The Mechanics of IP

[middleway]

Cool. The first 2 are exercises I have come up with out or revisiting some of the aiki things I did in the past, the others are interpretations of nei gong from Taiji Xing yi and ba gua. I have spent time this last year trying to distil the knowledge I received from various teachers into something that I can train clearly towards a specific goal. These exercises and a couple of others are the result for the some of the bodywork component.

Like I say, a lot of errors at the moment but they will be worked out soon enough.

Cheers chris.

[Patrick]

This is the stuff, why I still stay around. Thanks guys for posting.

[jjy5016]

Lazyboxer I don't believe that Sam Chin is doing the same thing that I do. I've seen some of his instruction videos and have two former I liq students studying with me who would also disagree with that as well. Keeping the shoulders squared with the hips means to me that the hips are being rotated in line with the shoulders. Like a rectangle shape. The movement seems to be powered mostly by the muscles on the outer thighs. What I'm doing is keeping my shoulders squared with points on the kua so that the outsides of the hips are barely involved in the rotation of the spine & torso. I guess you could say that the shape is almost triangular in relation to the alignment of the four points. The power for my spinal rotation is coming from the psoas muscles (according to one of my old classmates who is a TCM doctor) and the insides of the thighs. They are completely different animals. The former method moves the spine in a small semi-circle whereas what I'm doing rotates it like a vertical axle.

To be fare though I think better video of the areas in question would be needed to prove it either way.

[Chris McKinley]

lazyboxer,

One technical point about which jjy, Iskendar, and I all seem to have varying degrees of misunderstanding is your (Dan's?) seeming advocacy of squaring the shoulders with hips. This would, as jjy mentioned, put them in a single plane with one another, forming a rectangle. Despite the near impossibility of maintaining such a configuration under the duress of a real assault (even the act of walking breaks the plane), it would sub-optimal for power generation purposes biomechanically anyway.

It would appear to me that the likelihood that Dan is advocating the strict maintenance of such a configuration would thus probably be very low, so there is more likely a simple miscommunication of what it is you and/or Dan are advocating. Would you mind clarifying for all our benefit please?

[GrahamB]

These are some similar exercises I have been doing. I am not getting all the details correct yet and am still very much working Out the body problems.

Cheers

Awesome! Thanks for sharing - care to give us a brief outline of what you focus on when doing?

That first one looks very like an Anukai (spelling?) exercise.

Thanks,
G

[Chris McKinley]

He got it from the Annunaki....I knew it! This stuff predates the Chinese by 2500 to 40000 years. Reminds me of when I first started training on Nebiru and some guys were talking about teaching this stuff to the humans. We hadn't even given them a written language yet, not to mention what those crazy shaved monkeys might do with it if they ever had a labor uprising. But did they listen? Nooooo....

[middleway]

Haha I always knew you were from another planet chris.

I have not trained aunkai but I guess something like this could be in there. Will put together as detailed description of the exercises as I can when I have a little time.

But in the meantime:

1) body cross - Toe to finger deep twist and spiral training around the axis.
2) row the boat - Saggital circle, Ming men /dan tien - harmonising front and back.
3) pushing mud - Horizontal plane push/pull through the back. Rotating the axis
4) slapping water - vertical open/ close of side line, switching sides cross body.
5) circle close- wrapping the side lines & linking upper lower torso in open close.

Obviously all involve kwa, opposing forces, dan tien, breath, bows and intent. But Like I say I will go over each individually when I have a bit of time.

Cheers
Chris

[Iskendar]

Errm...bizarre. In dragon stepping and spiraling, he kept saying "90 degrees" all the time in the past 2 seminars.

Ok, correction: spiraling goes out to 45 degrees only. My mistake. Carry on...

[GrahamB]

One of the interesting things of this IP thing: there's more than one way to do it

And is that, right there, not the reason for all the disagreements and arguments? (Aside from arguing over wether or not to describe/show it in the first place).

If there's more than one way to do it then definitions are instantly very difficult, 'rules' for exercises are instantly very problematic to talk about in a general sense.

