin (kokyu) and qi
> (ki).
Thanks for jin=kokyu, I wondered what jin was. Do you know any
more. For example, kokyuu is spelt with 2 kanji (kokyuu is breathing,
and kokyuu-ryoku is breath power), whereas jin is one kanji. Which one
is it, and what does it mean?
> The more I sit here and think about it, the more I feel it correct to back
> off and say that Real Aikido (tm) uses a lot of the so-called "internal
> jin", but they don't use the dantien in the way that the internal arts do,
> so Aikido is not really acceptable as a pure "internal martial art",
> although it's close.
Interesting. In the aikido I practice all movements are supposed to
come 'from the hara', and since there is always a spiral involved in
the movements I suppose this implies that there is always a
needle-like outward rotating force coming from the strongest part of
one's body and never a sideways pushing towards a parallel axis that
would put strain on the shoulder. Apart from that, I don't really know
how the tan-tien is used for in Aikido! (Basically, in order to
achieve the above, concentration is focussed in the hara, although no
strength is put there, i.e. no tightening appears to be done). Do you
agree with this in principal, and/or how does Aikido use of tan-tien
differ from Chinese internal usage?
Very interesting, thanks a lot.
Mike Sigman
> > I think that it is a reasonable assumption that some amount of the
> > "ki power" stuff was introduced by the Chinese. Certainly, a lot of
> > the Japanese martial arts skills related to Aikido, Aiki-jiujitsu,
> > etc., is derived from the things shown the Japanese by Chen Yuan Yun
> > ((1587-1671)) (there is still a temple devoted to him on the
> > outskirts of Tokyo, I believe).
>
> The Japanese martial arts histories go to great length to debunk that
> idea :-) I guess there must have been some influence, but I don't see
> that being much of an impact on a martial culture that saw the likes
> of Musashi, Yagyu Muneyoshi and so forth. The influence on Japan since
> the Tang dynasty was formidable, and the knowledge of ki and Chinese
> martial arts would have been available much much earlier no?
My earlier training was in judo, karate, and Aikido, so I used to be quite
the Japanophile and, in my mind, the Chinese were these silly people that
ran screaming and yelling from large army engagements, not unlike the
"Chinese fire drill" idea. So I was a grudging acceptor of the reality of
the power the Chinese exerted and of the power of their martial arts.
Looking at it now, I see the language, literature, dress, weapons, fighting
styles, etc., of Japan were heavily, heavily influenced by all things
Chinese and for a fairly long period of time. Even the Japanese sword,
naginata, etc., are copies of Chinese weapons, it seems... a thought I would
have rejected out of hand at one time. Of course there were developments
and contributions by the Japanese, but it seems the base of many things
including martial arts, was of a Chinese nature and it appears to have
developed over a lengthy time period. We'll never know for sure the
proportions and the exact time factor, but Japan has a lot of China in it.
>
> This is the problem isn't it. If Chinese got it right through longer
> development time, why do the Japanese not get it right with benefit of
> the Chinese experience. Comparing to technlogy, it never takes
> somebody long to copy something that someone else has invented. To do
> something original is much harder, but as far as the idea of ki is
> concerned, do you think that Japanese have the right idea if you take
> Chinese as the yardstick?
Well, again I'd point to the Chinese example that statistically few Chinese
know how to do all the levels of "qi" technology. Different Chinese
martial arts have developed different approaches to basic (but difficult)
physical skills. I think that in some cases, a few Japanese have developed
some extensions of basic ideas, but I'd guess it's fairly rare, if it's
there at all. The problem is that it's difficult to learn and you have to
be shown things. Another factor to consider is that while the "qi/ki"
things are powerful and contributory, they don't guarantee that you're
always a winner. Technique must be there, too. In other words, a lot of
people will just go for hard and constant practice and dispense with tricky
things that don't necessarily give a guaranteed return-on-investment.
> My opinion is that the Japanese
> (and anybody else who has grasped the idea of ki essentially) have the
> right idea, and those that do know it pass it on (in koryu ofr
> example), while the majority of Japanese partictioners remain average
> and confused just like the rest of us.
I would agree with that scenario, more or less.
>
> >> I do not think it is different in essence, because I am sticking to
> >> what Tohei Koichi said about ki being universal, and the laws of ki
> >> also being universal. He also said that the old Chinese ways of
> >> doing things may be totally wrong because they were based on an
> >> incorrect model of the human body.
> > Well, I would have relished believing that statement from Tohei many
years
> > ago, but now all I can do is grin.
>
> Could you explain? I mean, I realize Tohei has some ulterior motives,
> but do you disagree with the 'universal' part, or with what he says
> about the Chinese? And also, whether you think that the Chinese styles
> are invariably right. After all, there seems to be an opinion among
> Chinese that some martial arts are more advanced than others, and that
> for example White Crane is at an even higher level than Tai Chi, or am
> I mistaken?
Well, the "universal ki" idea is something that is part of the ancient
explanation of how things work in a civilization that didn't develop
technology the way the West did. You can say that the comparison is between
"universal ki" and the "laws of physics". Take your pick. What you can't
do is switch back and forth, like so many trendy westerners are wont to do.
Personally, I now know how to do some things (not necessarily expertly, but
I can do them) that are indeed unusual and I've had teaching faculty at a
medical college agree that they're outside of anything they've seen
before.... but just because things are unknown doesn't mean that ultimately
they don't boil down to understandable-by-western-science phenomena.
Insofar as Tohei, with his limited viewpoint, indicating that the Chinese
didn't quite have it right, I have to refer you back to my loyalties during
my Japanophile days and how I underestimated the Chinese.
