rojcewiczj wrote:When I say arm, I mean the limbs which stick out from the torso. When I say Shoulder I mean all that remains within the form of the torso. You have to be able to move your arms without moving your shoulders in order to retain the structural integrity of the arms in relation to the shoulder. Why many people will never have full potential of transferring their whole body mass through contact is because they try to move the shoulder into the structure of the arm, feeling that the arm is too weak without the shoulder. In fact, when you can isolate your arm from your shoulder, you gain the whole body with which to transfer mass through your arm; your shoulder takes on a new role as a part of the torso not as part of the arm.
That is clearer, thank you. I actually disagree, as I think there are lots of small adjustments and micro-movements that need to happen in order for force to transmit clearly between arms and torso (or torso and arms). The scapulae and clavicles need to be able to move freely and articulate with the ribs in order to conform with the shape of the torso and external forces. So the shoulders are not necessarily generating/adding force, but they definitely play a role in directing force, and that requires movement (though not necessarily tension).
If you're talking about imagery, then what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but in terms of literal movement instruction, it's a recipe for disaster (or at least discomfort).