Perhaps it's just like religion. In a general sense, they're all the same, but people go to war over the details.

[Interloper]

Body-development exercises are meant to work very specific things, such as creating and strengthening certain neural connections, sensory awareness of one's "innards" and how to move them in particular ways, at will, stretching and/or thickening of connective tissues and strength-building of selected muscle groups.

Because of the specificity of those goals, and the abilities and limits of the human body and of mechanics, there are only certain ways that the goals can be reached. Exercises that lead to the exact same physical result, must then be the same at the core with only superficial differences. If the results are not exactly the same, it will be evident that there are fundamental differences in what is being developed, and that the exercises are thus not the same.

IMO, If it's a given that we are trying to achieve the same results, then all exercises are not created equal. Like those who create them, there are different levels and degrees of understanding of what needs to be done and how to get there, to achieve optimal power, efficiency and effectiveness.

That's part of the evolutionary ecology of MAs.

One of the interesting things of this IP thing: there's more than one way to do it

And is that, right there, not the reason for all the disagreements and arguments? (Aside from arguing over wether or not to describe/show it in the first place).

If there's more than one way to do it then definitions are instantly very difficult, 'rules' for exercises are instantly very problematic to talk about in a general sense.

Perhaps it's just like religion. In a general sense, they're all the same, but people go to war over the details.

[Chris McKinley]

Interloper,

Those are some reasonable conclusions and operant principles. At the loose, big picture level, I use those same basic assumptions myself. However, it's not enough to conclude that they sound reasonable and just leave it at that. If we're interested in actually knowing, and in having truly accurate information, we must then test those assertions by systematically and methodically doing a comparative analysis of each and all of the methods we're considering. Doing this would require providing full, comprehensive and accurate details of all of them, in non-subjective universally standardized terms.

Exercises that lead to the exact same physical result, must then be the same at the core with only superficial differences.

Nuh uh. Not always. If the goal is to simply walk across the street, there are hundreds of variations of ways in which someone could do it, all of them successful, and some of them radically different from one another. The same would be true of the goal, "I want to get stronger". You may say, "But our goals are so much more specific than that." To which I'd respond, "Are they?" How much more? And how do you know? Using subjectively nebulous phrases like "...creating and strengthening certain neural connections, sensory awareness of one's "innards" and how to move them in particular ways, at will, stretching and/or thickening of connective tissues and strength-building of selected muscle groups" doesn't provide us with the specificity necessary to make any kind of objective comparison between one method and another. It's not even clear whether the goal is physically possible in the first place with that kind of phrasing. There is certainly not enough specificity to draw an untested conclusion that one particular method is far and away superior to all others at producing such goals.

What would be required, if anyone were truly interested in a legitimate, objective comparison, is for all of the stated goals of each individual method for consideration to be enumerated in specific, objective, achievable and quantifiably measurable terms. Those with differing goals would have to be eliminated right off the bat on the basis of apples and oranges. Next, those remaining methods with identical goals would have to be fully disclosed in painstaking detail. There would be no opportunity for further secrecy or even discretion at that point. Everything, every single aspect of every method, would be laid bare for critical analysis. Next, there would have to be what is known as a significant sample size, a large enough representative sample of practitioners of each method so as to be able to statistically mitigate against factors inherent in an individual practitioner being responsible for the results displayed by that practitioner. Put simply, there would have to be several people, preferably of differing age, sex, athleticism, body type, background, and experience level, representing each and every one of the methods under consideration.

This representative sample would have to additionally be large enough to survive the next round of filtering and still provide a significant sample size, which is that the individuals representing each method would have to be further selected for the criterion of representing that method at its maturity, and further, at an equivalent maturity level to every other method. IOW, we couldn't have a couple beginners in method A being put up against a few relatively intermediate practitioners of method B, and both groups against a raw noob, an intermediate, and an absolute world expert of method C. No fair comparison could be made thereof. Outliers on both extremes would have to be eliminated....both the very good and the very bad. Each method would have to be judged on an average representative sample of those representing the mature practice of that method.