I don't know where you heard that about White Crane. Technologically, it is
not as advanced as Taiji, IMO. Insofar as which is more effective
statistically, I don't have an opinion. Taiji's main problem, as I see it,
is that it takes too much training and skill to be truly effective, so
"effectively" many other arts are a better investment of time.
on philosophical goal of "universal ki" in Aikido:
> Do you mean that the techniques as such should not be
> patterns to follow, but that a search is always underway to understand
> the essence of the techniques? Or that the partner obliging you by
> moving in a certain way (or attacking in a certain way) is not a good
> way of understanding the essence of martial arts because you have
> already skipped the beginning point to get to the part where the
> attack is coming? Or something else? I am keen to understand exactly
> which knowledge about oneself and the opponent is necessary at the
> outset or during an interaction in order to know when and how to move
> and apply techniques.
Well, to me this is a side issue to the discussion at hand, but I'll give a
brief opinion. If you develop the "ki" of Aikido, you will be able to do
the "tests" of Tohei and while you're learning how to use this basic jin and
it's extensions, you will learn a lot about yourself and your own movements.
Through this learning process where you always "keep your ki extended",
etc., you will begin to be more aware of an opponent's intentions, balance,
relationship to your "ki", etc. Gradually, you will begin being more aware
of an opponent's moves, general intentions, etc., in your workouts and you
will be less focused on his hands, arms, kicks, except as part of his basic
relationship to you and your "ki". So "ki" is important in that sense and
it's "universality" develops as your understanding of general principles and
relationships develops. When you understand this, you will also understand
why you can get a "universal" understanding through other arts, also....
it's just that the ki and kokyu of Aikido is especially suited for this sort
of thing.
>> My first aikido teacher used to tell me I needed to 'relax' more
> (coming from karate and training the way I had been told in Karate was
> 'good' -- feedback). When I got relaxed to the point that my teacher
> was satisfied I was scolded by higher-ranked teachers for being too
> tense.In Japan I found again that there was another level of
> realxation' that needed to be attained and maintained. Starting
> Tai-chi, the first things my teacher said was my thight/legs were 'too
> tense' :-) I felt how relaxed he was when pushing me, and within a
> week managed to train myself to not use my chest muscles when lifting
> my arm, even with a sword. I never entertained the idea that it was
> either possible or necessary. I am pretty sure the good aikido people
> have this skill, because it sure improved my aikido, and most of my
> friends were pretty amazed at the difference in 'kokyu'. As you say,
> different coordination, and I suppose anybody can do it if shown what
> they need to do.
Well, I would say it was a good first step. You learned that you could do
some things by re-patterning from the way you normally moved. My comment
would be that the re-patterning can go a lot further and that what you
described is just a pointer in the right direction.
>
> Thanks for jin=kokyu, I wondered what jin was. Do you know any
> more. For example, kokyuu is spelt with 2 kanji (kokyuu is breathing,
> and kokyuu-ryoku is breath power), whereas jin is one kanji. Which one
> is it, and what does it mean?
Well, it's not a one-to-one translation. The closest is kokyu-ryoku (I'm
getting old and forgetful.... is there a reason why I keep wanting to put 2
k's in the middle of "kokkyu" or is it a mistake?). "Jin" is actually a
pretty vague word and it's the word that so many New Agers and translators
took to mean "energy", originally. In actual meaning and context of the
subject we're talking about, it's probably better to think of "jin" as
meaning something like "force-vector skill through the relaxed body". The
Aikido usage of "kokyu" would probably be something more like "force-vector
skill through the relaxed body, backed up by exhale-breathing skill and
whole-body movement". :^) In other words, "kokyu" strength implies
basic "ki strength" being used with a bit more complexity to it. And
naturally, there are many people who do kokyu wrongly but with enough power
and experience to make it work so that they would disagree with me.
>
> > The more I sit here and think about it, the more I feel it correct to
back
> > off and say that Real Aikido (tm) uses a lot of the so-called "internal
> > jin", but they don't use the dantien in the way that the internal arts
do,
> > so Aikido is not really acceptable as a pure "internal martial art",
> > although it's close.
>
> Interesting. In the aikido I practice all movements are supposed to
> come 'from the hara', and since there is always a spiral involved in
> the movements I suppose this implies that there is always a
> needle-like outward rotating force coming from the strongest part of
> one's body and never a sideways pushing towards a parallel axis that
> would put strain on the shoulder. Apart from that, I don't really know
> how the tan-tien is used for in Aikido! (Basically, in order to
> achieve the above, concentration is focussed in the hara, although no
> strength is put there, i.e. no tightening appears to be done). Do you
> agree with this in principal, and/or how does Aikido use of tan-tien
> differ from Chinese internal usage?
Well technically the qi-paradigm is such that in every Chinese and Japanese
martial art, the hara (dantien) is the theoretical center of all movements,
yada, yada, yada. In reality, a lot of body-center relationship is used in
most arts of China and Japan and since that's different from what most
westerners are used to, they assume that acquiring a bit of body-centered
movement puts them in the "I'm There!!!" category. But it's only a start.
The dantien usage in Taiji is a lot more sophisticated than that and among
skilled experts there is a pronounced muscular development around and below
the navel that is quite mobile and interesting to see. You won't see that
in Aikido, so that should give you an idea of the size of the difference.
And if you look at the stomach area of most people (particularly westerners)
who profess to be "experts", you won't see that development, either.... a
clue of the amount of BS that is passed off as Taiji. :^)
Regards,
Mike
Ancalagon139
>All well and good except that Jhoon Rhee got embarrassingly mugged in
>Washington D.C., thereby throwing your offhand reference into question.
>
>FWIW
>
>Mike Sigman
I never heard this. Could you possibly point me to a referance containing this
story? Thanks.
-Ancalagon
Mike Sigman
"Ancalagon139" <ancala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021229142530...@mb-fi.aol.com...
It was years ago that a friend of mine in Washington DC told me about this
one. At the time, he mentioned that it was mostly kept out of the media at
the request of a lot of congressional/senator types because Jhoon Rhee
apparently gave some sort of free training, etc., for legislators. I just
called my friend to ask him about it, and he remembers the incident (it was
a long time ago, like I said) and he'll see if he can find out more about it
(didn't sound too enthusiastic trying to go after something that old,
though).
FWIW
Mike
LIBERATOR
Zolly Skocic
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v0u5157...@corp.supernews.com...
> I don't know where you heard that about White Crane. Technologically, it
is
> not as advanced as Taiji, IMO. Insofar as which is more effective
> statistically, I don't have an opinion. Taiji's main problem, as I see
it,
> is that it takes too much training and skill to be truly effective, so
> "effectively" many other arts are a better investment of time.
>
Can we put some numbers here? How long would take for 7-8 year old child to
become
'effective' or 'proficient' in Taiji?
How many hours per week trainig, how many years total?
Zolly
Mike Sigman
"Zolly Skocic" <zsk...@shawrmthis.ca> wrote in message
news:jhNP9.191335$Qr.49...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >
>
> Can we put some numbers here? How long would take for 7-8 year old child
to
> become
> 'effective' or 'proficient' in Taiji?
> How many hours per week trainig, how many years total?
5 or 6 hours a day for let's say 10 years? I think there's plenty of
physical skills before that, but we're talking about relatively pure and
good Taiji skills. The problem is the combination of skills in relation to
the jin and "qi" skills (the confusing part is that jin is part of "qi" but
"qi" can be somewhat different".
FWIW
Mike
Zolly Skocic
>
> 5 or 6 hours a day for let's say 10 years?
Ok, so, it is about as same as for ballet dancer, piano, or violin player.
> I think there's plenty of
> physical skills before that, but we're talking about relatively pure and
> good Taiji skills. The problem is the combination of skills in relation
to
> the jin and "qi" skills (the confusing part is that jin is part of "qi"
but
> "qi" can be somewhat different".
I think that the problem is in "return of investment" you mentioned in your
previous post.
You will invest enormuos amount of time to acquire the skill, and than....
what to do with all that skill?
Ballet dancers play ballet, piano players make concerts...
>
> FWIW
Exactly! Very hard to see value in it.
Zolly
BillMahoney68
The story is that in his younger days Rhee would test his techniques by going
out and looking for trouble makers to beat up.
And that some black guy fucked him up.
I have no idea if it is true, I've heard only vague details, but respect those
the told me it was indeed true.
Mike Sigman
>
> I think that the problem is in "return of investment" you mentioned in
your
> previous post.
> You will invest enormuos amount of time to acquire the skill, and
than....
> what to do with all that skill?
>
> Ballet dancers play ballet, piano players make concerts...
> >
> > FWIW
>
> Exactly! Very hard to see value in it.
By Golly, Zolly, you've hit on the same perplexing problem that I keep
running into. If you're in a time and age and place where really good
martial skills are valuable, then Taiji is a clever but costly investment of
time and resources. In today's time and age, fullblown Taiji is not a
particularly good investment if you have a life (i.e., ... get a life and
quit dreaming about whupping 210-pound sand-kicking bullies unless you're in
the fight biz for real). Similarly, if you're going to devote that many
years, why not devote it at a pretty effective martial art and also at
Gold's Gym? In other words, I tend to agree with you. The comment I
would make on the other side is that the training for the jin skills, the
"qi", and the attendent other skills (other than the martial usages) is also
good for your day-to-day strength needs and it's sort of a body-skill type
strength that you can continue to develop even as you get older and lose
(reasonable amounts of) muscle mass. So, IMO, the investment for a strength
that maintains quality of life into old age is a worthwhile consideration.
Again, FWIW
Mike
Gernot Hassenpflug
[snipping as needed]
> "Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote in message
> news:vc9fzsh...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
>
> My earlier training was in judo, karate, and Aikido, so I used to be quite
> the Japanophile... So I was a grudging acceptor of the reality of
> the power the Chinese exerted and of the power of their martial arts.
Japanese history teaching is basically pretty closed off. Yes, I think
I agree with you. An important aspect might also be that Japanese
martial arts, largely through US occupation and the closing off of
China I suppose, began to make an impression on Westerners long before
Chinese arts did, and thereby created an image on non-Japanese that is
biased in their favour.
>> If the Chinese got it right through longer development time, why do
>> the Japanese not get it right with benefit of the Chinese
>> experience.
>
> Well, again I'd point to the Chinese example that statistically few
> Chinese know how to do all the levels of "qi" technology. Different
> Chinese martial arts have developed different approaches to basic
> (but difficult) physical skills. ... A lot of people will just go
> for hard and constant practice and dispense with tricky things that
> don't necessarily give a guaranteed return-on-investment.
Nice exposition. I can believe that. The difficult part seems to be
the exploration of possibilities of physical and mental coordination,
many levels of subtlety as you point out below: doing one thing is
merely a pointer, and not a 'got it' sign.
>> > I would have relished believing that statement from Tohei
>> > many years ago, but now all I can do is grin.
>> Could you explain?
>
> Well, the "universal ki" idea is something that is part of the
> ancient explanation of how things work in a civilization that didn't
> develop technology the way the West did. You can say that the
> comparison is between "universal ki" and the "laws of physics".
> What you can't do is switch back and forth, like so many trendy
> westerners are wont to do. .... just because things are unknown
> doesn't mean that ultimately they don't boil down to
> understandable-by-western-science phenomena. Insofar as Tohei, with
> his limited viewpoint, indicating that the Chinese didn't quite have
> it right, I have to refer you back to my loyalties during my
> Japanophile days and how I underestimated the Chinese.
That makes sense to me.
> I don't know where you heard that about White Crane.
> Technologically, it is not as advanced as Taiji, IMO. Insofar as
> which is more effective statistically, I don't have an opinion.
> Taiji's main problem, as I see it, is that it takes too much
> training and skill to be truly effective, so "effectively" many
> other arts are a better investment of time.
I wa mistaken. Sorry for the confusion.
> Well, I would say it was a good first step.
I hear you.