All told, we're talking a helluva lot of work here just putting the comparison together. Preferably, we'd have to turn around and do the whole process over again, several times, with independent parties conducting the comparison each time. Unfortunately, that's what's actually necessary and required before we are justified in bandying about claims and proclamations of the superiority of one particular method over another. Short of that, we're all just talking out of our respective asses about our subjective experiences.

[Interloper]

Interloper wrote: Exercises that lead to the exact same physical result, must then be the same at the core with only superficial differences.

Nuh uh. Not always. If the goal is to simply walk across the street, there are hundreds of variations of ways in which someone could do it, all of them successful, and some of them radically different from one another.

I am referring specifically to the topic of this thread. There are only limited ways to manipulate the human body to create "IP." However, there are many ways to incompletely create it, that do not result in the optimal product. And there also are many ways to express ""IP" once it has been generated.

[Chris McKinley]

There are only limited ways to manipulate the human body to create "IP." However, there are many ways to incompletely create it, that do not result in the optimal product.

Cool, now we're starting to narrow it down, at least symbolically. Building upon what you just wrote, what we'd need to do next is to define what "it" is, and also define what the criteria are for determining that one method is more "complete" or "optimal" in the results it yields. Without doing so, your claim is left empty and is meaningless for the purposes of discussion.

And there also are many ways to express ""IP" once it has been generated.

I think you will find wide agreement for that assertion. It's also really a separate discussion altogether, and one worth pursuing. I have started a specific thread for that exact topic on this very forum titled Realistic Combat Applications of IP. If you have some ideas in mind, I invite you to please contribute them there.

[lazyboxer]

lazyboxer,

Thank you as well for taking the time to provide insight into the matter. This thread has been the single most useful on the entire forum for me in terms of providing insight into the kind of thing Dan is teaching. Further, it has shed some light on some of the crucial similarities that all truly high quality internal arts practices include. I, too, was taught and still practice/teach a number of methods like the one jjy has shown, including one that is more or less the very same practice. The way I was taught, even basic circle walking is a continuous exercise in manifesting the Yin/Yang pump, heavy/light, empty/full, kou/bai, up/down, left/right, etc. Done strictly, I get more internal work out of one trip around the circle than a lot of guys get in an hour of what is typically shown as circle walking. In fact, I can work up a sweat after just one trip each way.

Bagua certainly doesn't teach or promote a strict squaring of the hips and shoulders in a single plane, and such would violate the Cross the Great River principle for the art whenever kou or bai are being employed, but perhaps I have misunderstood or misread what you meant. For reasons I outlined previously, I'm certainly not a fan of extreme spinal rotation regardless, nor extreme hip pronation or supination for similar reasons. Beside the potential risk of injury in some cases, the biomechanics are such that compound movements are almost always at their structurally strongest when the involved joints are kept within the middle of their ranges of motion, and thus maintaining the principle of keeping to the middle way.

Thanks again for the very specific technical discussion. We may be enjoying a moment of unusually close agreement here, but even when we disagree we may still find some very fascinating and useful exchanges of perspectives and information.

Chris,

I still have my eye on the ball, and will attempt to respond more fully later. I'm frantically busy right now, and don't want to give anything less than the clear and considered response this topic deserves.

For the moment, I'll simply say that my comments about the square hip/ shoulder configuration were highly contextualized (!), and as such easily misinterpreted. It's to do with a specific type of power development and expression. One can, of course, also move shoulders and hips in opposition, in parallel, or even one at a time while the other remains immobile. There are also differences in cadence, tempo, intensity and so on. Even why you train will have a bearing on the outcome.

[Chris McKinley]

No problem, man. I'd rather see quality than quantity anyway, so take your time.

For the moment, I'll simply say that my comments about the square hip/ shoulder configuration were highly contextualized (!), and as such easily misinterpreted.

Kinda figured it was something like that. I look forward to more discussion however it goes.