> Well, it's not a one-to-one translation. The closest is kokyu-ryoku (I'm
> getting old and forgetful.... is there a reason why I keep wanting to put 2
> k's in the middle of "kokkyu" or is it a mistake?).
You have a choice of kokyuu or kokyu depending on how you want to
write double vowels. But there is no double k (word doesn't exist in
common japanese, as I could not find it in my PC
dictionaries). However, if you look at kokyuu, you also have a choice
which is quite on-topic. Kokyuu is also the japanese word for a
chinese fiddle :-)
> "Jin" is actually a pretty vague word and it's the word that so many
> New Agers and translators took to mean "energy", originally.
This must be a thing that didn't catch on too much either in South
Africa or here in Japan :-)
> In actual meaning and context of the subject we're talking about,
> it's probably better to think of "jin" as meaning something like
> "force-vector skill through the relaxed body". The Aikido usage of
> "kokyu" would probably be something more like "force-vector skill
> through the relaxed body, backed up by exhale-breathing skill and
> whole-body movement". :^) In other words, "kokyu" strength implies
> basic "ki strength" being used with a bit more complexity to it.
What this boils down to is that I am not sure what jin means :-) I
guess I should invest more time in Tai chi practice.
> And naturally, there are many people who do kokyu wrongly but with
> enough power and experience to make it work so that they would
> disagree with me.
Hehe. The more things change the more they stay the same....
> yada, yada, yada. In reality, a lot of body-center relationship is
> used in most arts of China and Japan and since that's different from
> what most westerners are used to, they assume that acquiring a bit
> of body-centered movement puts them in the "I'm There!!!" category.
I agree with your comment on Westerners, but in modern Japan I don't
see any difference in aptitude between the foreigners and the Japanese
(sure, the foreigners are apt to be more odd on the whole, having
decided to come to Japan in the first place).
> But it's only a start. The dantien usage in Taiji is a lot more
> sophisticated than that and among skilled experts there is a
> pronounced muscular development around and below the navel that is
> quite mobile and interesting to see.
Indeed. Amazing to see!
> You won't see that in Aikido, so that should give you an idea of
> the size of the difference.
When I started to learn aikido, a friend of mine began Tai
chi. Needless to say we tried out what we could do, but after his 7
years and mine (this was back in South Africa) I could no longer move
him, not apply techniques. Uncanny, and I wondered at the time whether
aikido would allow me to do that too. Here the training does enable
some development of an unmoveable stance, but not so much through
absorbing the energy as by unbalancing the opponent(s). Indeed, quite
a difference.
> And if you look at the stomach area of most people (particularly
> westerners) who profess to be "experts", you won't see that
> development, either.... a clue of the amount of BS that is passed
> off as Taiji. :^)
Ditto comment above. Thank again for the insights. If you're off the
PC until 2003, have a great New Year. I have a midnight class on the
31st, the first time for me in Japan actually.
Phillip Inoy
may have gotten beat up in the altercation. That may or may not have
been what you meant. Also, it implies you know something of the
details of the events surrounding the mugging.
COuld you tell me a little more about it? Was he injured or beat up,
or did he just comply and give up his wallet?
The only reason I ask, is that this man, is I assure you quite deadly
still, despite his years, and at one time was quite a powerful and
famous externalist in Korea, though Liberator does tell the truth when
he says he's not WTF.
I'm not sure but I do believe he fought in the Korean war too. But
again, memory may not serve here. He was not a friend of the Japanese
occupation either.
Finally, I have to say that Jhoon Rhee has become quite the pacifist
despite his training. Koreans his age and older have alot to say and
are often quite bitter about the difficulties they had to swallow. The
Jhoon Rhee I knew is not likely to be a coward, though he's certainly
not likely to be as aggressive in his old age as he may have been when
he was my age.
Tell us a little more about what you know Mike, I'd love to hear more
about it, good or bad. Its been 15 years since I saw him at a Korean
Chamber of Commerce dinner.
Thanks,
Phillip J. Inoy
gee...@linuxmail.org (LIBERATOR) wrote in message news:<a9dee6aa.02122...@posting.google.com>...
Grappler240
>still, despite his years,
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh...stop it....it's too much.....
>Finally, I have to say that Jhoon Rhee has become quite the pacifist
>despite his training.
he was condemned to pacifism by his lack of ability to fight for real.
it is only the warrior who chooses pacifism....
tkd people are condemned to it.
G240
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
"You can carve it on a bowling pin and cram it,for all I care."
-Gichoke
George Stewart
Hi Mike,
Over the past couple of years of playing about with this stuff and
thinking about it, I've come to agree with your rather dismal (from
the "nerd's revenge" point of view!) take on TJQ.
But to your "workable into old age" point, I'd add that there's a
sheer aesthetic pleasure to be had from TJQ, from the kind of movement
it involves. There's something pleasurable and addictive about trying
to get it right, and also about the movement itself when you do (as I
occasionally do!) get it right.
Regardless of its costliness re. martial skill, it's still a
fascinating hobby, even when somewhat toned down, as a "health"
practice with martial side benefits (like Yang style?)
- George Stewart
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
The Dao produces the law. Law is what draws the line
between gain and loss, and makes clear the curved and
the straight. He who grasps the Dao, therefore,
produces law and does not venture to transgress it,
establishes law and does not venture to oppose it.
If he is able to align himself, then he will not be
confused when he sees and knows the world.
- The Dao and the Law (from Jing Fa - "The Canon:Law")
ca. 250 BCE
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Mike Sigman
> Japanese history teaching is basically pretty closed off. Yes, I think
> I agree with you. An important aspect might also be that Japanese
> martial arts, largely through US occupation and the closing off of
> China I suppose, began to make an impression on Westerners long before
> Chinese arts did, and thereby created an image on non-Japanese that is
> biased in their favour.
>
Also, we tend to do a lot of overglorifying in our minds and fall in love
with the first cutie we meet, proclaiming our undying loyalty. :^)
>
> > In actual meaning and context of the subject we're talking about,
> > it's probably better to think of "jin" as meaning something like
> > "force-vector skill through the relaxed body". The Aikido usage of
> > "kokyu" would probably be something more like "force-vector skill
> > through the relaxed body, backed up by exhale-breathing skill and
> > whole-body movement". :^) In other words, "kokyu" strength implies
> > basic "ki strength" being used with a bit more complexity to it.
>
> What this boils down to is that I am not sure what jin means :-) I
> guess I should invest more time in Tai chi practice.
Or Aikido practice. :^) If you think about it, Tohei's simple "tests"
are actually used to point someone toward developing the basic form of
"jin". If you take the one where a partner pushes on Tohei's forearm and
can't move him ... this would be a nice way to start (particularly if your
partner only pushes lightly) learning to pretend the push against your
forearm is actually his hand pushing directly into your abdomen toward your
lower spine and your back leg absorbing the push. In other words, a
coordination begins to set up that allows you to let a push go directly to
your back foot. The lower body absorbs the push and the upper body is
simply a transmitter through with the force goes (if you reverse this and
learn to push with this jin, your lower body powers the move and the upper
body is again mainly a transmitter). This sort of coordination yields a
"specialized form of strength path", which is the essence of what a "jin"
is. If I hang by one arm from the branch of a tree, you could trace a
tension path from my hand, down my arm, across my back to my lower body...
this path that you trace could also be called a "jin path", so you have to
understand that "jin" is not some magical word implying "internal martial
arts"; it's a specialized (versus "brute") strength path. Simply learning
how to ground pushes is a good start to exploring various jin usages.
There are other jin skills.
>
> When I started to learn aikido, a friend of mine began Tai
> chi. Needless to say we tried out what we could do, but after his 7
> years and mine (this was back in South Africa) I could no longer move
> him, not apply techniques. Uncanny, and I wondered at the time whether
> aikido would allow me to do that too. Here the training does enable
> some development of an unmoveable stance, but not so much through
> absorbing the energy as by unbalancing the opponent(s). Indeed, quite
> a difference.
Absorbing the "energy" (I'm not happy with that usage; it's an incorrect use
of the word "energy") and unbalancing the opponent are simply 2 different
ways of using the same jin path to and from the ground. Letting the mind
set up that path from ground to hand, forearm, shoulder, etc., is the basic
"mind-body" coordination, but there are other coordinations. And there are
ways to store and release this path energy using the dantien and
back-muscles, and there are ways to control the whole surface of paths
across the body with the dantien, etc. It's an interesting study in itself
and Tohei was correct to use these skills as the enticing banner for Ki
Aikido, IMO. Lastly, let's not forget that point we discussed earlier
along the lines of "Aikido techniques without ki are not correct; Ki-power
without good Aikido techniques is not correct, either." It's very true...
you need both if you're going to get anywhere.
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
"George Stewart" <geo...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:00k01voihkbad2chb...@4ax.com...
>
> But to your "workable into old age" point, I'd add that there's a
> sheer aesthetic pleasure to be had from TJQ, from the kind of movement
> it involves. There's something pleasurable and addictive about trying
> to get it right, and also about the movement itself when you do (as I
> occasionally do!) get it right.
I think that all our generation of Taiji enthusiasts can hope to do is get a
foot in the door. I don't know *any* westerner (myself included) who has a
good and complete handle on all the jin and qi skills... it's just too hard
to learn when so little information is given out. The same dearth of
information affects most Chinese, also, so even a lot of the "big names"
turn out to only be working with incomplete information. Probably the next
2 generations will produce a tiny number of actually good players. Hard to
say.
>
> Regardless of its costliness re. martial skill, it's still a
> fascinating hobby, even when somewhat toned down, as a "health"
> practice with martial side benefits (like Yang style?)
I agree. It's a good hobby and it keeps me off the streets at night. :^)
Mike
George Stewart
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"George Stewart" <geo...@sugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:00k01voihkbad2chb...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> But to your "workable into old age" point, I'd add that there's a
>> sheer aesthetic pleasure to be had from TJQ, from the kind of movement
>> it involves. There's something pleasurable and addictive about trying
>> to get it right, and also about the movement itself when you do (as I
>> occasionally do!) get it right.
>
>I think that all our generation of Taiji enthusiasts can hope to do is get a
>foot in the door. I don't know *any* westerner (myself included) who has a
>good and complete handle on all the jin and qi skills... it's just too hard
>to learn when so little information is given out. The same dearth of
>information affects most Chinese, also, so even a lot of the "big names"
>turn out to only be working with incomplete information. Probably the next
>2 generations will produce a tiny number of actually good players. Hard to
>say.
>
I completely agree with this now. It's hard to put a finger on what
the problem has been up till now, but it's something to do with what
I'd call "perspective" or "sense of scale". Because of the early
"magic" connotations, our sense of perspective has been all askew.
Instead of thinking of Taiji as an obscure body skill that's trained
properly only in a very few places in mainland China, we've had the
impression of it as something widespread in China that has a "magic"
component that only a few "Daoist sages" understand.
An analogy I've used in discussing this with others is to think of any
ordinary Western sport, like soccer. Imagine the Chinese had never
heard of soccer, and a few Chinese went over to the USA, learned to
"keepy uppy" a bit and maybe "take a penalty", then went back to China
advertising that they could "play soccer"; and then other Chinese
learn those meagre skills as "soccer". Or some Americans went over
to China, taught Chinese a few basic skills as "soccer". Something
like that. Well, those skills are certainly a _part_ of soccer, but
there's so much more to the phenomenon called "soccer" than those
skills - there's a synergy of parts that makes the whole thing, that
the Chinese would still know nothing about, even if they could dribble
pretty well, or kick a ball into a net.
(And the situation seems to be nearly as bad wrt "external" CMA too!)
Btw, I think people will be really, really surprised when they see
real TJQ in MMA contexts - not that it will necessarily beat all
comers, but that it will be odd enough in action, and hold its own
enough, to be surprising and interesting - maybe even become another
MA "fad" (again!) I give it another 10-15 years or so, though, maybe
more.
>
>>
>> Regardless of its costliness re. martial skill, it's still a
>> fascinating hobby, even when somewhat toned down, as a "health"
>> practice with martial side benefits (like Yang style?)
>
>I agree. It's a good hobby and it keeps me off the streets at night. :^)
>
When all's said and done, maybe the Wu brothers, and the other Chinese
who early on "spotted" TJQ as something a bit special, as a
fascinating study, weren't _too_ far off the mark. The real thing is
certainly much more interesting than the fantasy, that's for sure.
Mike Sigman
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 07:42:30 -0700, "Mike Sigman"
> I completely agree with this now. It's hard to put a finger on what
> the problem has been up till now, but it's something to do with what
> I'd call "perspective" or "sense of scale". Because of the early
> "magic" connotations, our sense of perspective has been all askew.
> Instead of thinking of Taiji as an obscure body skill that's trained
> properly only in a very few places in mainland China, we've had the
> impression of it as something widespread in China that has a "magic"
> component that only a few "Daoist sages" understand.
>
Yeah, the vast majority of people who did/do Taiji think that a "Tai Chi
Form" is somehow like a magical incantation .... all you have to do is
repeat it x-number of times and you'll wake up one day with qi and a green
aura that bounces people away.
The other common misconception we all got early on was that you only had to
practice 15-20 minutes a day and you'd wind up being able to thrash a
200-pound sand-kicking bully. There was an interesting quote from Zhu Tian
Cai in a recent JAMA issue that stressed one had to work *much harder than
normal working out* in order to achieve good Taiji skill.... far different
from the idea that one had to work less hard and get magical results.
> An analogy I've used in discussing this with others is to think of any
> ordinary Western sport, like soccer. Imagine the Chinese had never
> heard of soccer, and a few Chinese went over to the USA, learned to
> "keepy uppy" a bit and maybe "take a penalty", then went back to China
> advertising that they could "play soccer"; and then other Chinese
> learn those meagre skills as "soccer". Or some Americans went over
> to China, taught Chinese a few basic skills as "soccer". Something
> like that. Well, those skills are certainly a _part_ of soccer, but
> there's so much more to the phenomenon called "soccer" than those
> skills - there's a synergy of parts that makes the whole thing, that
> the Chinese would still know nothing about, even if they could dribble
> pretty well, or kick a ball into a net.
Exactly. That same analogy has been made using baseball and basketball, by
others. It's quite true. One of the questions in my mind has always been
about the sanity of some of these people who "teach Tai Chi" .... haven't
they ever considered the possibility that they're *way* off base and that
someday the stuff they teach or sell on videos will be exposed as tripe?
>
> Btw, I think people will be really, really surprised when they see
> real TJQ in MMA contexts - not that it will necessarily beat all
> comers, but that it will be odd enough in action, and hold its own
> enough, to be surprising and interesting - maybe even become another
> MA "fad" (again!) I give it another 10-15 years or so, though, maybe
> more.
>
It might happen sooner than you think. It would be interesting to see.
For one thing, the amount of power a real expert can release is jaw-dropping
and the joint locks are really, really good. The only problem is that
"submission" is not what Taiji seeks to do... it seeks to end it immediately
by either damage or worse. It's something we'll have to wait to see,
though, rather than speculate amongst the flame-filled environment of RMA.
:^))))
FWIW
Mike
Caterbro
> Yeah, the vast majority of people who did/do Taiji think that a "Tai Chi
> Form" is somehow like a magical incantation .... all you have to do is
> repeat it x-number of times and you'll wake up one day with qi and a green
> aura that bounces people away.
>
> The other common misconception we all got early on was that you only had to
> practice 15-20 minutes a day and you'd wind up being able to thrash a
> 200-pound sand-kicking bully. There was an interesting quote from Zhu Tian
> Cai in a recent JAMA issue that stressed one had to work *much harder than
> normal working out* in order to achieve good Taiji skill.... far different
> from the idea that one had to work less hard and get magical results.
Interestingly, one truly does have to practice 15-20 min per day to see positive
health and mental benefits- thats probably what fools people into thinking they
can be good at it.:)
that, and Inside Kung Fu
Carl
Mike Sigman
"Caterbro" <cate...@fingol.com> wrote in message
news:ASKE+$Q...@netnews.attbi.com...
>
>
> Interestingly, one truly does have to practice 15-20 min per day to see
positive
> health and mental benefits- thats probably what fools people into thinking
they
> can be good at it.:)
>
Well, to be fair, I think that the Chinese who mentioned 15-20 minutes a day
were talking about "Tai Chi for Health" and didn't mean the study of martial
skills. In the qi-paradigm, "good health" is a function of the "qi flowing
unobstructed through the channels". Since Tai Chi is a method of exercising
"qi flow", then the concept of "Tai Chi for Health" is meant to be a "qi
flow" thing by the Chinese.... quite a different idea from the "low-impact,
low-aerobic execise" that is being sold as "Tai Chi for Health" in the West.
FWIW
Mike
Badger Jones
O'Daniel) wrote:
>Was just thinking, from the story about the rally fat Tai Chi guy in
>Japan;
>
>On Nickelodian I think, perhaps years & years ago, there was some short
>cartoon that was shown repeatedly, of some gentle, really big hippo and
>a mean "blue" cat. The only one I remember was one episode was with the
>blue cat in a white gi with black-belt doing karate supposedly, and the
>hippo in a red outfit doing "Tai Chi". The cat was kicking or whatever
>the hippo at random, funniest was when it went behind the hippo to kick
>it in the rear. Anyway, the hippo was a pacifist & did nothing, till
>the cat then also tried to attack a flower or butterfly or something.
>To which the hippo was ticked off and did something, I think threw the
>cat or something. The cat came to about the kneecap or the hippo I
>think. Then the hippo resumed doing Tai Chi.
"Hippo Tai Chi" was the title. The cat attacks a butterfly, and the
hippo roars at the cat until its gi, belt and fur are ripped away. It
then slinks away embarrassed.
Badger Jones
www.cyberus.ca/~badger
"God is on the side not of the heavy battalions,
but of the best shots." - Voltaire
Rob Liberti
> "Rob Liberti" <rob_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1c6997c4.02122...@posting.google.com...> news:<vc9r8c2...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp>...
> > <snip>
> > > Aikido is im my understanding the principle of joining with and using
> > > and Tohei are radically different, with O-Sensei claiming spiritual
> > > break-through as the gateway to his understanding of universal ki and
> > > its application to life, while Tohei sees the unification of mind and
> > > body as the gateway to the use of ki.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Are you suggesting that O-sensei wouldn't agree that mind-body
> > unification as the gateway to the _use_ of ki? He set the standard of
> > sandan (the last beginner rank) at this level of ability. (Wouldn't
> > most agree?).
> >
> > as they are not in conflict. Mind-body unification is the gateway to
> > _using_ ki, and spiritual break-through is the gateway to
> > _understanding_ ki.
>
>
> break-through is the gateway to *understanding* ki"? Isn't that a slightly
> different topic than the use of ki? In other words, I think the
> 'understanding of ki' is somewhat more subjective than the functional usage
> of ki strength/skills. And bear in mind that the "flowing with the
> opponent's ki" is a nice idea, but it is effected somewhat differently in
> Aikido, Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua, etc., depending on the various techniques and
> strategies of those individual arts.
>
> > They are just different levels of depth. First
> > you do it, then you become it, then you start to understand it as you
> > figure out what you've become. I always just assumed that Tohei
> > sensei just believed in this basic flow so much, that he felt he only
> > needed to get people started on it and the rest would take care of
> > itself.
For lack of a better analogy, let's look at racing. Is driver A
"radically different" than driver B if driver B says the secret to
*using* a race-car is getting in the race and trying a bunch of racing
skills/techniques over and over again until you can do them
automatically; while driver A says the secret to *understanding*
racecars (and racing in general) is to step back and really think
about the experience as a whole after participating in many, many
races? I don't think so. I think both drivers may completely agree
with each other. They just express different levels of depth.
I admit I wouldn't have chosen the phrase "spiritual break-through" is
the gateway to *understanding* ki, myself. But that is just a matter
of semantics. When Gernot wrote "spiritual," I took that to mean
"religious." Not "religious" where you directly look to God or a god,
but more from the etymology of religion. [In his late work
"Retractationes," St. Augustine derived the word "religio" from the
verb "religere," which is to say from "careful observance of a binding
rule."]
Mike Sigman
> > Well, could you tell us more about why you think that "spiritual
> > break-through is the gateway to *understanding* ki"? Isn't that a
slightly
> > different topic than the use of ki? In other words, I think the
> > 'understanding of ki' is somewhat more subjective than the functional
usage
> > of ki strength/skills. And bear in mind that the "flowing with the
> > opponent's ki" is a nice idea, but it is effected somewhat differently
in
> > Aikido, Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua, etc., depending on the various techniques
and
> > strategies of those individual arts.
>
> I admit I wouldn't have chosen the phrase "spiritual break-through" is
> the gateway to *understanding* ki, myself. But that is just a matter
> of semantics. When Gernot wrote "spiritual," I took that to mean
> "religious."
This is sort of like the caterpillar telling Alice, "Words mean what I want
them to mean". :^))))
> Not "religious" where you directly look to God or a god,
> but more from the etymology of religion. [In his late work
> "Retractationes," St. Augustine derived the word "religio" from the
> verb "religere," which is to say from "careful observance of a binding
> rule."]
Well, if you're going to drag St. Augustine into a simple Taiji debate, then
I have no recourse but to capitulate in the face of overwhelming power and
big-city ways. :^) In the "Retractions", Augustine (who was an
Algerian, BTW) amended his earlier writings to what he felt was more correct
in his later days. In other words, he made mistakes.... and I've heard that
his Taiji was non-existent.
Regards,
Mike "Between the extremes of Pelagianism and Manichaeism" Sigman
Mark Goldberg
Mark
Mike Sigman
"Mark Goldberg" <mgol...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:auq52i$5te$1...@news.monmouth.com...
> >
> Then the question arises_ is there one, or perhaps a few instructors_
> with a good foundation of jin and qi skills, who with probity, have
> undertaken to reverse the fantasy trip previously implanted both inside
> and outside china, and who've gotten serious and gotten others serious
> about the body retraining regimine program necessary to seriously
> cultivate jin skills??
Well, there are a lot of Chinese who are "serious" and who will teach the
correct way, but they will approach it from the standpoint of traditional
training methods which can be time consuming and not particularly clear as
to intent and goal.
I would recommend that people in the Boston area go to the workshop by Wang
Hai Jun that was posted by Rich Shandross a couple of hours ago. I haven't
met him, but everything I hear is really good and he is considered to be
quite good by Chinese top-dogs. He would be a good person to approach about
training methods for westerners, etc.
FWIW
Mike
observa
I was going to stay out of this because I know ziltch about Aikido. But
this bit of showing off is just too much Mike ;-)
Alan Jeffery
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 6/12/2002
Mike Sigman
"observa" <obs...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:2m2Q9.1894$F63....@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>>
> I was going to stay out of this because I know ziltch about Aikido. But
> this bit of showing off is just too much Mike ;-)
I was just mentioning a few things that *everyone* who does Aikido knows
about. Namely, St. Augustine, his writings, background, and history. Ask
Rob. :^)
Mike
etorjt
>
>Mike "Between the extremes of Pelagianism and Manichaeism" Sigman
So this means you sort of deny original sin but it's not a black
and white issue? Or you deny the state of grace unless you're a
Cathar?
Hey, anybody here got a stake, some rope, and a pack of matches?
;^}
Ernie T.
Never yell fire in a crowded gunshop.
observa
Yep, I can just see O'Sensei saying..."Gather round students, it is time to
examine the meaning of original sin and salvation."
Enough OT.
Alan Jeffery
>
> Mike
Bassettguy2020
>From: Boju...@webtv.net (David O'Daniel)
>Date: 12/21/2002 10:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <21877-3E0...@storefull-2177.public.lawson.webtv.net>
>
>Here's an interesting comparrison. Both are basically soft styles. Tai
>Chi has kicks & striking hand techs, though not sure if that "single
>whip" is ever really used, assuming it's the chicken-beek hitting, since
>it's never trained to hit. Aikido seems more dynamic but if no-one's
>running at them or trying to fall on purpose, not sure Aikido can
>attack. Anyway, not actually "in" any class of either, though have had
>passing brief experience in them & an interest in them to at least read
>more about the styles.
>
>For those actually in either Tai Chi or Aikido, or perhaps even both,
>what do you think?
>
>
>
>Bojutsu1
>
Of the two, I would say aikido is better for self defense.
Tai chi has been designed primarily for health, while aikido has been developed
for self protection.
Aikido is defintely better.
Jeff Lindqvist
> Of the two, I would say aikido is better for self defense.
>
> Tai chi has been designed primarily for health, while aikido has been developed
> for self protection.
>
> Aikido is defintely better.
I wonder what Mike Sigman has to say about this...;)
Jeff Lindqvist
Mike Sigman
"Jeff Lindqvist" <jeff_li...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E11A83D...@hotmail.com...
Why? If you're having a conversation and someone comes up who doesn't know
anything at all about the topic but wants to talk says something.... would
you respond? :^)
Mike
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>> is that this man, is I assure you quite deadly
>>still, despite his years,
>
>BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
>Oh...stop it....it's too much.....
>
>>Finally, I have to say that Jhoon Rhee has become quite the pacifist
>>despite his training.
>
>he was condemned to pacifism by his lack of ability to fight for real.
Actually Jhoon Rhee is a great man with some remarkable
accomplishments to his credit.
>
>it is only the warrior who chooses pacifism....
>
>tkd people are condemned to it.
It is always the stupid, weak, and fearful who must denigrate others.
Someday maybe you might learn to show a little respect for your fellow
man.
Hal
>
>G240
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------
>"You can carve it on a bowling pin and cram it,for all I care."
> -Gichoke
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Rob Liberti
> "Rob Liberti" <rob_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1c6997c4.02123...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Well, could you tell us more about why you think that "spiritual
> > > break-through is the gateway to *understanding* ki"? Isn't that a
> slightly
> > > different topic than the use of ki? In other words, I think the
> > > 'understanding of ki' is somewhat more subjective than the functional
> usage
> > > of ki strength/skills. And bear in mind that the "flowing with the
> > > opponent's ki" is a nice idea, but it is effected somewhat differently
> in
> > > Aikido, Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua, etc., depending on the various techniques
> and
> > > strategies of those individual arts.
>
> >
> > I admit I wouldn't have chosen the phrase "spiritual break-through" is
> > the gateway to *understanding* ki, myself. But that is just a matter
> > of semantics. When Gernot wrote "spiritual," I took that to mean
> > "religious."
>
> This is sort of like the caterpillar telling Alice, "Words mean what I want
> them to mean". :^))))
Okay, I'll bite... What does "spiritual" break-through mean to you?
To me, spirit means: drive, determination, life-force.
(I've heard "control factor of the soul" but that was and _is still_
beyond me.)
If a god bestowed the understanding of ki on O-sensei, it certainly
wasn't while the man was sitting around eating potato chips and
watching TV. He was in a well-documented constant state of training.
Through that hard training, he got some insight(s) about some binding
rules and started to understand ki more and more. Religion meaning
"careful observance of a binding rule" just seems to work here.
However, the "drive, determination, life-force energy" required to
carefully observe the binding rules (about the nature of ki) seems to
work for a suitable explanation of "spiritual break-through" for me as
well.
> > Not "religious" where you directly look to God or a god,
> > but more from the etymology of religion. [In his late work
> > "Retractationes," St. Augustine derived the word "religio" from the
> > verb "religere," which is to say from "careful observance of a binding
> > rule."]
>
> Well, if you're going to drag St. Augustine into a simple Taiji debate, then
> I have no recourse but to capitulate in the face of overwhelming power and
> big-city ways. :^)
<snip>
Thanks, that was funny. NB: I dragged *etymology* into a *discussion*
about *depth* (which tends start more with *use* and end more with
*understanding*). St. Augustine just came along for the ride.
> In the "Retractions", Augustine (who was an
> Algerian, BTW) amended his earlier writings to what he felt was more correct
> in his later days. In other words, he made mistakes....
<snip>
duley noted...
>and I've heard that his Taiji was non-existent.
While that might be true, I'd certainly consider his opinion relevant
regarding understanding religion and spiritual break-through.
Rob Liberti
Sticks and stones... I do admit that that I am under the impression
that *everyone* in this newsgroup MOST-LIKELY has internet access, and
can easily look up anything they want to know about St. Augustine.
> Ask Rob. :^)
If anyone does want to ask me anything on this topic, I'll do my best
to respond in a kind, respectful, and thoughtful way as time allows.
(Currently, I'm working on a definition of sandan for Gernot.)
Mike Sigman
>
> If anyone does want to ask me anything on this topic, I'll do my best
> to respond in a kind, respectful, and thoughtful way as time allows.
> (Currently, I'm working on a definition of sandan for Gernot.)
Oh pooh. You mean the ability to not take this newsgroup too seriously and
to banter light-heartedly has no appeal to you? :^)
Mike